Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2018 23:41:25

Title: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/08/2018 23:41:25
What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

The topic of this thread and its content is intended to be kept appropriate for the hard science sub-forum, Cosmology. I will utilize the “edit” feature of the NS software to revise my posts and analytical notes as study into the topic and member comments make that appropriate.

The question, what are they saying about Quantum Gravity, is intended to be a learning experience for me, and hopefully the content will not be over the heads of us layman science enthusiasts. But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.

Here is a Wiki link, and the opening paragraph to start things off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity)

Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and where quantum effects cannot be ignored,[1] such as near compact astrophysical objects where the effects of gravity are strong.”

You see right off that this is a topic that involves theoretical physics, so it may require some technical analysis. Being an interested party, I may offer my personal analysis of and comments about linked material, but my comments are strictly layman level and are not intended to be relied on as known fact, but instead they are intended for discussion and to encourage opposing comments, corrections, and elaborations.

“The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.[2] It is sometimes argued that a quantum mechanical description of gravity is necessary on the grounds that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.[3][4]:11–12

Analytical note: As stated in the Wiki, QG research seeks to describe gravity in environments where quantum effects cannot be ignored, and that means where the effect (force) of gravity is strongest, and were the curvature of space must be the greatest if general relativity is the answer. But GR isn’t the answer in those environments because of known quantum effects that are not yet compatible with GR, referring to the postulates of Quantum Mechanics (http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html) and the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (https://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model). The standard model assigns the effect of gravity to the missing graviton particle. So the Standard Model and the Graviton particle will be topics that have to be better understood and reconciled in the QG discussion.

“While a quantum theory of gravity may be needed to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when applying the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity via graviton bosons.[5] The problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.[6] Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other forces.”

You can see we are getting into some pretty technical material already, but I don’t think it will hurt to follow the Wiki links and get familiar with the terms and topics.

“Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. A theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification of all known interactions is sometimes referred to as The Theory of Everything (TOE). While any substantial improvement into the present understanding of gravity would aid further work towards unification, the study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification.”

That paragraph is helpful, and limits the scope of the QG topic, but still the scope is challenging. I am going back over the Wiki and its links some more, so any analysis I offer is subject to reanalysis as we go, but if you are on top of the topic, feel free to jump in anytime.

“One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that quantum gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10−35 meter, a scale far smaller, and equivalently far larger in energy, than those currently accessible by high energy particle accelerators. Therefore physicists lack experimental data which could distinguish between the competing theories which have been proposed.[7][8]


That is a problem when it comes to keeping the content here in line with NakedScientist guidelines, because there isn’t yet much that is known-science when it comes to QG. I will try to keep my comments and analysis within expected parameters, and ask the any participants do the same. Let’s learn together.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/08/2018 00:30:29
Reading through the Wiki again reveals some terms that present hurdles to comfortably moving forward at the layman level, so let’s address them as they come up. The following two terms seem daunting to me as a layman, but it is necessary to at least look at what they mean and how they are used in the discussion of quantum gravity. I don’t hope to become literate right away, but better familiarity with the terms is progress for me:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization)


Renormalization is a collection of techniques in quantum field theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory), the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, that are used to treat infinities arising in calculated quantities by altering values of quantities to compensate for effects of their self-interactions. However, even if it were the case that no infinities arise in loop diagrams in quantum field theory, it can be shown that renormalization of mass and fields appearing in the original Lagrangian is necessary.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_(field_theory) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_(field_theory))


Lagrangian field theory is a formalism in classical field theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_field_theory). It is the field-theoretic analogue of Lagrangian mechanics. Lagrangian mechanics is used for discrete particles each with a finite number of degrees of freedom. Lagrangian field theory applies to continua and fields, which have an infinite number of degrees of freedom.


If anyone wants to give us some tips on how to best understand these terms, please jump in. I have added them to my study list :list gets pretty long, fast, lol:


However difficult I find it to understand those two terms, it helps to recognize how they apply to the search for QG. They indicate that there is effort in two directions on the part of researchers, meaning from both the classical standpoint and the field theories standpoint. The difference in those disciplines is what makes the work toward formulating a quantum gravity theory so complicated.


These two terms represent ways that researchers deal with the complications. One complication noted in the QG Wiki above is the fact that the effects of gravity in the most energy dense environments (near very massive objects and at extreme relative velocities, where the Planck units come into play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units)) cannot yet be accurately measured. Another complication is introduced when infinities enter the mathematics, as in infinite space, time and energy.


Analytical note: The use of the terms Renormalization and Lagrangian can begin to make sense from the context that various complications exist, and that the work to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field may unavoidably include a new approach all together. That might require “a theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory) of all known interactions”, known as "The Theory of Everything (TOE)”. That would put the course of the research on the idea mentioned in the OP Wiki, that the study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification.”
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 31/08/2018 12:14:02
Do you wish to restrict your thread to Quantum Gravity only ?

Your first wiki link points to the fundamental difference between relativity and quantum gravity. Both view space time differently. A clear understanding of what space is and how it works is required to understand gravity. Both might be telling the truth but not the whole truth. As this paper describes Quantum theory and the structure of space-time https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01012.pdf space time and gravity can be regarded emergent. 

As a separate issue the theoretical Graviton has never been detected but is fundamental to many of the approaches looking at quantum gravity, this theoretical virtual particle/force carrier might not exist. Avoiding maths, how does said force carrier get out of a blackhole, it cant unless it behaves like hawking radiation, with entangled pairs. In which case is it a graviton or just a random quantum fluctuation in space, with no specific properties, other than it is entangled to its partner particle momentarily.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bill S on 31/08/2018 12:30:18
Quote from: Dead cat
how does said force carrier get out of a blackhole,

I think it doesn't need to.  There's a thread, somewhere, about gravity "escaping" from a BH. I don't have time to look for it, or, unfortunately, to do more than skim this thread, but perhaps someone else could find it more quickly than I.
 
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 12:37:28
Do you wish to restrict your thread to Quantum Gravity only ?
Yes, however, as you can see in my comment in the OP, the topic relates to a broad range of physics and cosmology, so if the thread branches out, that is fine. However, I don’t want to go off in every possible direction, but rather take an orderly approach by trying to cover material presented before branching off. I'm going through the OP Wiki and the links in it to address them, and will be expanding the content of the thread as time passes.
Quote
Your first wiki link points to the fundamental difference between relativity and quantum gravity. Both view space time differently. A clear understanding of what space is and how it works is required to understand gravity.
That sounds good, buy may not be so easy. There is no generally accepted clear understanding of what space is, and the solution to quantum gravity will have its own description of what space is, just like the main theories have their own sets of postulates and axioms. Not everyone will agree on the definition of space, but it will have to be addressed.
Quote


Both might be telling the truth but not the whole truth. As this paper describes Quantum theory and the structure of space-time https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01012.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01012.pdf) space time and gravity can be regarded emergent.
It will take readers a lot of time and effort to absorb that link. That is why I made the following comment in the OP: “But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.” Can you boil your link down to a brief executive summary?
Quote
As a separate issue the theoretical Graviton has never been detected but is fundamental to many of the approaches looking at quantum gravity, this theoretical virtual particle/force carrier might not exist. Avoiding maths, how does said force carrier get out of a blackhole, it cant unless it behaves like hawking radiation, with entangled pairs. In which case is it a graviton or just a random quantum fluctuation in space, with no specific properties, other than it is entangled to its partner particle momentarily.
I can see you are quite interested in the topic, and I encourage you to post and say what you think is appropriate. I may or may not be able to keep up with you, and if not, I will have to go at my own pace, so bear with me.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 31/08/2018 13:01:53
That sounds good, buy may not be so easy. There is no generally accepted clear understanding of what space is, and the solution to quantum gravity will have its own description of what space is, just like the main theories have their own sets of postulates and axioms. Not everyone will agree on the definition of space, but it will have to be addressed.

How about this as a starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

It will take readers a lot of time and effort to absorb that link. That is why I made the following comment in the OP: “But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.” Can you boil your link down to a brief executive summary?

Items discussed in the first wiki link are expanded on and discussed in the paper. It explains both quantum theory, and space-time, are an emergent phenomena, all the current theories attempting to explain gravity are only partly correct, but all have merit. A new direction may be required to explain gravity.

Theories originating in string theory such as the holographic universe and my favourite at the moment Verlindes emergent/entropic gravity allow all those intriguing things such as entanglement/wormholes/extra dimensions and dont need dark matter to explain the universe. Verlindes approach gives a theoretical basis for MOND theory which is basically curve fit developed a few years ago to explain the movement of the outer parts of galaxies without introducing arbitrary amounts of dark matter.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 31/08/2018 13:03:25
There's a thread, somewhere, about gravity "escaping" from a BH.
I could not find it, perhaps it doesnt exist anymore like the graviton maybe :)
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 13:27:43
That sounds good, buy may not be so easy. There is no generally accepted clear understanding of what space is, and the solution to quantum gravity will have its own description of what space is, just like the main theories have their own sets of postulates and axioms. Not everyone will agree on the definition of space, but it will have to be addressed.


How about this as a starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence)

That seems to be appropriate material, and I will add it to my list of things I need to review and try to grasp. I’ll refer back to it when I get there, but go ahead and explain QG from your perspective too, though I will lag behind.
It will take readers a lot of time and effort to absorb that link. That is why I made the following comment in the OP: “But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.” Can you boil your link down to a brief executive summary?
Quote


Items discussed in the first wiki link are expanded on and discussed in the paper. It explains both quantum theory, and space-time, are an emergent phenomena, all the current theories attempting to explain gravity are only partly correct, but all have merit. A new direction may be required to explain gravity.
Thank you for that explanation.
Quote
Theories originating in string theory such as the holographic universe and my favourite at the moment Verlindes emergent/entropic gravity allow all those intriguing things such as entanglement/wormholes/extra dimensions and dont need dark matter to explain the universe. Verlindes approach gives a theoretical basis for MOND theory which is basically curve fit developed a few years ago to explain the movement of the outer parts of galaxies without introducing arbitrary amounts of dark matter.

Yes, and I have given my thoughts on related topics like the meaning of nothingness, and of universe that I plan to use in my analytical notes as the thread unfolds. Feel free to go where you want though, and I’ll add my comments where I feel the material is consistent with stepping through the topic of QG at a pace where I can absorb the material.


Please look at the OP where I comment about keeping the content in line with The Naked Scientists guidelines, and try to use disclaimers when you post material that the other members or guests might take for fact instead of speculation or hypothesis.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 31/08/2018 14:43:52
How about this as a starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

That seems to be appropriate material
You might want to look at de sitter space first, not all theories need anti de sitter space and are simpler without it 
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 31/08/2018 14:45:27
I have given my thoughts on related topics like the meaning of nothingness
interesting!!!
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 14:46:53
How about this as a starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence)

That seems to be appropriate material
You might want to look at de sitter space first, not all theories need anti de sitter space and are simpler without it 
I will, and thanks. My list of related research grows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space

In mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) and physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), a de Sitter space is the analog in Minkowski space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space), or spacetime, of a sphere in ordinary Euclidean space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space). The n-dimensional de Sitter space, denoted dSn, is the Lorentzian manifold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentzian_manifold) analog of an n-sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere) (with its canonical Riemannian metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_metric)); it is maximally symmetric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric), has constant positive curvature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature), and is simply connected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simply_connected) for n at least 3. De Sitter space and anti-de Sitter space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space) are named after Willem de Sitter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_de_Sitter) (1872–1934), professor of astronomy at Leiden University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_University) and director of the Leiden Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden_Observatory). Willem de Sitter and Albert Einstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) worked closely together in Leiden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leiden) in the 1920s on the spacetime structure of our universe.
In the language of general relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), de Sitter space is the maximally symmetric vacuum solution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution) of Einstein's field equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_field_equations) with a positive cosmological constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant) (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0ac0a4a98a414e3480335f9ba652d12571ec6733) (corresponding to a positive vacuum energy density and negative pressure). When n = 4 (3 space dimensions plus time), it is a cosmological model for the physical universe; see de Sitter universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe).
De Sitter space[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space#cite_note-2) was also discovered, independently, and about the same time, by Tullio Levi-Civita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Levi-Civita).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space#cite_note-3)
More recently it has been considered as the setting for special relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) rather than using Minkowski space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space), since a group contraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_contraction) reduces the isometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometry) group of de Sitter space to the Poincaré group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_group), allowing a unification of the spacetime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime)translation subgroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(geometry)) and Lorentz transformation subgroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) of the Poincaré group into a simple group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_group) rather than a semi-simple group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-simple_group). This alternative formulation of special relativity is called de Sitter relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_relativity).
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 14:48:55
I have given my thoughts on related topics like the meaning of nothingness
interesting!!!
People don't all agree on this definition so let me know how you would modify it.

Nothingness; No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 18:50:34
Reply #12

 
As I work through the items on my list so far, the OP Wiki made reference to approaches to solve quantum gravity, and said “… theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) and loop quantum gravity (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity).[6] Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force), others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other.” This approach sounds the most consistent with much of my layman level research over the years, which I have been updating out in the New Theories sub-forum.

It may be disappointing to Dead Cat that I choose to analyze the Loop Quantum Gravity approach first, because he likes the off-shoots from String Theory. I will leave string theory for Dead Cat if he wants to follow that particular “popular” approach.

I’m going to start with LQG. The LQG Wiki below says, in reference to the versions of LQG, “They all share the basic physical assumptions and the mathematical description of quantum space. Research follows two directions: the more traditional canonical loop quantum gravity, and the newer covariant loop quantum gravity, called spin foam (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_foam) theory.”

I have heard it said for years that string theory isn’t as promising as it seemed to be in it’s early years and some have said I should look more closely at LQG. That is strictly my layman opinion and I am open to string theory if Dead Cat or someone else wants to pursue and promote it. Side note: I do remember following discussions about string theory with Alphanumeric, a member in another science forum (who, btw, got his Ph.D. in something like Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, with the intention of working in the field of String Theory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity)


Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity), merging quantum mechanics (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) and general relativity (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), making it a possible candidate for a theory of everything (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything). Its goal is to unify gravity in a common theoretical framework with the other three fundamental forces (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_force) of nature, beginning with relativity and adding quantum features. It competes with string theory (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) that begins with quantum field theory (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory) and adds gravity.

From the point of view of Albert Einstein's theory, all attempts to treat gravity as another quantum force equal in importance to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces have failed. According to Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's geometric formulation.

To do this, in LQG theory space and time are quantized (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_(physics)), analogously to the way quantities like energy and momentum are quantized in quantum mechanics. The theory gives a physical picture of spacetime (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime) where space and time are granular and discrete directly because of quantization just like photons (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photons) in the quantum theory of electromagnetism (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) and the discrete energy levels (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_level) of atoms. Distance exists with a minimum.

Space's structure prefers an extremely fine fabric or network woven of finite loops. These networks of loops are called spin networks (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_network). The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_foam), has a scale on the order of a Planck length, approximately 10−35 metres, and smaller scales do not exist. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_hypothesis).

The vast areas of research developed in several directions that involves about 30 research groups worldwide.[1] They all share the basic physical assumptions and the mathematical description of quantum space. Research follows two directions: the more traditional canonical loop quantum gravity, and the newer covariant loop quantum gravity, called spin foam theory.

Physical consequences of the theory proceed in several directions. The most well-developed applies to cosmology, called loop quantum cosmology (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology) (LQC), the study of the early universe and the physics of the Big Bang (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang). Its greatest consequence sees the evolution of the universe continuing beyond the Big Bang called the Big Bounce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce).



To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: yor_on on 01/09/2018 10:53:15
As far as I know 'renormalization' means you putting the cutoffs where you find it appropriate, looking at statistics and practicality of use. That means that you impose 'realistic standards' on the mathematics you chose to work with, ignoring results that doesn't fit with what you would expect.
=

And I have to admit that I'm still partial to Einsteins description in where 'gravity' isn't a 'force'. Think of being in a geodesic for seeing that way of looking at it.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/09/2018 13:00:39

As far as I know 'renormalization' means you putting the cutoffs where you find it appropriate, looking at statistics and practicality of use. That means that you impose 'realistic standards' on the mathematics you you chose to work with, ignoring results that doesn't fit with what you would expect.
=

That is very helpful. Seems to be an acknowledgement that if the mathematical expression of the theory describes a model that is internally consistent, and consistent with scientific/measurable observations, it merits a place at the table. However, if it doesn’t hold up in extreme energy densities, or known but as yet unmeasurable events in some generally accepted/known environments, it can’t be considered a precise solution.
Quote

And I have to admit that I'm still partial to Einsteins description in where 'gravity' isn't a 'force'. Think of being in a geodesic for seeing that way of looking at it.

I can put myself there too, if I consider that I am a macro object existing in a geodesic that works well to describe the relative motion of macro objects.

On the other hand, that same geodesic cannot easily be mathematically described for quantum level objects. If I consider that I am a macro level object composed of micro (quantum) level energy increments where sub-atomic particles are interacting at Planck scale/close quarters, then macro level geodesics are not detailed enough to predict quantum level motion.

The quantum level action exists in those local environments that have energy density differentials at close quarters. Relative motion in those environments would be minutely influencing the relative motion of macro objects. If so, geodesics would be adequate mathematics at the macro level in environments we can easily observe and measure, but insufficient for predicting motion at the quantum level (at Planck scale distances) in extreme energy density environments, like around blackholes or deep within massive objects, i.e., in cases of extreme relative acceleration.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: yor_on on 01/09/2018 13:21:20
Well, quantum level objects are a tricky thing to define. A electron superimposed f.ex,(superpositions) or take the experiment in where they actually 'photographed' electrons proving them to 'exist' :) Seems to me that most of the things that defines us macroscopically is a direct result of time passing, It's the outcome that defines us, and the experiment. You can turn it around and state that the experiment will define the outcome too. So there are consistent laws but? What actually goes on down there is another question.
=

And no, unless you're using decoherence to define it quantum objects are what we all are made of, so we all follow 'geodesics' no matter what scale we define it from. Using decoherence you might be able to formulate it differently though.

Actually, that is a preoccupation of mind for me, because to me decoherence is not only about the scale(s) of a universe. To me it question dimensions.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/09/2018 15:29:48
For renormalization you need statistical mechanics. Here is one of Leonard Susskind's lectures.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 02/09/2018 11:55:51
Reply #17


Well, quantum level objects are a tricky thing to define. A electron superimposed f.ex,(superpositions) or take the experiment in where they actually 'photographed' electrons proving them to 'exist' :) Seems to me that most of the things that defines us macroscopically is a direct result of time passing, It's the outcome that defines us, and the experiment. You can turn it around and state that the experiment will define the outcome too. So there are consistent laws but? What actually goes on down there is another question.
=

And no, unless you're using decoherence to define it quantum objects are what we all are made of, so we all follow 'geodesics' no matter what scale we define it from. Using decoherence you might be able to formulate it differently though.

Actually, that is a preoccupation of mind for me, because to me decoherence is not only about the scale(s) of a universe. To me it question dimensions.

Fair enough. Coherence is fundamental to a stable quantum system, but measurement seems to entail decoherence. It also seems that interference at the quantum level causes decoherence, such as when wave patterns are interrupted by the presence of particles or objects. Let’s look a the Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence)
Quote from: Wiki
“Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons are described by a wavefunction, a mathematical description of the quantum state of a system; the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction gives rise to various quantum effects. As long as there exists a definite phase relation between different states, the system is said to be coherent. This coherence is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, and is necessary for the functioning of quantum computers. However, when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated, but in contact with its surroundings, coherence decays with time, a process called quantum decoherence. As a result of this process, the relevant quantum behaviour is lost.

Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H. Dieter Zeh[1] and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.[2] Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework which is said to solve the measurement problem.[3]
Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath),[4] since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system's dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[5] Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment. These have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings.

Decoherence has been used to understand the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since such machines are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put, they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation.”


JeffreyH's link to Susskind's lecture is also an important acknowledgement. When working with QM, statistics, data, and randomness are important tools/distinctions between the macro and quantum realms:
For renormalization you need statistical mechanics. Here is one of Leonard Susskind's lectures.
(See the YouTube link in his post above)
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/09/2018 13:43:41
Reply #18

To follow up from reply #12 where I stated that I would follow the quantum gravity topic down the Loop Quantum Gravity path, as opposed to the String Theory path.

The LQG wiki points out that Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) covers the study of the early universe, the physics of the Big Bang, and then on beyond the Big Bang. The Wiki quoted in Reply #12 then refers to a model called the Big Bounce, which should be looked at here in passing as we discuss the broad topic of Quantum Gravity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce)
The Big Bounce is a hypothetical cosmological model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_model) for the origin of the known universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe). It was originally suggested as a phase of the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. It receded from serious consideration in the early 1980s after inflation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) emerged as a solution to the horizon problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem), which had arisen from advances in observations revealing the large-scale structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Large-scale_structure) of the universe. In the early 2000s, inflation was found by some theorists to be problematic and unfalsifiable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) in that its various parameters could be adjusted to fit any observations, so that the properties of the observable universe are a matter of chance. Alternative pictures including a Big Bounce may provide a predictive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science) and falsifiable possible solution to the horizon problem, and are under active investigation as of 2017.
 

Analytical note: The big bounce is not thought to be as credible as other options as we follow the path of Loop Quantum Cosmology, as pointed out in the Big Bounce wiki, since serious consideration has turned to a big bang with inflation. Further, inflation theory is thought to be too unpredictable and leaves too much to a matter of chance instead of to theoretical physics, and that brings us to the areas of active investigation today.


To be continued …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/09/2018 14:51:42
Reply #19

You will note that the Loop Quantum Gravity Wiki link in reply #12 refers to physical consequences of LQG that proceed to the well-developed Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) which we look at here:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology) (LQC).

Loop quantum cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cosmology) (LQC) is a finite (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/finite), symmetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics))-reduced model of loop quantum gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity) (LQG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity)) that predicts a "quantum bridge" between contracting and expanding cosmological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) branches.

The distinguishing feature of LQC is the prominent role played by the quantum geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_geometry) effects of loop quantum gravity (LQG). In particular, quantum geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_geometry) creates a brand new repulsive force which is totally negligible at low space-time curvature but rises very rapidly in the Planck regime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale), overwhelming the classical gravitational attraction and thereby resolving singularities of general relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Singularities). Once singularities are resolved, the conceptual paradigm of cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) changes and one has to revisit many of the standard issues—e.g., the "horizon problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem)"—from a new perspective.

Since LQG is based on a specific quantum theory of Riemannian geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-MartinLQC-2) geometric observables display a fundamental discreteness that play a key role in quantum dynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dynamics): While predictions of LQC are very close to those of quantum geometrodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics) (QGD) away from the Planck regime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale), there is a dramatic difference once densities and curvatures enter the Planck scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale). In LQC the big bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang) is replaced by a quantum bounce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_bounce).

Study of LQC has led to many successes, including the emergence of a possible mechanism for cosmic inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation), resolution of gravitational singularities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularities), as well as the development of effective semi-classical Hamiltonians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)).

This subfield originated in 1999 by Martin Bojowald (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bojowald), and further developed in particular by Abhay Ashtekar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhay_Ashtekar) and Jerzy Lewandowski (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerzy_Lewandowski&action=edit&redlink=1), as well as Tomasz Pawłowski (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Paw%C5%82owski&action=edit&redlink=1) and Parampreet Singh (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parampreet_Singh&action=edit&redlink=1), et al. In late 2012 LQC represents a very active field in physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), with about three hundred papers on the subject published in the literature. There has also recently been work by Carlo Rovelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli), et al. on relating LQC to the spinfoam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinfoam)-based spinfoam cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spinfoam_cosmology&action=edit&redlink=1).

However, the results obtained in LQC are subject to the usual restriction that a truncated classical theory, then quantized, might not display the true behaviour of the full theory due to artificial suppression of degrees of freedom that might have large quantum fluctuations in the full theory. It has been argued that singularity avoidance in LQC are by mechanisms only available in these restrictive models and that singularity avoidance in the full theory can still be obtained but by a more subtle feature of LQG.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-4)

Due to the quantum geometry, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce without any assumptions on the matter content or any fine tuning. An important feature of loop quantum cosmology is the effective space-time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time) description of the underlying quantum evolution.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-PSLoopQuantumCosmology-5) The effective dynamics approach has been extensively used in loop quantum cosmology to describe physics at the Planck scale and the very early universe. Rigorous numerical simulations have confirmed the validity of the effective dynamics, which provides an excellent approximation to the full loop quantum dynamics.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-PSLoopQuantumCosmology-5) It has been shown that only when the states have very large quantum fluctuations at late times, which means that they do not lead to macroscopic universes as described by general relativity, that the effective dynamics has departures from the quantum dynamics near bounce and the subsequent evolution. In such a case, the effective dynamics overestimates the density at the bounce, but still captures the qualitative aspects extremely well.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_cosmology#cite_note-PSLoopQuantumCosmology-5)
[End of Wiki quote]

We are at a pretty current point in regard to the question “What are they saying about Quantum Gravity” as we follow the Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) path. A layman has had to be able to deal with a lot of technical material posted above to stay with what they are saying about quantum gravity along the LQG path.

The status of research is expressed in some detail in a 2011 paper by several researchers mention in the above LQC wiki; Abhay Ashtekar and Parampreet Singh. Jointly they put out a paper called “Loop Quantum Cosmology, a status report” which I insert here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0893 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0893)

Loop Quantum Cosmology, a status report:
The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in loop quantum cosmology for three sets of audiences: young researchers interested in entering this area; the quantum gravity community in general; and, cosmologists who wish to apply loop quantum cosmology to probe modifications in the standard paradigm of the early universe. An effort has been made to streamline the material so that, as described at the end of section I, each of these communities can read only the sections they are most interested in, without a loss of continuity.

That summary links to the full 138 page PDF:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.0893v2.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.0893v2.pdf)

I’m in the process of reading the pdf now, and I’ll be back to let you know if I think that having you read the entire PDF is the best path for the thread to take.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/09/2018 16:38:37
Reply #20

While I’m reading that PDF, you can watch this video, posted by Evan_au on a Bill S thread, “Could there be “static” instants of time?”
https://youtu.be/-6rWqJhDv7M (https://youtu.be/-6rWqJhDv7M)
Carlo Rovelli The Physics and Philosophy of Time

In the video, Rovelli covers the topics that we science enthusiasts often think about. There is time that passes, and there is the way our brain deals with the passing of time. There is a lot of emphasis on the discrete nature of time at the quantum level, and on the difference between what goes on at the quantum level and what human individuals need to best function as living beings in an environment where what goes on at the quantum level is essentially irrelevant.


Rovelli is also one of the researchers named in the LQG Wiki in reply #19, which says, “There has also recently been work (2011) by Carlo Rovelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli), et al. on relating LQC to the spinfoam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinfoam)-based spinfoam cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spinfoam_cosmology&action=edit&redlink=1)."

And there are plenty of clicks to more recent research.





Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 07/09/2018 13:12:22
Quote from: dead cat on 31/08/2018 14:45:27

    Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 13:27:43

        I have given my thoughts on related topics like the meaning of nothingness

    interesting!!!

People don't all agree on this definition so let me know how you would modify it.

Nothingness; No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy


time  and gravity have both been shown to be emergent dependant on entanglement . space time cuvature is a consequence of entanglement.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/09/2018 13:51:56
Reply #22


time  and gravity have both been shown to be emergent dependent on entanglement . space time curvature is a consequence of entanglement.

It is true that time and gravity are thought to be emergent in what is being referred to as a new paradigm; a follow-on and enhancement to Big Bang Theory with Inflation.

That is an important part of the theme of the paper I’m reading about the status of LQC. It is actually addressed specifically in the first of the five sections of the Introduction, Cosmological paradigms. That sections takes the reader through a brief historical evolution of cosmological thinking, and showing why there is a need for LQG and its related cosmology, LQC. The need is based on, among other things, the fact the space-time paradigm is not quantized and therefore doesn’t explain how things would work in the extreme energy densities that would have been experienced in the very early universe that evolved from a big bang. We now have a new paradigm: In the Beginning there was the Big Bang.

I consider that to be carefully worded in the paper, not to exclude preconditions to the big bang, but to be cautious not to invoke specific preconditions when there may or may not have been complete randomness from nothingness :)

Likewise, I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/09/2018 17:34:22
If you follow indeterminacy, then quantisation of time or space is not applicable. At the Planck scale there would be no way to determine if these measurements were discrete or continuous. Nevermind Zeno. In which case they may as well be considered continuous. This is a good thing for quantum mechanics. This is a different situation to quantum action. Where the Planck constant defines the quanta.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/09/2018 18:21:32
If you follow indeterminacy, then quantisation of time or space is not applicable. At the Planck scale there would be no way to determine if these measurements were discrete or continuous.

I have to agree with that. Perhaps that is why I am looking at LQG first, instead of String Theory, though I could be wrong as to how ST deals with indeterminacy until I look closer.
Nevermind Zeno. In which case they may as well be considered continuous. This is a good thing for quantum mechanics. This is a different situation to quantum action. Where the Planck constant defines the quanta.
I know what you mean. Quantum mechanics is up for an overhaul, just like GR and inflation theory, if there is going to be a quantum solution to gravity.

The quantum of action, aka Planck’s constant, is too big and bulky to be the operative quantum of energy when you start looking deeper into quantum level interactions. Right off you have to question the idea that the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics are nothing more complicated than point particles with no internal composition.

Thanks for the comment. Here is the Wiki to Indeterminacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy)
Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_system), that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics).
Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that (a) a physical system had a determinate state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics) which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversely)(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a
probability distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution) on the set of outcomes of  measurements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem) of an observable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable). The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.

Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error) in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. However, by the later half of the eighteenth century, measurement errors were well understood and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 07/09/2018 18:51:55
I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility.

every point in the vacuum of space time is full of entanglement (quantum fluctutions). there is no vacuum in space time except perhaps inside a blackhole where entanglement is reduced to a minimum and time slows, and space contracts, speculating perhaps to zero or exits via a singularity and a wormhole ER bridge to a whitehole etc yada yada
.
almost all versions of quantum gravity now appear to agree time and space are emergent depending on entanglement, Which version do you which to pursue do you have a specific paper on LQG or approach you wish to discuss on the subject.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 08/09/2018 12:10:53
The basic Layman approach to LQG is that it seaks to unify quantum mechanics with einsteins relativity and the OTHER 3 funamental forces. ie it attempts to formulate an approach to gravity in exactly the same way as EFE (EFE predict dark matter exists). Other approaches such as MOND and various other emergent approaches to gravity do not predict dark matter exists and in fact do not agree with fully EFE's . According to Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's geometric formulation, which according to some of the newer theories may not be completly correct.

I will continue to watch your thread to see if any entangled ideas emerge :) . If both time and space are emergent based on entanglement, and LQG doesnt include entanglement and and  ;)


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/09/2018 12:32:55
Thanks dead cat. It is going to take me a couple of weeks to get through the material I have on my list, including the link you gave me earlier, (Dead cat’s link https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01012.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.01012.pdf)), and the 138 page paper I'm working through, (Status of LQC https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.0893v2.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.0893v2.pdf)). I don't want to go off that path until I get through that material.  I do want to address your reply #26 too, and I invite you and other participants to post and comment on any of the paths that quantum gravity takes us since general discussion of QG is appropriate here.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 17/09/2018 01:50:16
Reply #28


I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition [of nothingness] is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility.


every point in the vacuum of space time is full of entanglement (quantum fluctutions). there is no vacuum in space time except perhaps inside a blackhole where entanglement is reduced to a minimum and time slows, and space contracts, speculating perhaps to zero or exits via a singularity and a wormhole ER bridge to a whitehole etc yada yada …

Why do I get the idea that you are not going to commit yourself on the definition of “nothingness” that I posted? Do you agree that if we define nothingness as no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy, then it would be impossible for anything to emerge from nothingness. The point I am making is that there was an apparent event we refer to as the big bang, but given the definition, it could not have come from or “emerged” from nothingness; it must have had preconditions that resulted in the big bang event. Do you agree or would you revise the definition of nothingness?
.


The basic Layman approach to LQG is that it seaks to unify quantum mechanics with einsteins relativity and the OTHER 3 funamental forces. ie it attempts to formulate an approach to gravity in exactly the same way as EFE (EFE predict dark matter exists). Other approaches such as MOND and various other emergent approaches to gravity do not predict dark matter exists and in fact do not agree with fully EFE's . According to Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's geometric formulation, which according to some of the newer theories may not be completly correct.

Yes, that is a fair analysis. As for any of the newer theories being completely correct, I’m not finding they are said to be correct, and there is still a deviation between the math and the precise observations, which can be a hint that there is plenty more to know.

Any QG solution will have to fit as an extension from the best theories we have, to get to theories that give us a level of precision that satisfies the professional community. LQG probably is not going to be the answer, but when it comes to the links earlier in the thread, it is the one that I find most readable. I’m still working through the material, and hope to post my take on it after that. 
Quote

I will continue to watch your thread to see if any entangled ideas emerge :) . If both time and space are emergent based on entanglement, and LQG doesnt include entanglement and and  ;)

I know what you mean. We have to go a step at a time, and there is plenty of time for laymen to try to understand what they are saying about quantum gravity. In the meantime, looking at and discussing the possibilities that come up as we read the professional level papers is a way of passing the time until the professionals reach their consensus. In general, those discussions will have to be within the NS guidelines, which are understandably more strict in the main science sub-forums.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 18/09/2018 15:17:52
Why do I get the idea that you are not going to commit yourself on the definition of “nothingness” that I posted? Do you agree that if we define nothingness as no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy, then it would be impossible for anything to emerge from nothingness. The point I am making is that there was an apparent event we refer to as the big bang, but given the definition, it could not have come from or “emerged” from nothingness; it must have had preconditions that resulted in the big bang event. Do you agree or would you revise the definition of nothingness?

I stated earlier I find the subject interesting, I did not state I had answers but have already pointed out both time and space are likely emergent and are dependent on entanglement of space time.

The concept of ZERO energy depends on your reference point, what is zero energy ??? Can all forms of known energy except space time be regarded as positive energy, could the development of space time be regarded as negative energy. This line of thought flows over to a zero energy universe theory. This theory as I am sure you are aware assumes the total energy of the universe is still zero, and has not deviated from this. The expansion of space time due to the cosmological constant/dark energy (and the curvature/contraction of space time due to gravity) may not be as a result of a big bang but may in actual fact be a a result of how space time and the universe develops in our reference frame.

 
I know what you mean. We have to go a step at a time, and there is plenty of time for laymen to try to understand what they are saying about quantum gravity. In the meantime, looking at and discussing the possibilities that come up as we read the professional level papers is a way of passing the time until the professionals reach their consensus. In general, those discussions will have to be within the NS guidelines, which are understandably more strict in the main science sub-forums.
I agree its a good way of killing time but just because a bunch of paid persons decide via a majority imaginary teapots or none existent dark matter exists and then put forward obfuscated arguments to explain their beliefs doesnt mean we have to believe them, especially when better or more logical ideas explain the observed universe better.

Serious discussions on new or developing theories are often done on closed forums, filtering out the chaff from the wheat on open forums is not easy, I tend to apply occams razor often cutting myself in the process :) If it doesnt involve entanglement and an appreciation of how space time develops then it doesnt cut the mustard for me.  :)

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/09/2018 18:10:14
I stated earlier I find the subject interesting, I did not state I had answers but have already pointed out both time and space are likely emergent and are dependent on entanglement of space time.


The concept of ZERO energy depends on your reference point, what is zero energy ??? Can all forms of known energy except space time be regarded as positive energy, could the development of space time be regarded as negative energy. This line of thought flows over to a zero energy universe theory. This theory as I am sure you are aware assumes the total energy of the universe is still zero, and has not deviated from this. The expansion of space time due to the cosmological constant/dark energy (and the curvature/contraction of space time due to gravity) may not be as a result of a big bang but may in actual fact be as a result of how space time and the universe develops in our reference frame.
You did say that, and we miscommunicated.
Quote
I agree its a good way of killing time but just because a bunch of paid persons decide via a majority imaginary teapots or none existent dark matter exists and then put forward obfuscated arguments to explain their beliefs doesn’t mean we have to believe them, especially when better or more logical ideas explain the observed universe better.
I’m glad your brought up imaginary teapots and nonexistent dark matter and the obfuscated arguments to explain them. I respect your opinion which is completely opposite of mine on matters like the consensus views. I honor and respect you for the personal rigor that it takes for a layman to form opinions on subjects as difficult as energy and cosmology, and our discussions show we’re not pretending to be professionals, so we have some excuse for not always agreeing with main science views. So stay with me as I make a brief comparison between our views; you imply a degree of skepticism about the methods and motives behind consensus theory, and my view is to state appreciation of the difficulties professionals face when they set off to follow the scientific method and independently come up with different conclusions, lol.
Quote
Serious discussions on new or developing theories are often done on closed forums, filtering out the chaff from the wheat on open forums is not easy, I tend to apply occams razor often cutting myself in the process :) If it doesn’t involve entanglement and an appreciation of how space time develops then it doesn’t cut the mustard for me.  :)
We don’t have to agree on definitions of nothingness or “somethingness” :), or even on entanglement or emergence to agree or be realistic about the direction of science.


You are bold and settled on your view, and that is great. Nevertheless, are you also of the view, like I am, that quantum gravity is the wave of the future? I’m hoping that a solution to QG comes up in my lifetime that professionals get their heads around, and together develop a new “paradigm” like occurred with general relativity. We could sure use a quantum gravity model that respects the work of professionals of the past, but moves forward to solve problems like the mechanics of zero energy or dark matter, which I hope QG does?


I’m still working through the links in order to get a feel for what they are saying about quantum gravity, but one conclusion I have come to so far is we don’t have to agree on specifying definitions, but we do have to understand what we mean specifically when we use common words that can have specific meanings in the context we use them. For that reason I ask, what do you mean by entanglement when you use it in the contexts of zero energy and of how space time develops? Give me a link you like, or tell me in your own words, but I want to be talking the same language as you when we get into entanglement matters.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 18/09/2018 18:58:32
You are bold and settled on your view, and that is great.

My views change regularly, but my current interests flip between Verlindes theories and the holographic universe theories, they are closely linked but different. I joined this forum to discuss them. Mainstream thought is dark matter exists and space time is 4 dimensions, opportunities to get people to discuss more dimensions or different types of space is limited. Entanglement,  and quantum tunneling are normally only discussed around particles, Verlindes theories include space time entanglement not just particle entanglement. Space time as you are aware looking at the HUP is full of entangled virtual particles pairs which come into and out of existence continuously. I have posted lots of links on this subject but do not wish to hijack your thread, so will continue to watch and learn.

By the way what version of quantum gravity are you wanting to discuss, can you post a paper on exactly what you want to investigate it for perusal. Quantum gravity is a general term and means a lot to different people.

I think generally all theories are trying to model a space time that is expanding in open space, and contracting around masses/energy. ie the earth sucks :) Realistically it is impossible to model the entire universe in every detail, so generalisations are required. EFE do not attempt to model anything at the quantum level and assume space time is smooth, quantum effects are ignored. At the quantum level space time is anything but smooth, but when zooming out it becomes smooth.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-verlindes-emergent-gravity.html
In summary, Verlinde’s emergent gravity has withstood the first-line bullshit test. Yes, it’s compatible with general relativity.



Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 19/09/2018 09:02:42
We don’t have to agree on definitions of nothingness or “somethingness” , or even on entanglement or emergence to agree or be realistic about the direction of science.

I think we maybe both 50% right and wrong on the definitions of nothingness and time. Is it possible that points in space time where neither space or time or energy existed, are continually coming into existence all the time. At the quantum level a mini bang and the beginning of time and space is continually happening as dark energy expands time and space. Zooming out we just view this as space time, ie from our perspective time and space is continually coming into existence adding to the whole of what we perceive giving us an assumed t = 0 at some perhaps not believable big bang.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, however space time obviously is. If gravity and dark energy are both viewed as fluctuations in space time and are considered negative energy. In a zero energy universe some form of positive energy must also be coming into existence to offset the new -ve energy, via possibly converting space time into matter. Could Hawking radiation on the edge of a black hole be converting space time into +ve energy by absorbing entangled space time. I know hawking radiation is supposed to allow the gradual evaporation of a black holes mass (BUT Big Bangs and super novaes are beyond the scope of your thread)
 
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/09/2018 14:24:30
Reply #33

My views change regularly, but my current interests flip between Verlindes theories and the holographic universe theories, they are closely linked but different. I joined this forum to discuss them. Mainstream thought is dark matter exists and space time is 4 dimensions, opportunities to get people to discuss more dimensions or different types of space is limited. Entanglement,  and quantum tunneling are normally only discussed around particles, Verlindes theories include space time entanglement not just particle entanglement. Space time as you are aware looking at the HUP is full of entangled virtual particles pairs which come into and out of existence continuously. I have posted lots of links on this subject but do not wish to hijack your thread, so will continue to watch and learn.
Have you seen this video?
https://youtu.be/vJi3_znm7ZE?list=WL (https://youtu.be/vJi3_znm7ZE?list=WL)
Hacking Reality, from Quantum Gravity Research youtube channel

If you can, watch it all the way, and let me know if you get through it.

Here is the E8 graphic to meditate on, lol.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_18_1_42_48.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_18_1_42_48.jpeg)
Here is a link to E8 theory, just to view:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320003337AAUcOV1 (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320003337AAUcOV1)
E8 equation

It has been debunked so here is a link to the debunking:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326132341.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326132341.htm)
No simple theory of everything inside E8

Quote
By the way what version of quantum gravity are you wanting to discuss, can you post a paper on exactly what you want to investigate it for perusal. Quantum gravity is a general term and means a lot to different people.
The research is in several directions, and there is no consensus yet as to what path will be productive. As to my selected version, I noted that String theory has met with objections, as has Loop Quantum Gravity. My current reading is about LQG and its vehicle, Loop Quantum Cosmology, though I don’t predict where the ultimate solution will come from.
Quote
I think generally all theories are trying to model a space time that is expanding in open space, and contracting around masses/energy. ie the earth sucks :) Realistically it is impossible to model the entire universe in every detail, so generalisations are required. EFE do not attempt to model anything at the quantum level and assume space time is smooth, quantum effects are ignored. At the quantum level space time is anything but smooth, but when zooming out it becomes smooth.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-verlindes-emergent-gravity.html (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-verlindes-emergent-gravity.html)
In summary, Verlinde’s emergent gravity has withstood the first-line bullshit test. Yes, it’s compatible with general relativity.
From a layman science enthusiast perspective, the scientific papers are intriguing, but I don’t find that I can get much out of them in regard to exactly how a final version of QG will work mechanically (wave mechanics). The papers represent much of the material mathematically, but our minds can only visualize in 3D. So the “version of QG” that I am capable of discussing is one that starts from the bottom up and is restricted to the 3 dimensions of space and one of time. That means I look at the scientific explanations of physical observations in space like redshift, the observed separation of galactic structure (galaxies and galaxy groups under the influence of dark energy), and the microwave background (WMAP and Planck sky survey data), and apply quantum thinking.

The one thing that has to be considered is that quantum gravity will be about how gravity works at the quantum level, i.e., the detail of spacetime that smooths it out at the macro level. That is where I would take this discussion.



I think we maybe both 50% right and wrong on the definitions of nothingness and time. Is it possible that points in space time where neither space or time or energy existed, are continually coming into existence all the time. At the quantum level a mini bang and the beginning of time and space is continually happening as dark energy expands time and space. Zooming out we just view this as space time, ie from our perspective time and space is continually coming into existence adding to the whole of what we perceive giving us an assumed t = 0 at some perhaps not believable big bang.

Energy can not be created or destroyed, however space time obviously is. If gravity and dark energy are both viewed as fluctuations in space time and are considered negative energy. In a zero energy universe some form of positive energy must also be coming into existence to offset the new -ve energy, via possibly converting space time into matter. Could Hawking radiation on the edge of a black hole be converting space time into +ve energy by absorbing entangled space time. I know hawking radiation is supposed to allow the gradual evaporation of a black holes mass (BUT Big Bangs and super novaes are beyond the scope of your thread)
We will be pondering those things for a long time, but are you with me in regard to the fact that what they are saying about quantum gravity takes the discussion to what is physically going on at the quantum level, from the bottom up?
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 19/09/2018 17:35:08
I will watch the links but am on holiday at the moment, they will have to wait until I get back home.

The research is in several directions, and there is no consensus yet as to what path will be productive. As to my selected version, I noted that String theory has met with objections, as has Loop Quantum Gravity. My current reading is about LQG and its vehicle, Loop Quantum Cosmology, though I don’t predict where the ultimate solution will come from.

Its any ones guess, String theory has given rise to many insights in physics but no reliable predictions, such as the holographic universe and Verlindes entropic emergent gravity. My attraction to these two theories are they do not need dark matter or the graviton, are just about understandable, and include entanglement with the possibility of an additional dimension via wormholes in space time.

So the “version of QG” that I am capable of discussing is one that starts from the bottom up and is restricted to the 3 dimension of space and one of time

You may miss something with tunnel vision, but agreed the best way is from the bottom up. Big bang theory is from the top down is it not :) and is not completely correct according to the expanding universe theory, do you wish to bring a version of BB into the discussion.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest45734 on 19/09/2018 17:36:41
We will be pondering those things for a long time, but are you with me in regard to the fact that what they are saying about quantum gravity takes the discussion to what is physically going on at the quantum level, from the bottom up?

Edit :YES.


 
Have you seen this video?
Hacking Reality, from Quantum Gravity Research youtube channel

If you can, watch it all the way, and let me know if you get through it.

Here is the E8 graphic to meditate on, lol.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_18_1_42_48.jpeg
Here is a link to E8 theory, just to view:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320003337AAUcOV1
E8 equation

It has been debunked so here is a link to the debunking:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326132341.htm
No simple theory of everything inside E8

Ok as requested I went through the links. E8 theory is one I read about some time ago, but have not payed much attention too. The reason for this is that pesky graviton and lack of any entanglement mentioned in the whole theory. The reason I dont like the graviton or theories including it, is that it is supposed to get out of a black hole whilst having less energy than a gamma ray which apparently cant escape a BH. The graviton seems to change its characteristics according to requirement. If particles emit or absorb gravitons which have energy they will lose or gain energy. Many if not all theories have doubters as does string theory and E8 and many other theories, you have put forward a debunkers view on E8. E8 makes no predictions on the existence or otherwise of dark matter, it makes no claims to agree in part with EFE, its place may be in particle physics, not in modelling spacetime. It does however place if I am correct the additional E8 dimensions on top of space time, which gives it 11 dimensions like string theory. String theory uses strings and E8 uses rings I am lost :) .

Maths often obfuscates exactly what is happening when comparing different theories, pop science explanations often obfuscates it even further, as I think the video does. EFE explain many things, and accurately predict many things to amazing accuracy. Dark matter, MIGHT be stretching EFE beyond breaking point. Observations do not support the existence of dark matter but do suggest that MOND or another form of emergent gravity may be correct. Keeping an open mind, what is your take on what you posted for everyone to go through.

There a number of lengthy papers on E8 on the arxiv archive which you may want to read. I am wading through stuff on entropic emergent gravity as defined initially by Verlinde and others which is way more interesting at the moment. Basically all the different ideas are converging on a final theory of everything MAYBE :) .   
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/09/2018 00:46:25
Reply #36
Its any ones guess, String theory has given rise to many insights in physics but no reliable predictions, such as the holographic universe and Verlindes entropic emergent gravity. My attraction to these two theories are they do not need dark matter or the graviton, are just about understandable, and include entanglement with the possibility of an additional dimension via wormholes in space time.

So the “version of QG” that I am capable of discussing is one that starts from the bottom up and is restricted to the 3 dimension of space and one of time

You may miss something with tunnel vision, but agreed the best way is from the bottom up. Big bang theory is from the top down is it not :) and is not completely correct according to the expanding universe theory, do you wish to bring a version of BB into the discussion.
Every cosmological model is incomplete, but they are professional level models intended to make sense out of what we physically observe.

I do have a version of Big Bang Theory that I work from. It is very simple and generally accepted, starting from a big bang event. It is an accumulation of physical observations that fit into the Big Bang event scenario, including Inflation, the redshift data, accelerating expansion/dark energy), the cosmic microwave energy background radiation observations (CMBR), and the WMAP and Planck sky surveys, and many other links, many of which are embedded in those major topics.

The initial event to which our observable universe is connected has a visible portion and a major causally connected “as yet” unobservable portion. The observable portion is our Hubble view which covers about one twenty-four millionth of the sky (1/24,000,000):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field)
That view can be considered to be essentially what the Hubble telescope would see in every direction across all of the 24 million snapshots that make up the whole spherical field of observable space.
Keeping that Hubble view in mind, here is a list of some of the related links that make up the rest of my working version of Big Bang Theory with Inflation (consider the list open for additions from anyone, subject to discussion):
Big Bang Event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
Inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology))
Redshift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)
Accelerating expansion/dark energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe)
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation observations (CMBR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) WMAP sky temperature survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe)
Planck sky survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft))
and related links.

The observations of type Ia supernovae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernovae) that are used to measure the rate of acceleration support the popular media perspective of a universe that has grown so fast and so big that it makes sense to conclude that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate everywhere.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 20/09/2018 18:19:35
Reply #37
Yes, [to a layman discussion of QG starting from the bottom up].

More power to you in your study and contemplation. Your own work is most important, but having someone responding to this thread has been an encouragement. Hopefully you will find a moment from time to time to post here in this effort to gain a bottom up layman understand of QG.

From the links about a general working version of Big Bang Theory in reply #36, I hope members generally agree that the most significant observation that makes BBT (including Inflation) so compelling is the observed separation of galaxies and galactic structure taking place at an accelerating rate. BBT is the macro level context within which much of the micro level quantum gravity research is taking place, and the QG effort focused on here is about applying quantum thinking to unite general working versions of BBT, with the extensive research and quantum level theories about QM.

Thus in this thread we are putting the focus inward, as if we were looking at the quantum world through the opposite end of the Hubble telescope. Like with the macro view, we can only see to limited depths, but that limited micro view stimulates an intellectual environment where quantum gravity theories abound at the professional level, and where the interest of layman science enthusiasts can be sparked.

The perspective one can get from reviewing the resulting papers on QG is that a good place to start is with virtual particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle), and right away you know you are in the realm of quantum field theory. The uncertainty principle is immediately invoked, and applies in regard to what amount of mass a VP might have, where it is, and where it is going, though the Wiki insists that they always conserve energy and momentum.

Ordinary particle interactions require exchanges of virtual particles, and that is where Feynman diagrams are employed to show virtual particles as the lines between the various interacting real particles. However, being comfortable with real particles is not going to have a good outcome for you, because “real” particles aren’t all that real down in the realm of QFT; real particles are excitations of underlying fields. So when real particles interact, the interactions are between field excitations that persist and that can leave lasting effects on the “real” particles, while the virtual particles that appeared are field excitations that are temporary, and that fade away as the real particles move on.

Simple layman logic says that the virtual particles appear as a result of energy contained by known particles that interact, and they appear in and around the point of interaction, observed at best as interference patterns. They borrow wave energy provided by virtual photons, for example, which are predicted to be the carriers of energy between particles as they interact, but return that energy to space as they fade and disappear.


Comment freely.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/09/2018 19:03:28
If you want to brush up on virtual particles then read this article by Matt Strassler.
Virtual Particles:What are they? (https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/)
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/09/2018 15:40:11
Reply #39

The Strassler article presents a much different view of virtual particles than the Wiki article I was going to quote, and is a good fit for a layman discussion of both virtual, and real particles. It cautions us not to consider virtual particles to have the same effects on the field as real particles. The field responds to the presence of real particles based on the nature of the individual particles, and virtual particles do not have established frequencies, charges or energy levels like pre-existing real particles.

It points out that the natural motion of real particles through the field is “smooth” relative to the effect of virtual particles, because virtual particles are attributed to unpredictable random disturbances caused when they pop in and out of existence. The article acknowledges that a natural motion in the field that is characteristic of the presence of the real particles, is not characteristic of virtual particle disturbances in the field. Real particles remain stable as they traverse space, while the presence of virtual particles is temporary and will die away and disappear as the virtual particle disappears.

But don’t take that layman level explanation at face value, read the Strassler article and start to form a new impression of not only what he says virtual particles are like, but what “real” particles are like too. I touched on it in reply #37 when discussing the Wiki link to Virtual Particles, and so be sure to read that whole link at the Wiki source.

If we compare the field to the quiet surface of water of a pond, I see the comparison as being like the evolving continuous wake that spreads out on the surface behind a toy boat (real particle) that is being propelled by a breeze, as opposed to the circular ripple that appears and dissipates when you drop in a pebble (virtual particle).

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/09/2018 16:07:23
Think more like two toy boats whose paths cross. This disturbance (interference) is like the virtual particle.As an indication of what wave disturbances can be like take a look at the following on grid waves.
http://www.waitwow.com/grid-waves-along-french-coastline/
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/09/2018 21:31:11
Reply #41

Think more like two toy boats whose paths cross. This disturbance (interference) is like the virtual particle.
I agree, and that is actually very much like the first example in the Strassler paper.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)
Quote
As an indication of what wave disturbances can be like take a look at the following on grid waves.
http://www.waitwow.com/grid-waves-along-french-coastline/ (http://www.waitwow.com/grid-waves-along-french-coastline/)
Yes, that is an unusual and interesting wave pattern. I’m a wave person myself, and when possible, I spend time looking out over water while I contemplate the universe. That view certainly encourages my thinking that everything is composed of wave energy, and wave patterns can have intricate complexities in three dimensions of space, and with time being the dimension across which change occurs. It isn’t surprising then that when I research what they are saying about quantum gravity, I see waves, wave-patterns, wave-particles, and wave-particle duality characterizations in all of the papers.

Virtual particles are no exception; they are portrayed as disturbances in the fields of QFT, and those disturbances are characterized as temporary wave patterns that appear, fade and disappear, while real particle wave patterns are smoother, and long enduring. In this thread, I would point the discussion in the direction of considering virtual particles as the starting point of a bottom-up layman view of quantum gravity.

There is one caveat that I want to bring up. QM/QFT talks of space as having the presence of multiple congruent fields that are standing ready, and it theorizes about how standard particles interact by way of virtual particles. However, we have to acknowledging that quantum mechanics, the standard model of particle physics, and the quantum field theories are built up of layers of rigorous theoretical physics and mathematics, by a variety of teams, over years and years, and are still incomplete; the solution, to quantum gravity remains elusive.

So the caveat I mentioned is about the big wait. While the professionals produce a new paradigm, layman science enthusiasts can participate in a layman discussion of their own. I’m talking about a fresh, bottom-up look at a quantum model, done with the expectation that a consensus on quantum gravity will be achieved by the professionals, and while we wait, we can keep up with what is going on by discussing scientific observations and explanations that laymen can now readily access on the Internet.

Of course there are “as yet” unknowns, gaps in the known scientific explanations about quantum mechanics and quantum gravity. As laymen, we can participate in forum discussion here while we wait. Doing so will not only involve learning some quantum physics, a little at a time, but we can also exchange our own research related to “what they are saying about quantum gravity”, so participate freely.


To be continued …

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/09/2018 02:47:46
Reply #42

The question of “what is space” has come up earlier, in reply #9 and #10, but when you consider the complexities of de Sitter space, and the analog in Minkowski space, well, you can see we have some work to do to define space from the bottom up, instead of from the perspective of spacetime, or QM. So for now let me give a working definition of space that laymen can work from:

Space: The potentially infinite extension of the observable three-dimensional region that appears in our Hubble view, in which everything we see and know of exists, and where every event has, is or will happen.


The definition of space we began with also includes the following Wiki about the medium of space and what is in space, now conveniently broken down into nine bullet points and descriptions to allow us to add new and remove duplication, to boil the definition of space down to an efficient word set as the explanations are provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium)
1) The Interstellar Medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy, which includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.
2) The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field.
3) The interstellar medium is composed of multiple phases, distinguished by whether matter is ionic, atomic, or molecular, and the temperature and density of the matter.
4) The interstellar medium is composed primarily of hydrogen followed by helium with trace amounts of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen comparatively to hydrogen.
5)The thermal pressures of these phases are in rough equilibrium with one another.
6) Magnetic fields and turbulent motions also provide pressure in the ISM, and are typically more important dynamically than the thermal pressure is. In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely tenuous by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm3. Compare this with a number density of roughly 1019 molecules per cm3 for air at sea level, and 1010 molecules per cm3 (10 billion molecules per cm3) for a laboratory high-vacuum chamber. By mass, 99% of the ISM is gas in any form, and 1% is dust.[2] Of the gas in the ISM, by number 91% of atoms are hydrogen and 8.9% are helium, with 0.1% being atoms of elements heavier than hydrogen or helium,[3] known as "metals" in astronomical parlance. By mass this amounts to 70% hydrogen, 28% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.
7) The hydrogen and helium are primarily a result of primordial nucleosynthesis, while the heavier elements in the ISM are mostly a result of enrichment in the process of stellar evolution.
8 ) The ISM plays a crucial role in astrophysics precisely because of its intermediate role between stellar and galactic scales. Stars form within the densest regions of the ISM, which ultimately contributes to molecular clouds and replenishes the ISM with matter and energy through planetary nebulae, stellar winds, and supernovae. This interplay between stars and the ISM helps determine the rate at which a galaxy depletes its gaseous content, and therefore its lifespan of active star formation.
9) Voyager 1 reached the ISM on August 25, 2012, making it the first artificial object from Earth to do so. Interstellar plasma and dust will be studied until the mission's end in 2025.”

We will refine those aspects of the ISM that fill our Hubble view and beyond as we go, but there is one key component of Space mentioned in bullet point 1) as simply radiation. Radiation clearly must include gravitational wave energy radiated as Einstein predicted, first observation of gravitational waves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves) were detected in 2015 By LIGO, and later by the European Space Agency’s interferometer. Gravitational wave energy, it would seem, should be specifically included in the definition of space as a major component of the ISM.


Also included in the term "radiation" is the cosmic microwave background energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)
“The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation constitutes a major development in modern physical cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology). The cosmic background radiation (CMB) was measured by Andrew McKellar in 1941 at an effective temperature of 2.3 K using CN stellar absorption lines observed by W. S. Adams.[1] Theoretical work around 1950[2] showed that the need for a CMB for consistency with the simplest relativistic universe models. In 1964, US radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson rediscovered the CMB, estimating its temperature as 3.5 K, as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna.[3] The new measurements were accepted as important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) and as evidence against the rival steady state theory.[4] In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint measurement.”
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: roshkhanna on 25/09/2018 06:45:25
This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Colin2B on 25/09/2018 08:48:30
This is very educational content and written well for a change. It's nice to see that some people still understand how to write a quality post.
Again, another pathetic attempt to spam us.
We’ve changed your website and signature to our’s, and as an extra bonus given you a permanent ban.
Goodbye
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/09/2018 17:03:15
Reply #45

Having a layman definition of space in place, and as I concluded in reply #37, based on the perspective one gets from reviewing a variety of papers on QG, a good place to start a bottom-up look at a quantum gravity that laymen can appreciate is with observational evidence of the existence of virtual particles.

To do that, I recommend a look at this link:

https://www.quora.com/If-we-cannot-observe-measure-virtual-particles-is-their-existence-not-an-unverifiable-assumption (https://www.quora.com/If-we-cannot-observe-measure-virtual-particles-is-their-existence-not-an-unverifiable-assumption)

Read the responses to that question posted on Q (http://quora.com)uora, and you will gain some enlightenment; it is worth the read.

Virtual particles have been detected/measured by experiments related to the Casimir effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect)

From the Wiki: Measurement
One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay at Philips in Eindhoven (Netherlands), in 1958, in a delicate and difficult experiment with parallel plates, obtaining results not in contradiction with the Casimir theory,[30][31] but with large experimental errors. Some of the experimental details as well as some background information on how Casimir, Polder and Sparnaay arrived at this point[32] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with Marcus Sparnaay.
The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory),[14] and by Umar Mohideen and Anushree Roy of the University of California, Riverside.[33] In practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a large radius.
In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using microresonators.”

To do a little research into how microresonators are used in the measurement, look at one more link for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_system_oscillator#Resonators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_system_oscillator#Resonators)
This is to introduce the concept of oscillations and vibrations related to the environment where real particles interact, and where virtual particles are shown to occur. The Wiki doesn’t say this, but it does start our thinking about why the microelectromechanical oscillations are used in the Casimir experiments. They are generated by resonators into the apparatus/systems where measurements of VP are carried out. Those artificial oscillations might be necessary to create the proper environment, including vibrations, at precise frequencies, that would normally be there during interactions between real particles that produce virtual particles.


The resulting virtual particles do not have the characteristics of measurable frequency or oscillations, or charge, or energy level, because the Uncertainty Principle is in effect. Suffice it to say, the virtual particle disturbance in the QFT field is similar to an interference pattern, much like most laymen are probably familiar with already; the double slit experiments.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/09/2018 15:39:02
Reply #46 (revised)

It is good to be a layman science enthusiast sometimes. We can propose solutions to things like quantum gravity or lesser quantum mysteries, and no one pays much attention. If we were professionals trying that, there would be peer reviews, accountability, and professional careers could be set back by the kinds of solutions that laymen come up with in science forums all the time. Consider that a disclaimer, lol.

Nevertheless, fearlessly, on the way to our learning about what they are saying about a QG solution on this thread, we now encounter a related prerequisite mystery of science: “The mystery” of the single particle two slit experiments.

A video along that line, Double Slit Experiment explained! by Jim Al-Khalili
The video introduces “The mystery” of the single-particle, two-slit experiments in a  9 minute, to the point video, but it doesn’t actually explain the solution to the mystery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ&index=58&list=WL&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ&index=58&list=WL&t=0s)

At the time the video was recorded, the magnitude of the mystery might have been a little overstated, as you will see if you jump to minute 8:45. They suggest that a solution might bring a Nobel Prize. I don’t think so, for the simple solution might be found when adding some quantum thinking. I’m talking about the wave-particle nature of the fundamental particles.  Who isn’t familiar with de Broglie's proposed complex standing wave nature of the wave-particle? Of course, how we interpret that here is a layman science forum idea, and we will leave the real science work to the professionals. The wave-particle described in this thread is only offered in the layman level discussion of what the nature a complex standing wave pattern of the wave-particle might entail:

The idea isn’t too far removed from:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)

De Broglie’s extension of the concept of particle wave duality
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_01_18_1_34_06.jpeg)
This “mystery” that the video didn’t answer is as old as the two slit experiments themselves, but with the introduction of the single particle, delayed choice experiments, comes a huge hint. The hint is that in the results of the single particle, two-slit interference experiments, where photons, electrons, or neutrons (and even composite atoms and molecular structures like buckyballs) produce oscillatory interference effects as if they were waves. Whether they send through individual photons, electrons, any type of particle, they all gradually build up the interference pattern, one point on the screen at a time. Some people think of that as the weirdness of QM, but it isn't weird if you look at it from the wave-particle perspective.

The easy take-away is that each individual particle (wave-particle) must have characteristics that cause it to display both the particle state and the wave state at the same time. What would a particle that could display both its wave and its particle state at the same time look like?

The proposed answer is depicted in the following diagram of a typical wave-particle:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)





The explanation of the wave mechanics of that wave-particle diagram to follow …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 30/09/2018 22:33:03
Reply #47


Actually, posting that depiction of the wave-particle in reply #46, with the high energy density core, and the rhythmic spherically out flowing wave action is quite premature. There is some detail to the composition and timing of the individual high energy density “spots” within the wave-particle core, some details to the explanation of the way the outflowing waves are “pumped” out at the prescribed frequency of the wave-particle involved, how the energy emitted with each out flowing wave is replaced to maintain the presence of the wave-particle with its whole energy complement, and more about the nature of the local environment, spoken of as the gravitational & light wave energy density profile of space; all layman ideas. Along with that detail, comes the supporting logic, to go along with the concept of the wave-particle that we describe as a complex standing wave pattern.

To move toward addressing all of those details, there is one glaring new mystery in our definition of space in Reply #42. Notice that I mentioned the nature of local environment where the presence of wave-particles exist and function (interact and maintain their energy). That environment is called the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, and everything that we have included in our definition of space so far exists within that gravitation wave energy density profile, and contributes to its local density of gravitational wave energy.
The new mystery involves the explanation for gravitational wave energy that fills all space, as well as the relationship between gravitational wave energy and light wave energy.

Don’t be too concerned that the connections between all of those things are not yet clear; they will be addressed in a step-by-step method, and you will have plenty of time to question each step and to present opposing arguments and ideas.

Reply #42, the definition of space we are using, has been revised, and is subject to further revision.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 02/10/2018 23:03:27
A zero sum environment where the below the well theshold potential, equals a negative aspect -0. This creates a substrata drop where the energetic less than potential vs greater potential is excluded, via a lack of potential barrier. The well bottom aspect of a -0 (no potential) creates the zero sum bottom line, a below the well bottom. The potential that exist is finite. This finite potential is dynamic, for the lack of a better term, it exist as aspects of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is a closed loop environment containing infinite growth probabilities. As a zero sum closed loop environment with infinite growth probabilities, it's attribute nature is expansive growth. However, expansive growth must rely on a mechanism that controls and governs growth so as to regulate it's potential, a seed of destruction, if you will.

So, what is quantum gravity? It may be easier to explain what quantum gravity does. Quantum gravity operates at the lowest level possible, it regulates every aspect/parameter of our physical and non-physical Universe. It regulates everything from the motion of the galaxies, to the shape of a star, to the growth of a flower, to the rules that govern light waves, to quantum rules that govern how quantum events alter each other to form new quantum events.
In regulating growth, both as life and "non-life" growth as we know it, quantum gravity influences and regulates everything. 

Quantum gravity as -0 potential creates boundaries for any and all potential. It creates a below the well bottom that attracts potential yet impedes and recycles it by means of release. Quantum gravity is not dynamic. It is however as constant and unchanging as Light itself. The question then becomes what came first, Light or Quantum gravity? Both exhibit close to infinite existence. If Light can be thought of as motion in it rudimentary condition, Quantum gravity can be thought of as embodying Light, allowing it to illuminate. In other words, without Quantum gravity, photonic Light wouldn't illuminate. In conclusion, without Quantum gravity there would be no charge, no spin, and no fields, the  parameters that  emcompass quantum and standard physics.


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/10/2018 14:07:02
Reply #49

… quantum gravity influences and regulates everything. 
We are approaching it from the bottom up, but you have given away the end result, lol.

We are getting into a layman level view of  the mechanics of QG, as you can tell by the recent posts about the two slit experiments, and the proposed structure of the wave-particle, which came up when we addressed the “mystery” of how an interference pattern forms in the single particle, two slit experiments. After introducing a working definition of space (see reply #42), I noted that it must include Einstein’s prediction and subsequent discovery of gravitational wave energy, which I am recognizing when I indicated:
The new mystery involves the explanation for gravitational wave energy that fills all space, as well as the relationship between gravitational wave energy and light wave energy.

So yes, I partially agree with your statement:
… It is however as constant and unchanging as Light itself. The question then becomes what came first, Light or Quantum gravity? Both exhibit close to infinite existence.

And the answer we are heading toward in terms of quantum thinking is that gravitational wave energy and light wave energy are very closely tied, if you accept that the photon wave-particle exists, and has mass.

However, I cannot support your conclusion just yet that both of those forms of energy (light and QG) exhibit close to infinite existence. You have to show us how you could ever determine space and wave energy to be limited to finite.

Would you be opposed to it if I suggested a rewording of that to say, light wave energy and quantum gravitational wave energy could be potentially infinite in time and space? Then we might be able to get on the same page.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 03/10/2018 20:02:00
Would you be opposed to it if I suggested a rewording of that to say, light wave energy and quantum gravitational wave energy could be potentially infinite in time and space? Then we might be able to get on the same page.


Thank you for your kind reply, Bogie.

I respect your point of view, as it demonstrates a curiosity that is pertinent to scientific pursuits. One can never discount a viable possibility when no evidence exist to discount it.  As such, I respect the need for further inquiry, However my personal thoughts on the matter is more spiritual. I take comfort in a beginning and an end of corporal existence.  To me, a beginning and an end, represents an all inclusive Set in it's nature. An all inclusive nature is a totality that everything, past, present and future share in. It is a closed Set of infinite possibilities within a time/space duration.

I believe that a catalyst, initiated a beginning by dividing a homogenous Light dimension. This catalyst possibly a Dark matter/energy dimension caused a rapid  currently  ongoing expansion of our current Universe. The  splitting of the Light dimension creates bubbles within the Universe that have Dark matter membranes. These Dark matter membranes encapsulate Light into distinctive regions that recycle within themselves. I would postulate that these Dark matter membranes trap Light and presents a almost impenetrable barrier for Light waves and Gravity waves to pass. The containment of both Light and Gravity waves supplement the cohesiveness of Galactic structures. 

When viewing gravitational lensing we may be seeing gravitational/light waves contained/molded by a Dark matter/Dark energy membrane.  This may suggest that quantum gravity is a by product of the merging of a Light and Dark matter dimensions. The Big Bang theory postulates that Gravity was the first component formed, and the three remaing fundamental forces followed. The three remaing fundamental forces all contain Light attributes, Gravity is the bastard child! lol.  Thank you for your time and interest. 



Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 03/10/2018 20:56:13
Reply #51

…To me, a beginning and an end, represents an all inclusive Set in it's nature. An all inclusive nature is a totality that everything, past, present and future share in. It is a closed Set of infinite possibilities within a time/space duration.
I appreciate your point of view, and would classify it as being philosophical, meaning there is no new evidence for much of what you are mentioning. Don’t get me wrong, some would argue that when we endeavor to do “quantum gravity” at a layman science enthusiast level, it is hard to avoid more speculative ideas for which there is no new evidence, and no consensus in the scientific community yet.

On that note, this is not the right NakedScientists sub-forum to go too far in that direction; they have guidelines, and specific places for various types of discussions. I’m staying within the guidelines here if possible, out of courtesy to the members and moderators who want this sub-forum to be about hard science, and current issues in Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology. So instead of challenging your views here, let me direct you to one of my posts elsewhere, where I discuss my philosophy, and were I encourage you to repost your statements if you want to enter into discussion:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg535627#msg535627)
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/10/2018 18:09:34
Reply #52


Reply #47

The new mystery involves the explanation for gravitational wave energy that fills all space, …

Getting there involves a transition from the answer given in reply #46 to the “mystery of the single particle, two-slit experiments”. The answer was the “wave-particle”, as depicted in that post. All of the types of single particles sent through the various delayed choice, two-slit apparatuses, one at a time, will all have to have an internal composition that will fit the description of wave-particles. Wave-particles are composed of a complex standing wave patterns that physically contain both the wave state and the particle state, in a fashion at allows both states to be displayed in the experiments at the same time.

I acknowledge that the Standard Model of particle physics does not say anything about the fundamental particles having various complex standing wave patterns, but then, the standard model, and  QFT, don’t yet give us a path to quantum gravity, so we expand the scope and apply quantum thinking.

The path we are heading down requires particles to have multiple internal quanta, and the high energy density spots in the core of the standing wave-particle (complex standing wave patterns), are those individual quanta. In addition, within the invariant laws of nature, there has to be a quantum action process that describes the quantum wave mechanics of particle formation, and particle interaction.

For that reason, it will be appropriate to say that our discussion of a layman version of QG will follow the path of physical wave mechanics. Let’s start by taking a look at:
http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys201/WaveMechanicsLectureSlides.pdf (http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys201/WaveMechanicsLectureSlides.pdf)

Given those slides from the Phys201 Lecture, we are considering the proposition that particles are composed of waves, in quantum increments, and that the quantum increments are the individual quanta that comprise the energy contained in the wave-particles …

Given that proposition, then each high density spot depicted as a round dot in the high density core in the image of a wave-particle (posted in reply #46) is actually completely composed of wave energy. Let’s look how that could be the case. Look at the following image and see if you can equate the depicted wave convergences that make up the high energy density spots, with the round dots in the image of the wave-particle:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)

To be continued …

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 04/10/2018 22:59:58
The simplest answer to penetrating a -0 potential barrier in space/time is found within quantum itself. Quantum tunneling may be an illusion of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement a single potential existing in separate time/space local. lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/10/2018 00:11:58
Reply #54

The simplest answer to penetrating a -0 potential barrier in space/time is found within quantum itself. Quantum tunneling may be an illusion of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement a single potential existing in separate time/space local. lol

I wish I understood where you are coming from with that. Would you explain what a -0 potential barrier in space/time is? You seem to be invoking space/time at the quantum level, and shouldn’t we require some evidence of that in the scientific papers before we go there?

Not to disrespect the idea of space/time at the macro level, because the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) really give us the best macro level mathematical quantification of gravity we have so far, but we are talking now about a quantum level, and about a quantum solution to gravity. Such a solution might shed a new light on a macro level space/time; not superseding it, but giving us a more precise explanation of the wave mechanics at the quantum level.

So far, I notice you tend to ignore the content of my responses to you in replies #49 and #51, and you come back with additional ideas without providing the requested support, and without consideration for the step-by-step methodology we are employing here.

I don’t want to discourage any participation, so please address the content of this response point by point:
1) Would you explain what a -0 potential barrier in space/time is?
2) Am I mistaken that you seem to be invoking space/time at the quantum level, and if so, a link supporting that would help.
3) Do you agree that the EFEs are the best tool for predicting the macro level relative motion of objects, but that they have not been shown to apply at the quantum level yet?
4) In regard to reply #49, did you understand the idea of the wave-particle depicted in reply #46 as a possible solution to the mystery of the two-slit experiments, and do you have any comment about the wave-particle structure it portrays?
5) In regard to reply #51, do you think I was off target when I equate your comment, “However my personal thoughts on the matter is more spiritual”, to being philosophical, and is there any reason you don’t want to discuss that on my thread in the New Theories sub-forum where my link would take you?

Finally, when you have a comment that pertains to some content already posted, can you use the quote function to show what you are responding to?

Don’t let me discourage you, but help me get where you are coming from.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 05/10/2018 02:50:05
Virtual electron-positron pairs production in a zero sum vacuum energy environment.

The creation of virtual particles produces a mutual gravity that results in their mutual annihilation.

A -0 is a rounded number approaching zero.  -0 approaching infinity.

Cosmic inflation is driven by virtual pair annihilation.

Dark matter membranes (-0) are conducive parameters in containing a vacuum energy environment. lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/10/2018 03:42:36
Reply #56



Virtual electron-positron pairs production in a zero sum vacuum energy environment.

The creation of virtual particles produces a mutual gravity that results in their mutual annihilation.

A -0 is a rounded number approaching zero.  -0 approaching infinity.

Cosmic inflation is driven by virtual pair annihilation.

Dark matter membranes (-0) are conducive parameters in containing a vacuum energy environment. lol

At least you’re not discouraged, lol. Anyway, here we are in New Theories for the broader discussion.


I'm one who prefers the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means that wave energy has always existed. The discussion of the mechanics of wave energy can start with the fact that both gravitational and electromagnetic wave fronts carry energy. Therefore, when wave fronts converge, the energy carried by the wave fronts at the point of convergence doesn't cancel out, it instead results in the sum of the energy in the two (or more) wave fronts being present at the point of convergence. Thus the wave energy of the parent waves is being conserved by forming a peak in energy at the point of convergence.

The peak of energy is obviously surrounded by a valley or low point in the amount of wave energy, relative to the momentary peak at the point of convergence. The energy consolidated momentarily in that peak immediately begins to be disbursed spherically from the point of energy convergence, back out into the space occupied by the temporary valley in the wave energy surrounding the peak, and that spherical out flow from the point of convergence is called a third wave.

Third waves and the conservation of wave energy go hand in hand, because the energy of the parent wave fronts forms the peak, and the peak forms the new third wave that carries the sum of the energy of the converging parent waves. Wave energy is thus conserved.

The mechanics of it would be that the two (or more) converging wave fronts would carry energy as they expand through space. When their simultaneous expansion results in a convergence from two (or more) directions, the directional expansion of the wave fronts through space is interrupted, and the energy at the point of convergence is equal to the positive sum of the directional energy of the converging parent wave fronts. The energy carried to the point of convergence is therefore equal to the sum of the energy carried by the parent wave fronts, and is the sum of those energy amounts. Thus the sum is higher than the energy of either of the converging wave fronts, resulting in a momentary peak of energy at the point of convergence. That peak has nowhere to go but away from the point of convergence, and "away from the point of convergence" is directional in all directions, i.e., spherical. Thus a "third wave" forms and carries the sum of the energy contributed by the parent waves spherically out into the valley, i.e., into the space occupied by lower value of energy surrounding the peak.

The third wave has an expanding wave front that carries the energy until its expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent third wave, and the process is perpetuated.

To be continued ... 


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 05/10/2018 18:38:50
I apologize! lol. But, if wave fronts peak at convergence they must have a barrier that produces a path for convergence. to be rejected from.  Without a barrier for two spiral wave fronts to converge, waves would simply converge with each other or. diverge from each other. I question whether intertwined waves of light and gravity could produce a strata barrier capable of not absorbing but rejecting light. The scattering of light waves in the slit test, requires a barrier. Even then the product of a peak is the result of the scattering of two waves in a bell formation. The slit test, due to it's limited confine area, only demonstrates light reacting in an observable confined setting. Light concentration in a larger setting wouldn't produce the same results. The scattering effect would void any confined area results. So,. without a barrier, two converging light wave would dissipate, scatter or assimilate in all directions as  its does in nature; the sum of the two waves would have no basis to accumulate.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 05/10/2018 19:09:01
Reply #58

I apologize! lol. But, if wave fronts peak at convergence they must have a barrier that produces a path for convergence. to be rejected from.  Without a barrier for two spiral wave fronts to converge, waves would simply converge with each other or. diverge from each other. I question whether intertwined waves of light and gravity could produce a strata barrier capable of not absorbing but rejecting light. The scattering of light waves in the slit test, requires a barrier. Even then the product of a peak is the result of the scattering of two waves in a bell formation. The slit test, due to it's limited confine area, only demonstrates light reacting in an observable confined setting. Light concentration in a larger setting wouldn't produce the same results. The scattering effect would void any confined area results. So,. without a barrier, two converging light wave would dissipate, scatter or assimilate in all directions as  its does in nature; the sum of the two waves would have no basis to accumulate.
No need to apologize when questioning the validity of something I say, and then I won’t feel I need to apologize when I try to defend what I said. Hopefully I will learn by the process of discussing it with you.

Would a 3D spherically expanding wave front carry energy through space, equally in all directions, with the amount of energy being carried by the entire spherical wave front remaining unchanged, but with the amount of energy gradually declining at each point across the entire wave front in proportion to the inverse square law?

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 05/10/2018 20:35:26
Would a 3D spherically expanding wave front carry energy through space, equally in all directions, with the amount of energy being carried by the entire spherical wave front remaining unchanged, but with the amount of energy gradually declining at each point across the entire wave front in proportion to the inverse square law?


At some point change in the initial force cannot be maintained. The elongation of light waves in space diminishes intensity. A gamma wave could theoretically be stretched to it's limits over a billion years and be seen by us as a blip. A spherical wave is still constrained by gravity as such it is under the auspicious of the strength of that particular gravitational force. Is the cause for the elongation of light waves a product of it's strength at the time of release eg: super nova, the gravitational force restraining it, or the pull of an expanding Universe?  lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/10/2018 01:14:21
Reply #60

At some point change in the initial force cannot be maintained. The elongation of light waves in space diminishes intensity. A gamma wave could theoretically be stretched to it's limits over a billion years and be seen by us as a blip. A spherical wave is still constrained by gravity as such it is under the auspicious of the strength of that particular gravitational force. Is the cause for the elongation of light waves a product of its strength at the time of release eg: super nova, the gravitational force restraining it, or the pull of an expanding Universe?  lol
Ok, let’s talk about an expanding spherical wave of light energy, such as the light emitted spherically from an energetic source like a super nova.

Assuming space meets the definition of an interstellar medium (ISM) like in our definition of space in reply #42, at some distant point in space, an observer would see the super nova as a mere blip, as you suggested.

1) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that at which the blip of light will fade in intensity to the point that there is no visible energy left in the wave front for an observer to see?

2) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that where there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the expanding wave front of energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is completely absorbed by the composition of the interstellar medium?

Then, for talking purposes, let’s assume that the spherical light wave is advancing into otherwise empty space, no ISM at all. In that case let’s ask a question:

3) Do you think that there is some distance beyond which there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is not conserved?



Yes or No
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No

To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 06/10/2018 21:20:20
1) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that at which the blip of light will fade in intensity to the point that there is no visible energy left in the wave front for an observer to see?


Light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, or if it is contained via black hole gravity or via human experimentation then it's speed is altered. An altered velocity indicates light's life cycle duration is like anything else in nature. Some light photons may last to 10 to the 18th power but some may not last half that time. Our estimate of the age of the Universe is 14 billions years, that is minute in comparison to 10 to the 18th power. Photons do and can decay into lighter particles.

#1 yes


2) Do you think that there is some distance beyond that where there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the expanding wave front of energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is completely absorbed by the composition of the interstellar medium?Then, for talking purposes, let’s assume that the spherical light wave is advancing into otherwise empty space, no ISM at all.

Light is observable  as a reflection to a barrier if there is nothing to reflect it, it's presence is obscure. Do i believe that a wave front loses its integrity via a lack of mass?  lol.
My previous example to you however in regards to light elongation was for a gamma ray which is more of a highly concentrated beam of light. Being such, it's origin is not spherical but Birkeland current like. Gamma rays in this notable form, originate from the center of galaxies, is their observable, visible mass finite?  Yes, they appears to be. Does this preclude that their energy dissipates without their mass husk? No, but their mass husk are traveling at approx. the speed of light. We do know that neutrino proceed gamma ray burst. What relation is there between lighter particles neutrinos acceleration and photons traveling at the speed of light? Decaying photons! lol. Decaying photons releasing into neutrinos lift the speed of light limits for neutrinos! lol.  So, photonic mass is containable by gravity, neutrinos are not. I do believe that dark matter membranes are impervious even for neutrinos. I do believe that the Universe's background radiation is a reflection of this condition of recycled containment? Do I believe it is possible to expand without containment? No. I believe growth to be cellular process even for Universe. Does Universe growth require division? Multi-Universe theorist may believe so! lol

#2 yes


In that case let’s ask a question:3) Do you think that there is some distance beyond which there is no energy left at all in the wave front, i.e., where the energy is diminished to zero, meaning that the wave energy is not conserved?

To have a light wave traveling at the speed of light you need photonic energy. Neutrinos do meet this criteria. Light decays into lighter particles, neutrinos. Wave energy as I believe you are defining it, is not conserved. Containment in the form background radiation is. lol

Does energy exist without a structure to produce it? No. So, sub-elementary that have no structure are incapable of producing or sustaining energy production. An analogy would be amino acids, they are the building blocks of life but without DNA structure they are just amino acids. lol

#3 yes, decayed photons, neutrinos, do not possess the structure necessary to produce energy, so the potential without structure is 0. lol

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 07/10/2018 06:18:56
Reply #62


Light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, or if it is contained via black hole gravity or via human experimentation then it's speed is altered. An altered velocity indicates light's life cycle duration is like anything else in nature. Some light photons may last to 10 to the 18th power but some may not last half that time. Our estimate of the age of the Universe is 14 billions years, that is minute in comparison to 10 to the 18th power. Photons do and can decay into lighter particles.

#1 yes


Light is observable  as a reflection to a barrier if there is nothing to reflect it, it's presence is obscure. Do i believe that a wave front loses its integrity via a lack of mass?  lol.
My previous example to you however in regards to light elongation was for a gamma ray which is more of a highly concentrated beam of light. Being such, it's origin is not spherical but Birkeland current like. Gamma rays in this notable form, originate from the center of galaxies, is their observable, visible mass finite?  Yes, they appears to be. Does this preclude that their energy dissipates without their mass husk? No, but their mass husk are traveling at approx. the speed of light. We do know that neutrino proceed gamma ray burst. What relation is there between lighter particles neutrinos acceleration and photons traveling at the speed of light? Decaying photons! lol. Decaying photons releasing into neutrinos lift the speed of light limits for neutrinos! lol.  So, photonic mass is containable by gravity, neutrinos are not. I do believe that dark matter membranes are impervious even for neutrinos. I do believe that the Universe's background radiation is a reflection of this condition of recycled containment? Do I believe it is possible to expand without containment? No. I believe growth to be cellular process even for Universe. Does Universe growth require division? Multi-Universe theorist may believe so! lol

#2 yes


To have a light wave traveling at the speed of light you need photonic energy. Neutrinos do meet this criteria. Light decays into lighter particles, neutrinos. Wave energy as I believe you are defining it, is not conserved. Containment in the form background radiation is. lol

Does energy exist without a structure to produce it? No. So, sub-elementary that have no structure are incapable of producing or sustaining energy production. An analogy would be amino acids, they are the building blocks of life but without DNA structure they are just amino acids. lol

#3 yes

, decayed photons, neutrinos, do not possess the structure necessary to produce energy, so the potential without structure is 0. lol
1) That just seems like an imponderable to me, lol. Does your estimate of the age of the universe track back only 14 billion years to the Big Bang, or could the universe have always existed, and could space be infinite, and therefore could the occurrence of Big Bang events be commonplace:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_07_10_18_1_21_17.jpeg)



... caused by the intersection of two or more expanding parent big bang arenas in the infinite and eternal landscape of the greater universe; a multiple big bang event landscape?  Yes or no? Yes.

2) I’m cautious about taking all of that at face value, and would be comfortable if we boil it down to say that there is known science, and there is “as yet” unknown science. But there is one thing we should be able to agree on and that is that light waves and gravitational waves carry energy across space.  Yes or no? Yes.

3) Ok, question three was asked along with the premise that the light energy was expanding into empty space, which at best is a cheap thought experiment if we go with the definition of space in reply #42. Based on your answer, I’m willing to say the thought experiment was a failure, so lets forget #3 to save bandwidth.

Let’s boil all of that down to the premise that in the medium of space, wave energy (light energy and gravitational wave energy) is emitted and absorbed by particles and objects, and is thus conserved, and in the space between particles and objects, there is wave energy (light and gravitational waves) traversing space, based on a potentially infinite history of emission and absorption? Space is therefore filled with wave energy coming and going, to and from all directions, . Yes or no? Yes.

I guess none of that really gets to the original issue you brought up, which is … that you take exception to the idea that two wave fronts, whether light or gravitational, would form a peak of high energy at the point of intersection, and that peak would be surrounded by a valley of lower energy density.

I don’t know if we will resolve the issue between us, but describing the nature of a spherical light wave front, might be in order. I’ll go first, lol.

Would you accept the definition that a spherical wave front, as it advances, is marked by a wave energy density differential between the energy of the advancing wave front, and the energy of the space into which the front is expanding?


Further, when a wave front encounters another wave front, does the idea that there would be a momentary interruption in the advance of the two wave fronts, and a resulting disturbance in space at the point where the energy of the two wave fronts merge, and that disturbance would be resolved by the formation of a “third wave” that disburses the energy disturbance spherically?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
If you have studied the theory of light, Christian Huygens, this is from Reply #130 from the thread, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?”
“We are talking Huygens 17th century, and Fresnel and Kirchhoff from the 19th century. Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model.”



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens)–Fresnel_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet)

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 07/10/2018 13:42:00
Wave propagation exist as presented in your last diagram. This was establish by voyager upon entering the heliosphere that separates the solar system from interstellar space.

You may be familiar with these reports. if not they may interest you.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5383.pdf

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267492/what-does-the-cosmic-neutrino-background-look-like-today-given-that-neutrinos-p


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 07/10/2018 14:11:20
The structure of the Universe as represented in pictorial form, appear as a lattice of lights separated by areas/boundaries of obscure space. What is portrayed is Light separated. If light at one time was completely homogenous, a conclusion  can be made that the dark obscure areas are separating light. The question then becomes the purpose or result of/for the separation. lol

A bubble structure is conducive to separation and breaking apart. A wave front consisting of such a bubble structure is susceptible to separation. lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 08/10/2018 15:24:10
Wave propagation exist as presented in your last diagram. This was establish by voyager upon entering the heliosphere that separates the solar system from interstellar space.


You may be familiar with these reports. if not they may interest you.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5383.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5383.pdf)


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267492/what-does-the-cosmic-neutrino-background-look-like-today-given-that-neutrinos-p (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/267492/what-does-the-cosmic-neutrino-background-look-like-today-given-that-neutrinos-p)
The propagation of light and gravity waves across the medium of space will continue to be a subject that I think is intimately related to quantum gravity.


Working from my reading of the executive summary of the arxiv, and the neutrino background discussion in your provided links, I have some comments:


I expect the presence of neutrinos coming and going in all directions in space, produced by a potentially eternal history of multiple big bang events across potentially infinite space. Future experiments will broaden the neutrino detection methods and data, and the data from CMB lensing is an exciting area in the research that will be forthcoming in the next decade. The number of neutrinos detected as those results come in will be valuable data that has the potential to reshape the standard model of particle physics, and the source of mass in the observable universe, to be sure.


In line with that point, note that in my last post I asked a question intended to address the idea of the infinites of space and time, and have not seen your response:
Does your estimate of the age of the universe track back only 14 billion years to the Big Bang, or could the universe have always existed, and could space be infinite, and therefore could the occurrence of Big Bang events be commonplace?”


My answer is “yes” to the infinites of space, time, and wave energy, and the image of two expanding/overlapping big bang arena waves in my last post, showing the convergence of galactic material and energy in the overlap space, portrays the idea of an infinite and eternal big bang arena action process that governs the macro nature of universe and gravity. It comes from the idea that there was no beginning; the universe could potentially have always existed. If so, there would be a perpetual history of big bang events. It is certainly clear, given that scenario, that there would have always been a constant source of neutrinos from the on-going big bang arena action across the landscape of the greater universe. Therefore, the new means of detecting neutrinos, and the broad sky surveys using those means, will surely show a higher concentration of neutrinos than is currently predicted, in my opinion. Please comment freely.







The structure of the Universe as represented in pictorial form, appear as a lattice of lights separated by areas/boundaries of obscure space. What is portrayed is Light separated. If light at one time was completely homogenous, a conclusion  can be made that the dark obscure areas are separating light. The question then becomes the purpose or result of/for the separation. lol


A bubble structure is conducive to separation and breaking apart. A wave front consisting of such a bubble structure is susceptible to separation. lol
This thread has addressed various aspects of quantum field theory and the associated discussion of the false vacuum, nucleating bubbles, bubble collisions, virtual particles, pairs and annihilations, and the standard model of particle physics. The goal of the thread was to discuss what they are saying about quantum gravity, without discussing ideas that would be misleading to people coming here for established science. However, with the thread being moved to New Theories, that means the discussion can take on a more speculative nature.


So feel free to comment on the multiple big bang arena landscape, and the effects that a perpetual history of big bangs across all space would have on the presence of neutrinos, as well as your views on the three infinites of space, time, and energy. 
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 08/10/2018 23:47:48
Hello Bogie,

I had finished a reply to you but hadn't been aware of my online time. My reply was lost in a time-out. I will attempt to reconstruct it later. It's now dinner time.

Best regards
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 09/10/2018 00:50:34
I hate it when that happens. Now I usually write my response off-line, and then cut and paste it into the reply box. I know how hard it is to write it the second time around.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 09/10/2018 19:49:28
Bogie,  agreement on matters is never necessary. Please allow me to explain my approach. Quantum and Mathematics are very different endeavours. Quantum deals with infinte possibilities, Mathematics is functional probablities, Quantum rules provides a means to explain what Mathematic functions cannot. Some may offer a Mathematical formula that is entirely valid, meaning it works out to having a true value. However; having a true value is not always indicative of of the right answer/solution to the problem, meaning it is a dead end. Quantum has the same issue, its use may apply rules that meet a conclusion but that conclusion may not be optimum, rendering it inconclusive. Both become an artful science of using the process of elimination towards the ultimate goal.

What is necessary, is the initiation of such processes. Some may be dead ends but others may bear fruit. We don't always know which is which. But in initiating the process, we are opening an exploration into functional probabilities and the deeper possibilities, that is the process of greater learning. Learning must always be a sharing experience or it becomes inconsequentially lost. Nobody can claim 100% certainty, so we all should be open to examination. It is often examination that produces the most refined product. I believe we all a share a sense about what rings true in regards to both probabilities and possibilities. It is a collective reasoning imbued in the human spirit, as such it has powered our innate capacities. It pushes us to push beyond our current abilities, in doing so it promotes common interest into a better future.

I have as probably many here have questioned the possibility of multi Universe formations. Such things cannot be discounted as current observations only add to our knowledge. What i had not contemplated prior was using neutrino trajectories to confirm or discount the multi-Universe theory. If neutrinos trajectories are shown to come from regions of space that have no known sources of light, then yes, i believe we must entertain and explore the possibility that such a scenario exist. lol

Regards
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/10/2018 09:50:49

Bogie,  agreement on matters is never necessary. Please allow me to explain my approach. Quantum and Mathematics are very different endeavours. Quantum deals with infinte possibilities, Mathematics is functional probablities, Quantum rules provides a means to explain what Mathematic functions cannot. Some may offer a Mathematical formula that is entirely valid, meaning it works out to having a true value. However; having a true value is not always indicative of of the right answer/solution to the problem, meaning it is a dead end. Quantum has the same issue, its use may apply rules that meet a conclusion but that conclusion may not be optimum, rendering it inconclusive. Both become an artful science of using the process of elimination towards the ultimate goal.


What is necessary, is the initiation of such processes. Some may be dead ends but others may bear fruit. We don't always know which is which. But in initiating the process, we are opening an exploration into functional probabilities and the deeper possibilities, that is the process of greater learning. Learning must always be a sharing experience or it becomes inconsequentially lost. Nobody can claim 100% certainty, so we all should be open to examination. It is often examination that produces the most refined product. I believe we all a share a sense about what rings true in regards to both probabilities and possibilities. It is a collective reasoning imbued in the human spirit, as such it has powered our innate capacities. It pushes us to push beyond our current abilities, in doing so it promotes common interest into a better future.


I have as probably many here have questioned the possibility of multi Universe formations. Such things cannot be discounted as current observations only add to our knowledge. What i had not contemplated prior was using neutrino trajectories to confirm or discount the multi-Universe theory. If neutrinos trajectories are shown to come from regions of space that have no known sources of light, then yes, i believe we must entertain and explore the possibility that such a scenario exist. lol


Regards





I acknowledge that all of what you say is reasonable and responsible, though we have different primary positions, meaning that my approach is that the wave-particle makes it reasonable to reconsider a more objective reality, at the expense of the purely random and spooky action, lol.


It is true that a general agreement on the various matters that have been brought up is not likely, but I think you know that TheNakedScientists have the “lighter side” sub-forums where rules permit us to bring up and discuss the more speculative or hypothetical. The reason we are now in New Theories is that we were straying from the mainstream consensus answers that are fit for enthusiastic youths, and others who are interested in learning the basics, and the New Theories sub-forum is the place where speculation is put up, and is open for discussion.


To recap:


1) We suggested that a good place to start the topic of quantum gravity was to examine virtual particles; we are, and that is still open for comments and discussion.


2) Based on interference patterns related to virtual particle disturbances, we have offered a speculative solution to the “mystery” of the two-slit, single particle experiments  by proposing a structure for wave-particles composed of a core of high energy density spots (also described), surrounded by wave energy emissions. Such wave-particles are proposed because they can display both their wave state and their particle state at the same time. Thus we have alluded to the role of  wave energy emissions from quantum particles to solve the two-slit mystery. Members were asked to contribute and to comment freely.


3) We have suggested that in order for some things to make sense, we have to rethink some consensus theories that have not yet lead to the solutions we seek. Therefore we have an expanded definition of space as in reply #42 that includes extending our Hubble view to the infinite space beyond, filled with the ISM as described by Wiki, along with light and gravitational wave emissions and absorptions, and a third wave concept that accounts for wave energy filling all space. Open for comments.


3) At the same time we addressed another mystery about the nature of light and gravitational wave energy that goes along with wave-particle duality, suggesting that light waves and gravitational waves are simultaneously emitted and absorbed by particles and objects, thus explaining the occurrences of wave convergences called high energy density “spots”, akin to virtual particles. The waves that are converging are coming and going in all directions  at all points in space, at the speed of light, establishing the presence of an oscillating wave energy background that has a key role in the advance of light and gravity wave energy. It is predicted that the background is the result of a potentially infinite history of energy emissions and absorptions. Again, members were encouraged to comment.


4) We have pondered how space, time and energy could have had a beginning, aside from “something from nothing” and we have offered another alternative. We suggested that there were preconditions to our Big Bang, and those include the convergence of two or more parent big bang arenas, with each big bang arena convergence leading to a new big bang. That means there is a possibility that there was no beginning at all, because everything has always existed. As always, discussion was encouraged.


5) We have contemplated the observations of the red shift, the observed interstellar medium, including neutrinos, wave energy in the form of the cosmic microwave background, and the observed separation of galaxies and galactic structure, and have proposed the three infinites of space, time, and wave energy. Comments were welcomed.


So there are possibilities and alternatives, all within one greater universe, a multiple big bang landscape, that features individual finite expanding arenas, convergences, new big bangs, the three infinities of space, time, and energy, and the defeat of entropy by way of the perpetual process of arena action; there is much to think about as we set the stage for the conditions that provide the path to the mechanics that account for quantum gravity.



Following that path is being addressed in a step by step fashion, and we are presenting the steps in a logical sequence in hopes they can be seen to build on each other. But it is a long path of speculative answers to “as yet” unknowns, and the real event going on here is a call for participation in the process by offering ideas, and by addressing ideas that are put up for discussion. Feel free to take a stand for or against any of the steps discussed, and any additional quantum thinking is in order.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 10/10/2018 14:56:34
Bogie,. I find that people that require proof of evidence on this site are themselves the first to offer merely speculative theory as such evidence! lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 10/10/2018 16:29:45
Reply #71


Bogie,. I find that people that require proof of evidence on this site are themselves the first to offer merely speculative theory as such evidence! lol
You can't get far beyond the hard sciences where consensus exists before the general observations and data stimulate resorting to speculation and hypothesis :) .
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2018 00:23:39
Reply #72

In reference to the recap in Reply #69 (that was inspired by @Pesqueira)
A step on the road to Q is for Quantum; G is for Gravity, QG is for Quantum Gravity”:

If the wave-particle has a high energy density core that is composed of multiple quanta, as I have depicted it in Reply #46:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)


,,, and since it is uncontested (lol) that the wave-particle structure does work nicely to explain the “mystery” of the single particle, two-slit experiments, even those that used delayed choice set ups like in this apparatus:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_05_36.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_05_36.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_05_36.png)

… then let’s incorporate that idea about the wave structure of the quantum high energy density spots within the core of our wave-particles, into our layman level explanation for QG.


Then, in regard to quantum gravity, we are saying that the individual quanta within the high energy density core of the wave particle are composed of the convergences of multiple gravitational waves from various directions that are disturbances in the medium of space, associated with the presence of a wave particle, and at the same time, those convergences have a striking similarity to the way we have described virtual particles:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)

Hmm, … maybe it takes a little imagination to see the similarity, lol.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2018 14:37:31
Reply #73


Now with that all said, I can introduce the important concept of a time delay that occurs as the mechanics of quantum action plays out. To do so we go back to address the important post #48 by @Pesqueira. I’ll quote it in full:
A zero sum environment where the below the well threshold potential, equals a negative aspect, -0. This creates a substrata drop where the energetic less than potential vs greater potential is excluded, via a lack of potential barrier (my bold). The well bottom aspect of a -0 (no potential) creates the zero sum bottom line, a below the well bottom. The potential that exist is finite. This finite potential is dynamic, for the lack of a better term, it exist as aspects of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is a closed loop environment containing infinite growth probabilities. As a zero sum closed loop environment with infinite growth probabilities, it's attribute nature is expansive growth. However, expansive growth must rely on a mechanism that controls and governs growth so as to regulate it's potential, a seed of destruction, if you will (my bold).


So, what is quantum gravity? It may be easier to explain what quantum gravity does. Quantum gravity operates at the lowest level possible, it regulates every aspect/parameter of our physical and non-physical Universe. It regulates everything from the motion of the galaxies, to the shape of a star, to the growth of a flower, to the rules that govern light waves, to quantum rules that govern how quantum events alter each other to form new quantum events.
In regulating growth, both as life and "non-life" growth as we know it, quantum gravity influences and regulates everything.


Quantum gravity as -0 potential creates boundaries for any and all potential. It creates a below the well bottom that attracts potential yet impedes and recycles it by means of release (also my bold). Quantum gravity is not dynamic. It is however as constant and unchanging as Light itself. The question then becomes what came first, Light or Quantum gravity? Both exhibit close to infinite existence. If Light can be thought of as motion in it rudimentary condition, Quantum gravity can be thought of as embodying Light, allowing it to illuminate. In other words, without Quantum gravity, photonic Light wouldn't illuminate. In conclusion, without Quantum gravity there would be no charge, no spin, and no fields, the  parameters that  encompass quantum and standard physics.
Note that I have bolded portions of Pesqueira’s reply #48 that I think can be addressed by the concept of a time delay in the rate that the sub-quantum wave energy fronts advance through the local space as the accumulation of a quantum of high energy wave peaks is reached.


This creates a substrata drop where the energetic less than potential vs greater potential is excluded, via a lack of potential barrier.” …


… “As a zero sum closed loop environment with infinite growth probabilities, it's attribute nature is expansive growth. However, expansive growth must rely on a mechanism that controls and governs growth so as to regulate it's potential, a seed of destruction, if you will.”


Quantum gravity as -0 potential creates boundaries for any and all potential. It creates a below the well bottom that attracts potential yet impedes and recycles it by means of release.”


Those bolded portions seem to imply that the phenomenon of wave convergence energy peaks that I introduce as being important to the mechanics of QG, don’t form peaks without the “below the well bottom (-0)” attribute of quantum gravity pointed out by Pesqueira, and thus will not be sufficient to allow an accumulation of energy at the point of convergence. I have tried to explain that the formation of the high energy peaks bring with it an increase in the local wave energy density that equates to the “below the well bottom (-0)” attribute of quantum gravity pointed out by Pesqueira,


By making that relationship between what Pesqueira is saying and what I am saying, I hope I have established the introduction of the concept of a time delay that addresses Pesqueira’s concerns.


To elaborate on the mechanics that I consider to be in play, the individual waves involved in the meaningful convergences all carry energy to that point of convergence from many directions. The amount of energy necessary to produce a quantum at that point in space requires multiple individual waves to converge, that each carry less than a quantum of energy, i.e., the individual waves are sub-quantum. When they converge, the energy that they each carry is consolidated at (delivered to) a point in space and that peak in energy density exists for an instant. That instant is represented by the combined energy of all of the converging wave fronts, which are then described as a single quantum in respect to the much greater total energy of the multi-quanta wave-particle. (The amount of energy in each individual quanta is governed by the local wave energy density environment, which I refer to as the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space).


Pesqueira made the point that there is nothing there in that description to account for all of that wave energy to be any more meaningful at the consolidation point than at any other point, since the waves that are delivered to that point in space would just as quickly pass through that point as they would at any other point, and travel on; he alluded to the fact that there was nothing about a wave convergence that could account for the peaks of energy to be considered accumulative, if I read his thinking correctly.


I am saying that the time delay is an important point that accounts for why the converging waves don’t just as quickly pass through that space; there is a slight but meaningful “time delay” due to the elevated wave energy density at and around the location of each high energy density spot, and the effect of an elevated gravitational wave energy density is a time delay in the rate of the advance of wave energy through the medium of space. Waves travel at different velocities through space, relative to the local wave energy density of that space.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 18/10/2018 16:07:11
Quantum physics provides variance in the mostly invariance closed GR system. When looking into possibilities no matter how improbable quantum provides the variance. So time delay requires a mechanism that supports the hiccup or disruption of normal flow. Sometimes this can be found in GR via alternative other than quantum., but a further investigation is needed to determine the GR hiccup in an invariance environment. This path points in quantum gravity's direction.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2018 17:33:42
Reply #75


Quantum physics provides variance in the mostly invariance closed GR system. When looking into possibilities no matter how improbable quantum provides the variance. So time delay requires a mechanism that supports the hiccup or disruption of normal flow.
Yes, it requires a mechanism, and I introduced the mechanism that I propose to do the trick.
Quote
Sometimes this can be found in GR via alternative other than quantum, but a further investigation is needed to determine the GR hiccup in an invariance environment. This path points in quantum gravity's direction.
Yes, it does, because the EFEs are not compatible with quantum mechanics, and though GR and spacetime are sufficient for the macro level mathematics, they are not sufficient for quantum gravity.

Do I detect a hesitance to reject my premise that the slight but meaningful “time delay” is due to the elevated wave energy density at and around the location of each high energy density spot? My point is that the effect of an elevated gravitational wave energy density is a time delay in the rate of the advance of wave energy through the medium of space where the wave energy density is elevated. Waves travel at different velocities through space, relative to the local wave energy density of that space.

Comment freely.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/10/2018 18:12:32
Reply #76

I would like to mention at this point the topic of clocks, and the variable rate that they measure the passing of time, depending on the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space that is hosting the presence of the clock. As the local gravitational wave energy density changes due to acceleration, or due to the changing proximity of massive objects, the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space changes proportionately. That is why accelerated clocks slow down relative to clocks at rest, and that is why clocks at the top of the mountain run faster than clocks located at the base of the mountain.

It has to do with the rate that wave-particles function in varying gravitational wave energy density environments. The rate that wave-particles function is governed by the local gravitational wave energy density. The density of the local environment affects the density of the high energy density spots within the dense core of the wave-particles, and the resulting change in density causes a change in the time delay, and that change is reflected in the rate that the clock functions, since the clock is composed of wave-particles.

The human body serves as a clock in that regard, and will age more slowly when accelerated to relativistic velocities; hence, the traveling twin will not age as rapidly as the stay at home twin, lol.


Comment freely. 

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 18/10/2018 22:02:24
Hi Bogie

Can the macro draw an analogy from the micro? Ein sof draws an interesting correlation to the (Yah Weh)wave particle diagram. The randomness of the HEDSpots around the HDCore is acting as the variance in quantum gravity. E=hv where v as the frequency of radiation determines the randomness of HEDSpots pattern. This differs from your topological analogy of GR local gravity, but it's premise as a pictorial image is useful in visualizing quantum effects.

My visualization as to the clustering effects and the randomness of the HEDSpots around the HDcore invokes a 3D image of the Tetragrammaton! lol

https://www.freeart.com/artwork/art-print/tetragrammaton-ineffable-name-of-god_fa10146712.html

As in your "Formation of a high density spot", the 3D tetragrammaton has a core concentration, and six separate linear directionalities that comprise the star. The linear directionalities correspond to your "multi-directional wave functions" surrounding the HDCore in the diagram. The HEDSpots pattern fall between the star's outer linear directionalities and its outer most circular boundary. However, I read the randomness, as not random, but as a function of the linear directionalities, or to your "multi-directional wave functions". As such the HEDSpots around the HDcore can be predicted to also fall in a pattern that appears to be random. lol. This pattern would be a function of a dynamic radiation = v, in the equation E=hv. The h constant would be the "multi-directional wave functions". lol

The delay in time could be attributed to the 3D nature imposed on a 2D construct. The effects of radiation on waves. lol.  An additional component that is essential and must be visualized is the 3D aspects both models presented. The clustering of the "HEDSpots around the HDcore" must be a dynamic 3D representation, meaning that the model has spin and the random appearing HEDSpots fall into consolidated verifiable groupings. The difference in grouping counts could produce a barometer of the radiation v. The constant h couldnot be used as analogous to the location, top of the mountain or bottom of the mountain as offered. The difference in time delay could than be imagined as the exact same model E=hv, used in both location, viewed from two different distinct perspectives, reporting similar results with miniscule but very verifiable differences. H must remain constant, what is constant is the "multi-directional wave functions" which must equal h.

The dynamic effect of radiation on wave location causing time delay is a possibility, but the double slot wave particle experiment is essentially a 2D result for an experiment that uses E=hv, and uses v as a constant. The experiment works in a strictly controlled experiment. Vary the frequency of v and the results as to where and how the HEDSpots cluster would alter. lol

best regards
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2018 14:41:25
Hi Bogie

Can the macro draw an analogy from the micro?
Yes it can, and the micro can be seen as an analogy for the macro, as well. That technique can be instrumental in the evolution of theory. For example, in a multiple big bang landscape of the greater universe, two or more big bang arena waves might converge to produce a big crunch that is the macro counterpart to the micro HEDspot, and an expanding big bang arena wave might emerge from the collapse/bang of big crunches. That can be thought of as an analogy of how the two tiny quantum waves I have talked about here, can converge to produce a high energy density spot, and that spot could immediately expand and converge with adjacent expanding quantum waves; the macro is analogous to the micro and visa-versa.
Quote
Ein sof draws an interesting correlation to the (Yah Weh)wave particle diagram. The randomness of the HEDSpots around the HDCore is acting as the variance in quantum gravity. E=hv where v as the frequency of radiation determines the randomness of HEDSpots pattern. This differs from your topological analogy of GR local gravity, but it's premise as a pictorial image is useful in visualizing quantum effects.
I appreciate your perspective on “E=hv” that defines the “quantum of action” Planck’s constant, which is generally accepted science. However, some of the research into the quantum mechanics of black body radiation, for example, leads to concepts of sub-quanta levels of energy/action that build up to the quantum “packets” of energy that then equate to Planck’s constant, i.e., indicating a whole realm of sub-quantum action below the level of E=hv. It is in that realm that the mechanics of quantum gravity would have to be hosted.
Quote
My visualization as to the clustering effects and the randomness of the HEDSpots around the HDcore invokes a 3D image of the Tetragrammaton! lol

https://www.freeart.com/artwork/art-print/tetragrammaton-ineffable-name-of-god_fa10146712.html (https://www.freeart.com/artwork/art-print/tetragrammaton-ineffable-name-of-god_fa10146712.html)
As in your "Formation of a high density spot", the 3D tetragrammaton has a core concentration, and six separate linear directionalities that comprise the star. The linear directionalities correspond to your "multi-directional wave functions" surrounding the HDCore in the diagram. The HEDSpots pattern fall between the star's outer linear directionalities and its outer most circular boundary.
I don’t think I can get on board with you on that, lol.
Quote
However, I read the randomness, as not random, but as a function of the linear directionalities, or to your "multi-directional wave functions". As such the HEDSpots around the HDcore can be predicted to also fall in a pattern that appears to be random. lol. This pattern would be a function of a dynamic radiation = v, in the equation E=hv. The h constant would be the "multi-directional wave functions". lol
When a high energy density spot forms at the convergence of multiple wave fronts, it is surrounded by low energy density space of the parent wave fronts, and the action of the expansion of the HEDSpot is thought to be generally unrestrained back out into that space except for the time delay due to the relative high density, i.e., the expansion begins to trend to spherical until that expansion is interrupted by encountering an adjacent expanding HEDS wave (third wave as I have called them). If that is the case, then when I use the word “directional”, I am referring to the inflowing wave energy that is arriving at the point of convergence from adjacent quantum action. Therefore, “Multi-directional” might very well be restricted to some structural restraints, like lattice or matrix. It would depend on the exact type of wave particle, how many quanta are in the high density core (which governs the wave-particle’s frequency), its atomic structural components, and the local gravitational wave energy density profile of space, I would imagine.
Quote
The delay in time could be attributed to the 3D nature imposed on a 2D construct. The effects of radiation on waves. lol.
I would agree that there could be a “radiation” related effect on the mechanics that lead to the of the “spherical” trending of the wave that emerges from the convergences, but I would have a lot of difficulty imagining a meaningful 2-D construct that consisted of anything more than a geometrical slice of the 3-D action.
Quote
An additional component that is essential and must be visualized is the 3D aspects both models presented. The clustering of the "HEDSpots around the HDcore" must be a dynamic 3D representation, meaning that the model has spin and the random appearing HEDSpots fall into consolidated verifiable groupings. The difference in grouping counts could produce a barometer of the radiation v.
Very good. The orientation of the high energy density spots in the core of the wave particle could be persistent, thus assuring the persistence of the spin axis of a wave-particle that shows up in consecutive measurements.
Quote
The constant h couldnot be used as analogous to the location, top of the mountain or bottom of the mountain as offered. The difference in time delay could than be imagined as the exact same model E=hv, used in both location, viewed from two different distinct perspectives, reporting similar results with miniscule but very verifiable differences. H must remain constant, what is constant is the "multi-directional wave functions" which must equal h.
I may not fully understand the point you are making, and so please feel free to come back on it. The difference between the environment at the top of the mountain and the bottom of the mountain in the “clock” scenario is simply the strength of the gravitational force between those two locations. I am saying that there is a direct correlation between the gravitational wave energy density and the time delay. In higher density environments, the time delay is greater.
Quote
The dynamic effect of radiation on wave location causing time delay is a possibility, but the double slot wave particle experiment is essentially a 2D result for an experiment that uses E=hv, and uses v as a constant. The experiment works in a strictly controlled experiment. Vary the frequency of v and the results as to where and how the HEDSpots cluster would alter. lol
Yes, there are important controls on the nature of the light and the particulars of the apparatuses used. The key point in all of the delayed choice experiments is that a path to the detector from both slits is required, or no interference pattern can occur.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 19/10/2018 19:02:55
Hi Bogie,

I look at the double slit experiment as a parlor trick, I leave those that disagree to their own opinion. I'm not into trying to change minds. lol

On another related topic, delayed time. Quantum theory reports entangled particles as engaging instantaneously over distance, acting as a single particle in two separate locations. QT also accepts that two or more particle fields can occupy the same time space location. These two positions share the attribute of particles simutaneously sharing multiple perspectives of time space in different formats. lol. Time delay represents a perspective of slowing time or time elongation. It's a perspective where time can be stretched, just as a light particle is stretched at the speed of light, but time carries no fermion or bosonic value. So, what does Quantum theory not address? Quantum time. lol

As evident in entangled particles or particles sharing the same space/time location, a sense of time is absent. Being that time is non-existant in quantum it implies that any quantum argument used to explain time delay is invalid. Therefore,  the only cogent argument for explaining time delay falls strictly under the principles of Einstein's relativity.

Therefore, E=hv is the overriding principle and must be applied in the double slit experiments. lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 19/10/2018 21:08:22
Reply #80


Hi Bogie,

I look at the double slit experiment as a parlor trick, I leave those that disagree to their own opinion. I'm not into trying to change minds. lol

Right, right. Changing minds in the New Theories sub-forum is a futile goal. In spite of that though, I have learned a lot from participating in science forum discussions, and maybe even more by just being a guest and reading through threads. I have solved my own ignorance many times, and so though I wouldn’t call that having my mind changed, I would call it having my perspective shaped :).
Quote

On another related topic, delayed time. Quantum theory reports entangled particles as engaging instantaneously over distance, acting as a single particle in two separate locations.
If you are talking about Bell’s Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem), I think there is another explanation besides entanglement. That alternative explanation relates to the structure of particles, and if particles, in reality, are like the wave-particles discussed earlier, then they can display two states at the same time. That might have implications about the nature of the experiments that point to entanglement as the best explanation. Maybe the probabilities, expected outcomes, and the measured outcomes might have to be re-examined if the basic nature of particles turned out to favor the wave-particle structure. Bell inequalities (http://theworld.com/%7Ereinhold/bellsinequalities.html). Just something to think about, lol.
Quote

QT also accepts that two or more particle fields can occupy the same time space location. These two positions share the attribute of particles simultaneously sharing multiple perspectives of time space in different formats. lol. Time delay represents a perspective of slowing time or time elongation. It's a perspective where time can be stretched, just as a light particle is stretched at the speed of light, but time carries no fermion or bosonic value. So, what does Quantum theory not address? Quantum time. lol

That is true, what you say about Quantum Field Theory, in regard to the same particle having different effects or being affected differently by different fields. But that is only a problem if you take QFT at face value, and invoke it as a precise explanation of reality. If I thought that, then the fact that it hasn’t yielded a consensus on quantum gravity would concern me more, lol.
Quote

As evident in entangled particles or particles sharing the same space/time location, a sense of time is absent. Being that time is non-existant in quantum it implies that any quantum argument used to explain time delay is invalid. Therefore,  the only cogent argument for explaining time delay falls strictly under the principles of Einstein's relativity.

Therefore, E=hv is the overriding principle and must be applied in the double slit experiments. lol

Maybe the perspective of time passing at the quantum level is skewed when viewed from such a distance. Perhaps if we could get down and dirty into the action at the quantum level, we could sneak in a clock and measure the passing of time in different wave-energy density environments. I am betting that we would find that the rate that time passes, as measured by clocks, is variable, governed by the local wave energy density, regardless of the fact that such a finding might require some theory to be superseded, lol.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 19/10/2018 21:25:57
After rethinking quantum time, it maybe possible for quantum to have time progression. I previously posted about neutrinos being able to occupy the same S/T location. Neutrinos are the chameleons of quantum, in the post I postulated that instead of three lepton flavors of neutrinos that oscillate at three different levels, there was only a single flavor of neutrino that altered its oscillation level when another neutrino entered into its S/T location.  This sharing of the S/T field results in a higher oscillation that distinguishes it as a different type of lepton. When a third neutrino occupies  the same S/T  location as neutrino 1 & 2 , a third lepton oscillations forms. These progressing events would meet the definitions of a linear time marker.

If what i postulated was correct, quantum does have a time ingrediant. It also brings into light a mechanism for time regression, not time delay. As the neutrinos has the ability to change into any of the three varieties, it also has the ability to revert to any of its previous states. So, if the neutrino is thought of as a data form, its tranformation into a new data form and then back into its old data form can be thought of as a regregression of time. The linear time marker case can be made. The neutrino was a muon neutrino,  ...... then a tau neutrino, it is capble of reversing inself back in time from a tau .... to a muon neutrino.This capabilities to alter back into its orginal data form is time regression. The neutrino has successfully gone back in time, a real possibilty in quantum theory! lol

Do i think this can apply to time delay in a 3D Universe situation, no, but I must be open to a time element in quantum. lol

I have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 19/10/2018 21:27:40
I am aware that their are 6 flavors of leptons, any condensation is for my convenience. lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 19/10/2018 21:35:33
Bogie, I'll keep poking where i think you need to be poked. I'am sure you'll do the same. lol

regards






Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 19/10/2018 22:55:40
Back to quantum gravity, i use neutrinos because their diverse capabilities make them the easiest to use to represent examples of quantum theory. Neutrinos in a vacuum space elongate to their attribute limitation. This represents a lower quantum gravity between the density of a neutrino population within a vacuum area. As neutrinos enter dense fermion the momentum of neutrino's elongation shortens. At this time, the density of the neutrino population within an area is able to increase due to their shorten elongations. As the density in the neutrino's population increases in an area, quantum gravity is able to become effective. Quantum gravity finds its attraction force in particle oscillations. When traversing dense fermion, quantum gravity allows neutrinos to combine and in doing increase their rates of oscillation in order to open the fermion's atomic structure unimpeded without damage to the atomic structure of the fermion. In other words they are able to mimic the ionic bonding of an atom's energy structure. This is done with a 0 - 1/2 spin rate. The need for an increase in oscillations for the various neutrinos is attributed to the lengthening and shortening as they transverse different mediums.

Underground neutrino detectors capture light from neutrinos as they change oscillation rates in a medium that is not conducive to their metamorphosis! lol This change is caused by an abrupt breaking of the quantum gravity bond by the diametrically opposite mediums within the chamber. The opposing chamber mediums have different weighted structures of gas and liquid. The traversing first through a rock layer, then through a gas layer, into a liquid layer in rapid succession is able to break the neutrinos quantum gravity bonding in some instances, releasing a photonic light flash.  ::)   lol
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 20/10/2018 16:50:28
Hi Bogie,

I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment. The equations work out to a high probability, but this is were the mathematics of science sometimes goes down a rabbit hole. A statistical high probability >80%, is flawed by at least 20%. Lacking an alternative answer it is accepted as science. The problems are further compounded when a statistical high probability is used as a function in another experimental equation, an equation that itself contains a new statistical high probability as a function/algorithm in conjunction with a previous high probability from a different experiment. Scientist are sometimes too willing to accept such thinking and then expound upon it. In such cases as described above, it should be a scientist's duty to question or disprove such a theory or offer an alternative theory capable of providing an even more superior mathematical proof. lol


regards
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2018 01:23:07
Reply #86

After rethinking quantum time, it maybe possible for quantum to have time progression. I previously posted about neutrinos …

If what i postulated was correct, quantum does have a time ingrediant. It also brings into light a mechanism for time regression, not time delay.
Quote
I have not read your post bogie, i will do now and comment as time permits.
Noted. OK, it was off topic anyway, so let’s skip on down; read on …
Bogie, I'll keep poking where i think you need to be poked. I'am sure you'll do the same. lol

regards
That type of ongoing exchange would be great if it was productive, but I’m talking of steps toward a layman view of QG that you are balking at them, and progress is at a stand still, lol.
Back to quantum gravity, i use neutrinos …   
I don’t object to a neutrino approach, but that puts us on two separate paths. I will make a proposal to you below to try to go down one path.
Hi Bogie,

I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment. The equations work out to a high probability, but this is were the mathematics of science sometimes goes down a rabbit hole. A statistical high probability >80%, is flawed by at least 20%.

That response, and the mention of equations, statistics, probabilities, etc., leads me to believe that when you said, “I truly do understand your defense of the double slit experiment”, you have gotten my comments about Bell’s Theorem mixed up with my earlier discussion of the two-slit experiments. My fault for introducing too many of my pet ideas before we get things talked through.

Also, I think that your neutrino analysis, and my wave-particle analysis don’t suggest that we have a promising mutual path to ideas about the main topic.

I have a suggestion, and that is we try to agree on things one at a time in the spirit of working together, instead of poking at each other’s ideas and not being able to get past the differences. Let’s address one thing at a time, starting with the very well known two slit experiments.

It can be said that the two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics. They are still very repeatable experiments, and there is not yet a consensus explanation as to what is interfering with what, and what kind of new thinking about the structure of particles would it take to reach a consensus on a proposed explanation.

So let’s not go forward until we either agree or disagree on the one point I just mentioned: The two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics.

The ball is in your court: do you agree or disagree with the statement in bold?

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 21/10/2018 03:42:30
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 22/10/2018 00:31:08
Reply #88

So let’s not go forward until we either agree or disagree on the one point I just mentioned: The two-slit experiments are sort of a parlor trick in that they can’t be explained using the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard model of particle physics.

The ball is in your court: do you agree or disagree with the statement in bold?
I understand that no one likes to be put on the spot, and being asked to comply with rules set up by the OP isn’t going to be conducive to furthering the discussion, but I’m not known for inspiring much discussion at my best, so I’ll just move past that, lol.

Clearly, I’m making a point about the characteristics of the fundamental particles of the standard particle model. They are said to be point-like with no internal composition. “In the Standard Model, gauge bosons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson) are defined as force carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier) that mediate the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental interactions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)":
Here is the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model)
Here is a graphic:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_17_2_10_17.png)
Basically, we have quarks, leptons, and bosons.

“Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent
[2] and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model)

Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.[1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself: the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point where one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons)."

I’m taking the thread “beyond the Standard Model” to support the point that there are many “as yet” unknowns. This is a common sense thread that addresses a few of the unknowns by adding some layman level quantum thinking … And the unexplained aspects of the double-slit experiments are shouting at us for some modification to the physical nature of particles beyond the standard model.

It is impossible to explain the single particle, two slit experiments, with or without the delayed choice set ups, unless the particles are non-standard, and non-fundamental. Particles must be both wave-like and particle like, and be able to display both of those states at the same time. The wave particle that I describe fills that bill.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2018 18:22:47
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2018 18:23:28
Reply #90

But let’s not misunderstand the depth of the issue. The wave-particle is not a standalone solution for the two-slit experiments. Not only is it impossible for the fundamental particles of the standard model to explain the weirdness of the single-particle, delayed-choice, two-slit experiments, but it is just as unlikely that the wave-particle concept will mean much to you by itself.


It is a fact that no one has full knowledge of physics, classical, quantum, or otherwise, including a full grasp of all of the quantum thinking that has been accumulating for the last hundred years, within the scientific community. Some of the members of that community are up front, and say that no one understands QM as it exists now. I suggest that even if some computer somewhere had gathered all of the scientific data known to man, and even if a team of geniuses with full access to that data were to form an on-going conclave, it would still be insufficient knowledge and brain power to explain quantum gravity with what we know today. A solution to quantum gravity requires a paradigm shift.

You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. The ISU is a model of the universe that I have been expounding on since I showed up here eighteen months ago (May 2017). I am a self-proclaimed quantum thinker with no credentials to speak of, and so undertaking the task of presenting what I will portray as the new paradigm may go relatively unnoticed. That will give me the space and time it will take me to present the idea of quantum gravity as best I can, and I will eventually reach a point where I say, “There it is, what do you think?”.

At this point we are pretty deep within an obscure thread, out in a quiet section of TNS called “On the Lighter Side”, in a sub-forum named “New Theories”, and I simply plan to work alone for a while, and will not encourage your participation or comments quite yet.

Given the chance, the time, and the space, I’m going to post for you my layman solution to quantum gravity, step by step from the bottom up. When all is said and done, it may turn out that not even the most serious minded among you will get the slightest twinge of recognition of a potential new paradigm, but it is my compulsion to try to express my thinking. Feel free to falsify any and all, and I may or may not be persuaded by your arguments and objections.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2018 18:25:03
Reply #91

Reply #90

But let’s not misunderstand the depth of the issue. The wave-particle is not a standalone solution for the two-slit experiments. Not only is it impossible for the fundamental particles of the standard model to explain the weirdness of the single-particle, delayed-choice, two-slit experiments, but it is just as unlikely that the wave-particle concept will mean much to you by itself.

… You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model.
It may sound trite to say this, but the new way of thinking is that everything about the universe is internally consistent, and not only does everything work together, but every aspect of the universe depends on every other aspect in order for the invariant laws of nature to be able to orchestrate every event.

The consensus view of cosmology is dynamic and evolving, but is still referred to as Big Bang Theory, whose main pillars are General Relativity and Inflation Theory, and along side of that consensus, is the compelling accuracy (and weirdness) of quantum mechanics, with its rude reality contained in the uncertainty principle, and in the inherent randomness of events at the quantum level.

Neither the consensus cosmology, nor the current quantum thinking is being touted to be the theory out of which quantum gravity will emerge. The peer reviewed papers I have reviewed and reported on earlier in the thread call for a new paradigm. From one layman’s perspective, that is where the ISU comes in.

Earlier I said that a good place to start the mechanics of quantum gravity was with the concept of the virtual particle, and that is true. However, it is not the best point to begin if we are presenting a bottom up, step by step scenario. Therefore, I’m going to go back, haphazardly, to get to a point where the nature of the universe and the invariant natural laws can be introduced. Here is where we jump from the simple introduction of the nature of the wave-particle that has been presented above, through a mind bending flurry of reverse facts about the ISU invariant natural laws, and axioms, to take the presentation back to the point where we are talking about the definition of the word “Universe”.

The wave-particle, for example, is composed of wave energy. Wave-particles are quantized, and so they will be composed of wave energy in quantum increments. Energy is carried across space by gravitational waves and light waves. Those waves are both emitted and absorbed by particles with mass. Gravitational waves are emitted and absorbed by all particles and objects, whereas light waves are emitted only by photon wave-particles. Light waves are the out flowing gravitational wave energy of the photon wave-particles. Wave energy can be absorbed by all particles and objects under a precise set of circumstances, and it is those circumstances that cause matter to be composed of wave energy in quantum increments.

We can’t understand the nature of the wave-particle, and all of the laws that it is dependent on, without being aware of the axioms that the ISU model invokes. These axioms are considered necessarily true, in order for the descriptions of the mechanics of the ISU that are derived from them, to be true. The axioms are not self-evident, but they are not falsifiable either.

To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 23/10/2018 23:44:29
Reply #92

Let’s get the definition of “Universe” established for talking purposes.

Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

“Universe” is the logical opposite of “nothingness”.

Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.

You can see the axioms that come into play using the ISU definition of "Universe":

There is just one universe, and in the case of the ISU, it is a multiple big bang arena landscape.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_14_53.jpeg)https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_03_07_18_1_14_53.jpeg

The universe is infinite, and therefore there is no issue with what is beyond. The beyond is just more space, filled with more big bang arena landscape. Where there is landscape, there is energy in the form of waves that carry energy across space, that fill all space, and everything physical is composed wave energy.

The universe has always existed, and thus we invoke the axiom that time has always been passing and will always be passing at all points across the big bang arena landscape.

"Always existed" means there was no beginning, and thus there was no first cause.

No first cause eliminates the need for the origin of the universe, and so there is no issue of having to deal with the impossible concept of something from nothing, nor with the unscientific concept of creation.

The Invariant Natural Laws are invoked, meaning that the laws have always been in effect, and always will be, and there is no evolution of the laws of nature, no grand scale changes of state; they are now as they always have been.

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2018 00:03:01
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2018 17:08:01
Reply #94

Given that definition of “Universe” and the axioms that are invoked in such a universe, we can say that space is everywhere and is infinite. Because space is everywhere, it does not stretch or bend, but instead, when taken with what is in space, it displays a characteristic called sponginess; hence the Infinite Spongy Universe. It is an open universe, meaning that energy is free to enter and leave local systems in the landscape, within galaxies, between galaxies and galactic structure, and between big bang arenas via arena waves that are emitted by the crunch/bang collapse of big crunches.

The sponginess of space is determined by what is called the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of space, and the variable aspect of the density of space locally is governed by its local wave energy density.
According to the definition of “universe”, space includes matter and energy (and that’s everything, lol). In the ISU, we go on to say that matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, because the process of quantization occurs as matter, composed of wave-particles, absorbs and radiates wave energy.

Matter absorbs wave energy from space at only specific frequencies, depending on the frequencies of the wave-particle make-up of the matter, and radiates energy only at given frequencies into surrounding space, also depending on wave-particle emission frequencies of the wave-particles that make up the object. Both radiation and absorption maintain, and determine changes to, the local wave energy density profile of space. Gravitational wave energy is coming and going in all directions, at all points, and at all times in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

One important characteristic of the ISU model should be emphasized along with the discussion of wave energy emission and absorption, and that is the distinction between the gravitational wave emissions (Quantum Gravity radiation) and electromagnetic radiation (EM or light radiation). In the ISU, all matter emits gravitational wave energy (QG), and the gravitational wave energy emitted by the photon wave-particle is not just gravitational wave energy, but is also light wave energy.

The photon wave-particle always has the forward velocity of the local speed of light. Because the photon travels forward at the local speed of light, and keeping in mind that the wave fronts of the light are emitted spherically, the light emission in the forward direction turns out to be an expanding, flattening, curved plane wave front. (It is those flattened curved plane wave fronts of light wave energy that go through both slits in the two slit experiments, while the photon wave-particle's dense core can only go through one or the other, or neither of the slits :) . Here is a hand drawn image to depict the idea of the expanding, flattening, curved plane wave front of a photon wave-particle: (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_29_48.jpeg)https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_29_48.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_29_48.jpeg)



To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 24/10/2018 17:11:18
To be continued …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2018 22:19:48
Reply #96


I'm getting ready to post an update to the definition of "space" previously posted in reply #42, to incorporate characteristics of the ISU model into the definition.

You should go back and read the posts from around reply #88, where I stated I am taking the thread beyond the standard model. I have introduced an alternative model called the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model; it is a layman level alternative to the consensus Big Bang/Inflation model of cosmology. I also mentioned that my focus would be on the ISU version of quantum gravity until I have presented it for consideration, so take that into consideration as the thread moves forward in that direction.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 28/10/2018 22:27:58
Bogie,

I will respect your wishes and allow you to work on by yourself.

regards
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2018 22:35:52
Reply #98

Bogie,

I will respect your wishes and allow you to work on by yourself.
I was rude, for sure, and am still interested in your views. You should feel free to add content on your quantum thinking in regard to a neutrino based QG, and I will read with interest, as I continue on my QG path at the same time.



At this point we must update the definition of space from how it was described in reply #42, so that it reflects the quantum thinking of the ISU model of cosmology.

The updated definition of space in the ISU refers to space as “the medium of space”. This is the place to point out that the three physical dimensions of space are filled with wave energy that takes various forms and occurs at various wave energy densities. The following definition of the medium of space will elaborate on this complex concept.


The Medium of Space (MoS): The potentially infinite extension of the observable three-dimensional region that appears in all directions in our Hubble view, including interstellar space (ISM) and intergalactic space (IGM). In addition, the medium of space includes the as yet unobserved but predicted space (predicted at least by the ISU model), referred to as inter-arena medium (IAM). Inter-arena space is the very low density space that fills the corridors of continuity, i.e., the space between all of the active big bang arenas that make up the arena landscape of the greater universe.

To be followed by a few particulars about the Medium of Space (MoS)…
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/10/2018 17:13:48

Reply #99
A few particulars about the Medium of Space (MoS):



1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium (http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium) The Interstellar Medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy, which includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space.


2) https://www.universetoday.com/30280/intergalactic-space/ (https://www.universetoday.com/30280/intergalactic-space/)
Intergalactic space (IGM) fills in between the galaxies, and hosts the galaxies and galactic structure, and all forms of wave energy that are characteristic of mature big bang arenas.


3) According to the ISU model of cosmology, there is also the space that exists between the big bang arenas, the inter-arena medium (IAM) that hosts the infinite landscape of the greater universe.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_07_10_18_1_21_17.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_07_10_18_1_21_17.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_07_10_18_1_21_17.jpeg)

4) The energy that occupies the medium of space includes wave energy in the form of both electromagnetic radiation and gravitational radiation. Matter and wave-energy produce magnetic fields and turbulent motions, and along with gravitational and electromagnetic radiation, various energy density differentials build up locally. Within big bang arenas, where those density differentials build up, there also exists a force recognized in the ISU as the force of energy density equalization, that acts to equalize local densities within galaxies and across intergalactic space.


5) On a grand scale, it is the force of energy density equalization that accounts for the rapid expansion of the hot dense balls of energy that emerge from the collapse/bang of big crunches.


6) Each big bang is the result of the intersection and overlap of two or more “parent” arenas that converge to produce a big crunch out of their combined galactic material, and each crunch in turn collapse/bangs into and expanding big bang arena. The collapse/bang initiates a series of events similar to all big bang arenas, from initial expansion at near the speed of light, to a period of the decay of the hot dense ball of energy into the formation of a series of exotic particles, that themselves decay into the more stable particles that we are familiar with the observable portion of our expanding big bang arena.


7) Also included in the term “medium of space” is the cosmic microwave background energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)
“The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation constitutes a major development in modern physical cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology). The cosmic background radiation (CMB) was measured by Andrew McKellar in 1941 at an effective temperature of 2.3 K using CN stellar absorption lines observed by W. S. Adams.[1] Theoretical work around 1950[2] showed that the need for a CMB for consistency with the simplest relativistic universe models. In 1964, US radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson rediscovered the CMB, estimating its temperature as 3.5 K, as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna. The new measurements were accepted as important evidence for a hot early Universe (big bang theory) … In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint measurement.”


8 ) Voyager 1 reached the ISM on August 25, 2012, making it the first artificial object from Earth to do so. Interstellar plasma and dust will be studied until the mission's end in 2025.”


9) Though the presence of the CMB is suggested as evidence against the rival steady state theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory), that steady state universe is nothing like the ISU. The Wiki describing that erroneous steady state model says that “in cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of our universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter …”. That Wiki goes on to say that, “While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century (though less popularity than the Big Bang theory), it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady state model does not predict.


10) The Wiki reference to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe brings us to one of the main differences between the ISU model of cosmology and the standard version of Big Bang Theory with Inflation. That main difference is that the ISU is infinite in space and time while BBT is finite in space and time. Further, in the ISU, the infinite landscape of the greater universe is composed of a potentially infinite number of active on-going big bang arenas, while BBT predicts that there is just one big bang event.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_06_08_17_6_06_27.jpeg)

11) In the ISU model, gravitational wave energy is radiated by all matter, i.e., all particles and objects with mass. It is radiated as Einstein predicted; the first observation of gravitational waves were detected in 2015 By LIGO, and later by the European Space Agency’s interferometer. Gravitational wave energy, as noted above, is included as a major component of the Medium of Space (ISM, IGM, and IAM).


12) In today’s version of cosmology, gravitational wave energy is the most under recognized component of the medium of space due to the general acceptance of the standard cosmological model, BBT, and its explanation of gravity as the curvature of spacetime, which is predicted by Einstein. The curvature of spacetime is theorized as an effect of the presence of matter, as quantified by Einstein’s Field Equations (EFE). In General Relativity (GR), spacetime has come to be associated with the curvature of spacetime, as poetically expressed by the statement,
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matter-tells-matter-how-to-move.242061/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matter-tells-matter-how-to-move.242061/)
“Matter tells Spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move” in the spacetime model of Big Bang Theory (BBT).


13) In the ISU model, the alternative to curved spacetime of GR is contained in the complex nature of the medium of space (MoS). It is hypothesized that all particles are quantized wave-particles that are composed of two components, inflowing and out flowing of gravitational wave energy. The inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy that maintains the presence of wave-particles according to the ISU model, is the result of a continual exchange of wave energy between wave-particles and the ever present and changing gravitational wave energy density profile of space.


14) It is that gravitational wave energy density profile of space in the ISU model that equates to and replaces the GR model’s curvature of spacetime. Much like the curvature of spacetime governs the velocity of light and objects (matter) via geodesics, the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in the ISU model, governs the velocity of objects through the MoS due to the fact that the velocity of light and gravity through space varies in direct relationship to the wave energy density of the local space.


15) The lengthy description of the medium of space isn’t complete though, until the means of wave propagation through space is included. Any given volume of space contains wave energy in the form of wave fronts that intersect as they traverse space.The mechanics of wave propagation deals with wave front convergences in a method that is reminiscent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens)
Christiaan Huygens and especially the Huygens' wavelets and the Huygens-Fresnel principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle). Huygens theorized that each point on a propagating wave front could be characterized as a new spherical wave. He called them secondary spherical “wavelets”, which are quite like the “third waves” in the ISU model. Every point along the surface of a wave front that intersects with the surface of another wave front acts like a tiny pinhole, and a spherical wave emerges from each such pinhole.


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_21_10_17_4_48_15.jpeg)


16) There is however, limiting factor that keeps everything that happens in space from happening at the same time, lol. That limiting factor is that the pinhole action associated with the advance of gravitational and light energy wave fronts is not instantaneous because when wave fronts intersect, there is that momentary time delay that occurs because the wave fronts have encountered an increase in the local wave energy density at the point of intersection.


17) The time delay constrains the lower limit of the volume of space that is required for each pinhole event to occur. The fact that there is a minimum volume of space required for each pinhole event has significant implications on the speed of light and gravity waves through space. The main implication is that the velocity of light and gravity waves through space is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the local space.


18) Each pinhole event in the propagation of a gravitational wave front or a light wave front produces a third wave that emerges out of the space where the wave front convergence occurred. At that point of convergence, a peak of energy formed to initiate the pinhole event. At the foundational level, all of those tiny pinhole waves are referred to as the oscillating wave energy background that fills all space at the tiniest scale. Here is an artists depiction of the foundation oscillating wave-energy background that fills all space:


https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)





So you see, “Space” is quite complex when you define it in accord with the ISU definition of “Universe”.


To be continued …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2018 15:47:40
Save this space for post #100
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 31/10/2018 15:48:26
Reply #101

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg556833#msg556833 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg556833#msg556833)
I am saying that the time delay is an important point that accounts for why the converging waves don’t just as quickly pass through that space; there is a slight but meaningful “time delay” due to the elevated wave energy density at and around the location of each high energy density spot, and the effect of an elevated gravitational wave energy density is a time delay in the rate of the advance of wave energy through the medium of space. Waves travel at different velocities through space, relative to the local wave energy density of that space.
“The “time delay” is important to understand. Don’t go forward from here without understanding it!

The “spots” I am talking about are in regard to the wave-particle concept that came up when talking about the ISU solution to the “mystery” of the two-slit experiments referred to in reply #46, and the video link we provided: See reply #46 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg555097#msg555097 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg555097#msg555097)

The wave-particle nature of all particles in the ISU explains the two-slit experiment mystery by describing particles as both wave and particle at the same time. That wave-particle duality allows the wave portion to go through both slits as per the image posted in reply #94: See reply #94 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557438#msg557438 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557438#msg557438)
, while the dense particle core portion can only go through one slit.

The spots, if you recall from the earlier discussion, look like this artist’s conception of a single high energy density spot:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)

… but now that the direction of this thread is expanded to encompass the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model of cosmology as the new paradigm, and in which there is a detailed layman level explanation of a solution to Quantum Gravity, we are going back to the very basics of that model, step-by-step, which started with the definition of “Universe” in reply #92 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557393#msg557393 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=74634.msg557393#msg557393))


We will be repeating much of the content and images presented prior to reply #88 so that a reader can pick up there to see this entire attempt to explain the Universe (I’m saying lol, realizing how optimistic that is, LOL).


High energy density spots like the ones that make up the mass of each individual wave-particle come about within the particle space when billions of tiny oscillating background waves act to advance the wave fronts of the more significant quantum waves. What I refer to as quantum waves are the waves emitted by those high energy density spots within the high density core of the wave particle. There are many high density spots producing third waves within the space of a single quantum spot, and many quanta within the complex standing wave pattern of an individual wave-particle.


In a companion thread called “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events?” I posted some numbers, I called a wild “arse” guess as to the number of quanta in a proton and an electron, and so let’s go back to that post …

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg519153#msg519153)

… to help express the depth of “tininess” that the concept of a wave, and wave front can go before reaching the limit of “tiny” that I referred to in bullet point 18 in reply #98:

18) Each pinhole event in the propagation of a gravitational wave front or a light wave front produces a third wave that emerges out of the space where the wave front convergence occurred. At that point of convergence, a peak of energy formed to initiate the pinhole event. At the foundational level, all of those tiny pinhole waves are referred to as the oscillating wave energy background that fills all space at the tiniest scale. Here is an artists depiction of the foundational oscillating wave-energy background that fills all space:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_23_10_18_1_46_45.jpeg)

To be continued …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2018 15:52:09
Reply #102

Being sure any readers have enough detail to understand “time delay” before we move on: If you understand that the Medium of Space is filled with wave fronts carrying energy through space, and that every point in space is being traversed by many wave fronts of different energies, different sizes, going to and from all directions, at the same time, then you understand the wave nature of the gravitational wave energy density profile of all space. “All space” includes the space occupied by particles and objects, as well as the space between particles and objects.

Clearly, the wave energy density in the space between particles and objects is less dense, in terms of the number of wave fronts per volume of space, than the wave energy density of the space within particles and objects, just like the density of interstellar space is less dense than intergalactic space, and the inter-arena space is less dense than intergalactic space, etc. So the “particle space” (aka intra-particle space) is much more dense in terms of the number of wave fronts than the inter-particle space.

How does that cause a time delay in the rate that wave fronts traverse intra-particle space vs. inter-particle space? The answer to that question takes us to the concept of “wave front convergences”.

Wave front convergence: When two or more wave fronts intersect, each carrying energy in a particular direction as the fronts advance through the medium of space, the smooth advance of all of the involved wave fronts are interrupted, and the interruptions cause a “disturbance” in the local medium of space.

The disturbances are familiar to this discussion about the nature of quantum gravity because when we talked about quantum gravity being associated with virtual particles in reply #72 we said …

Quote from: earlier post
Then, in regard to quantum gravity, we are saying that the individual quanta within the high energy density core of the wave particles are composed of the convergences of multiple gravitational waves from various directions that are disturbances in the medium of space, associated with the presence of a wave particle, and at the same time, those convergences have a striking similarity to the way we have described virtual particles:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_22_09_18_7_30_05.jpeg)

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg)

Hmm, … maybe it takes a little imagination to see the similarity, lol.



… we were also talking in terms of “disturbed space”; virtual particles are depicted as disturbances in space caused by the interaction (close proximity) of real particles passing each other in space.

The cause of that disturbance is now explained in the ISU model as being the effect that converging wave fronts have on each other. Forget about the idea of a smooth wave front advancing through calm space. All wave fronts are advancing through the medium of space as a result of “third wave” action; “third waves” are the result of the spherical disbursal of the peaks of wave energy that form at the point where two or more wave fronts, each carrying their own increment of wave energy, intersect in space, i.e., third waves are the result of turbulence caused by the interruption of what might other wise be misconstrued as smooth motion through space.

Therefore all wave fronts are continually being interrupted, disturbing the space right down to the oscillations in the foundational background. Hence, converging wave fronts cause a disturbance in the otherwise smooth operation of individual wave front advance through the oscillations; all advancing wave fronts are continually interrupted, and therefore all space is disturbed space.

You should be picturing the oscillating background a little differently now. Up to now, I have been depicting it as that nice set of tiny intersecting and overlapping circles making up the “otherwise waveless” patch of the oscillating background. Now I would picture it with more disturbance and turbulence:(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_54_25.jpeg)

The oscillating background itself is full of wave front disturbances. The level of disturbance affects the rate that each individual wave front will advance, relative to any mythical concept of a turbulence-free wave background. The level of the turbulence of wave front convergences in the local space causes the rate that wave fronts advance through that space to be variable. When the turbulence increases, as it does when the wave energy density of the local space increases, it causes the slowing of wave front advance through that local space.

Wave front convergences and the disturbance they cause in the local space is the cause of the time delay in the rate that wave fronts advance through the medium of space in the ISU model.


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 01/11/2018 15:52:32
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 04/11/2018 19:06:10
Reply #104 (revised)


This post is important because the variable rate that wave-particles function in different energy density environments, and correspondingly, the variable rate that clocks measure the passing of time in different energy density environments has implications about the rate that quantum gravity functions in those different environments.

That rate that quantum gravity functions (the strength of QG) is governed by the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of the local environment. As objects move from one G-wave environment to another, the changing environment affects the force of quantum gravity in that environment. A trite example is that you can jump higher on the moon, because the force of gravity is lower on the moon, but the cause of the difference in the strength of quantum gravity on the Moon vs on Earth (higher G-wave at the surface of the earth than on the moon) is explained by the mechanics of the quantum gravity solution of the ISU model.
So why make such a big deal about the concept of “time delay” in the ISU model?

Here is why …

Time delay is a variable, and the variance is dependent on the local gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of space. That local g-wed includes both the wave energy density of the local medium of space, and the matter density of the objects composed of wave-particles that occupy that space.

As a result, the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of the local space is the “exchange agent”. The ever-changing G-wave profile is continually being refreshed by receiving the out flowing gravitational wave energy component from the wave-particles, and at the same time, the local profile of space is supplying the inflowing gravitational wave energy component to those same wave-particles in order to maintain their mass.

The variables that change the local G-wave value are the same variables that affect the local time delay, i.e., the presence and relative motion of wave-particles and objects through the ever-changing local profile of space accounts directly for the number of local wave convergences occurring in that space, and as the number of local wave convergences changes, there is a series of related effects.

That sequence of related effects highlights why I make such a big deal about understanding the nature and cause of time delay in the ISU. It is like this: The number of wave convergences that are responsible for changes in time delay relate to the change in the rate that wave particles function, which relates the differing clock rates, which all are associated with the local strength of the force of quantum gravity.


But importantly, because that sequence includes the clock effect, we have observable evidence that can easily be explained by the process of quantum action. It is the ISU process called “quantum action” that orchestrates the sequence of related g-wed effects. The rate that clocks measure the passing of time in different g-wed environments is factual, and supports the ISU explanation that the process of quantum gravity ties all of those causes and effects together.


To be continued …
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/11/2018 16:22:18
Reply #105


So let’s get into the observable evidence. There are two particular observations that support the premise that different energy density profiles cause clocks to measure the passing of time at different rates. We are talking about the difference in the rates that clocks in different energy density environments measure the passing of time under different gravitational/acceleration conditions:

1) A clock at the top of a mountain will run slower than an identical clock placed at sea level.

2) A clock accelerated on board a rocket ship (or even an airplane) will run slower, relative to an unaccelerated clock left behind (at rest).

The explanation for the observed variable rates that those clocks measure the passing of time is based on the difference in the number of gravitational wave convergences encountered by the wave-particles in the space involved, i.e., the density of wave front convergences occurring in the local space, as well as within the wave-particles making up the objects in that space, including the clocks.

In both cases cited above, there is a significant difference in the density (number) of the converging wave fronts in the medium of space involved, and thus in the gravitational wave energy density profile of that local space. Correspondingly, in both cases, there is a remarkable different in the wave energy density within the wave-particles that make up the objects, including the clocks. Let me describe the differences:


1) It isn’t the altitude above sea level that causes there to be a difference in the rate that clocks on a mountain top measure the passing of time, relative to clocks at sea level. It is the difference in the accumulated matter density of the substances in the space between the mountain top and the center of the Earth’s gravity, vs the accumulated matter density of the substances in the space between the sea level clock and the center of Earth. The gravitational wave out flow is more wave intensive at the top of the mountain.

Gravitational waves passing through the matter in rocks and earth will advance more slowly, i.e., objects composed of rocks and earth are composed of wave-particles that are more wave-energy dense than the wave-particles encountered in air (go figure, lol). The explanation for that phenomena is all about the particular contained energy density of the individual wave-particles that make up substances like rocks and earth, vs the density of wave particles that make up air.

The slower rate that the clock on the mountain top measures the passing of time is caused by the greater wave density of the out flowing waves from the high density substances like rocks and earth, over a greater distance up through to the top of mountain, vs. the density of the out flowing waves reaching the sea level clock. The effect of the density of the intervening substances is accumulative, and so the high density out flow reaching the mountain top clock creates more wave convergences in the wave-particles that make up the mountain top clock, and so the wave-particles in the clock function slower, and therefore the clock functions slower, causing less time to appear to be passing than on the sea level clock. Thus, taking the liberty to mix analogies, if there was a twin on the mountain top, that twin would appear to be aging slower, and will appear younger than the twin lingering at sea level twin.

2) And now the twins analogy. A clock accelerated on board a rocket ship (or even an airplane) will measure the passing of time at a slower rate than an identical clock that has remained at rest back at the spaceport. It is the difference in the relative acceleration profile of the two clocks that causes the observed difference in the time measurement rate of the two identical clocks.

It is an observed fact that the rate that clocks measure the passing of time varies, not only relative to changes in the local force of gravity as in the mountain top example, but also relative to changes in the rate that they are physically accelerated relative to an identical clock “at rest” as in the rocket ship example where the rest clocks stays put.

The explanation for the observed effects in the rocket ship example is due to the fact that the gravitational wave energy density (G-wave) profile of the space through which a clock on the rocket ship is being accelerated changes relative to the space where the rest clock quietly sits. Motion in any direction from the rest position changes the wave energy density of the waves encountered in that direction by the moving clock, or twin.

Remember, in the ISU, at any point in the profile of space there are gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, at all times, at the local speed of light. Directional motion therefore has an effect on the number of individual tiny wave convergences that will be encountered in that specific direction, relative to the number of wave convergences encountered when at rest relative to the local profile, because the moving object is moving into the on-coming waves and thus encounters more waves, and is moving away (at least to some extent) from waves from other directions. Keep that directional acceleration up long enough, and there will be a remarkable slowing in rate of time measured to have passed on the accelerated clock; more time will be shown to have passed on the rest clock than on the accelerated clock. That is the explanation for why the traveling twin ages slower than the stay at home twin in the “twins” thought experiment.

To put the “twins” experiment in terms of the contained energy density of the wave-particles involved, like we did in the mountain top example, we will have to consider the amount of time delay that is in play within the wave-particles that make up the composition of the two clocks. At the point of measurement on board the rocket ship, the accelerated clock reflects a directional increase in the presence of high energy density spots within the core of the wave-particles in motion because acceleration means there will be more on-coming wave convergences in that direction than there will be in the wave-particles that make up the composition of the clock at rest. More high energy density spots in the wave particles of the clock in motion causes a greater time delay measured by the clock, and also by the twin on the rocket ship. That clock and that twin will experience a greater time delay due to the slower rate that an accelerated object (clock or twin) measures the passing of time, relative to the rest clock, and that greater time delay converts to a slower rate that time is measured to be passing, and a slower rate of aging of the accelerated twin.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 06/11/2018 16:22:46
To be continued ...
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2018 04:01:50
Reply #107

So now, since we understand the concepts of time delay, and the effect that acceleration (relative motion) has on mass, we also understand that wave-particles contain energy based on the number of quanta (high energy density spots) contained in their core.

We understand that generally, when relative motion exists between two wave-particles or objects, relative acceleration exists between them as well. However, take note that one of the objects can be at rest relative to the G-wave profile of space while the other has relative motion to that rest position, for talking purposes.


Such a rest position, relative to the G-wave profile, can exist in the ISU, given the definition of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, i.e., when the inflowing G-wave density at a position in the medium of space is equal in all directions, that can be referred to literally as a rest position in space, akin to a
https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html (https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html)
Lagrange point, but in deepest space, which we call the inter-arena corridors.

If two objects sit together at such a rest position in deepest space in the ISU model, and then one gets accelerated by any means, technically we can determine which of those two objects remains at rest and which is accelerated by measuring the frequency of inflowing gravitational wave energy component in all direction. If the object is at rest, the inflow will be equal from all directions, and if the object is accelerated relative to the rest position, there will be a net directional imbalance in the frequency of the inflowing gravitational waves.

We mention the scenario of “one at rest and one in motion” as a round about way to get to the point of addressing the fact that any acceleration causes more wave convergences to occur within the core arrangement of quanta in the wave-particle, and the net addition of quanta occurs in the forward direction of the physical layout of quanta in the core because of the increase in G-wave frequency from that direction in the G-wave profile of space.


Images

The following image was used earlier to depict the wave/particle duality which which is incorporate in all particles in the ISU model, and that structure solves the “mystery” and “weirdness” of the quantum effects where single particle, two slit, delayed choice set up produce interference patterns on the detector screens when ever there is any path to the detector from both slits.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_1_52_40.jpeg)

Let’s go to the next image which simply adds a depiction of some inflowing gravitational waves coming from all directions to replace the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the wave particle at rest:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg)

If you notice, in that image there are many wave intersections surrounding the wave-particle structure, and the occurrence of wave convergences are equally distributed around the high density core of the wave particle, further indication that this is a depiction of a wave-particle are rest in the G-wave profile of space.



In the following image there is a clear imbalance in the directional inflowing wave energy, indicating a massive source of out flowing gravitational wave energy in that direction. The light spots represent meaningful wave convergences that are forming predominantly in the direction of the distant massive source of wave energy:



https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg)





This is where we address the affect that acceleration has on the number of quanta that occupy the high density core of the wave-particle in motion. Note the following image depicts a wave-particle that is being accelerated, and that during acceleration, there is a resulting higher number of high energy density spots (quanta) in the advance position in the arrangement of quanta in the core. Because the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy is more than sufficient to replace the number of quanta that leave the core in the form of the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component of the wave-particle, the result is a net gain in the number of quanta, and that represents an increase in the mass of the wave-particle as it accelerates:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg)

The location of the wave-particle in the G-wave profile is always being refreshed as a result of the net inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. The resulting shift of quanta is always in the direction the net highest source of inflowing gravitational wave energy, and so with each instance of a forward rearrangement of the quanta making up the high density core of the wave-particle, the position of the wave-particle changes in that direction in the G-wave profile . That change in position is the result of quantum gravity in the ISU model of cosmology.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 12/11/2018 20:59:26
Reply #108

… You may know that the wave-particle concept of matter comes out of a new way of thinking about the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. The ISU is a model of the universe that I have been expounding on since I showed up here eighteen months ago (May 2017). I am a self-proclaimed quantum thinker with no credentials to speak of, and so undertaking the task of presenting what I will portray as the new paradigm may go relatively unnoticed. That will give me the space and time it will take me to present the idea of quantum gravity as best I can, and I will eventually reach a point where I say, “There it is, what do you think?”.
I have reached the point in the thread where I have described what I portray as a layman level model of the universe that I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model. The reading I have done, and discussed here, about what is being said about quantum gravity points to the need for a new paradigm, and the ISU model is a version of what a new paradigm might look like in the raw. It is not being presented as a scientific model; that is left for the professionals to do.

However, while we wait, the solution to quantum gravity that I describe here will contain enough interesting ideas to be worth reading about by fellow TheNakedScientist members.

If you want to tackle it, I suggest you save some time and start from reply #88 through reply #107, and see what you think. I would be happy to defend it from a layman science enthusiast standpoint, so comment, criticize, and question it freely.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: guest46746 on 12/11/2018 23:03:13
Light passing through an obstatcle produces a diffraction, a Wave,  eg a spectum, a slit. As a photon enters into a slit it may or may not diffract. If the the photon diffracts, it creates an interference pattern. If a another photon follows directly after the diffracting photon and doesnot diffract, and instead immerses itself into the wave interference pattern of the preceeding photon while maintaining zero disturbance, it will registers itself on the screen as an intact photon traveling in a dispersed photon's diffraction pattern. The double slit in this experiment is not a valid blind. A single slit will also create an interference pattern, although not as intense as a double slit pattern. The double slit's produces a more intense pattern with additional interference fringes, but the fact remains that both register photon hits in an interference pattern over time

Why would one photon diffract and another would not passing through the same slit? Ask David Cooper about two particles sharing light information between themselves and it's effect on their acceleration. La Repteux also has an interesting theory on the particles having a push pull relationship particle in regards to mutual acceleration. Maybe they're both right! lol

My apologies. I do admire your conscientious work. 

Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/11/2018 05:56:46
Light passing through an obstatcle produces a diffraction, a Wave,  eg a spectum, a slit.
Agreed, there are various effects produced, depending on the obstacle, and if the we are observing the wave state, the particle state, or the combination of both. The wave state has the ability to go through both slits, while the particle state can only go through just one slit, but it may go through neither slit if it is fully stopped by hitting the obstacle.

The ISU model’s wave-particle can display both states, and that is why it can explain interference patterns on the screen in the single particle/double slit set up. The broadened, flattened, curved plane wave, i.e., the wave state, goes through both slits, and it interferes with itself causing a disturbance in the space between the slits and the screen.

——————————————————————————————————————

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_11_18_3_08_29.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_11_18_3_08_29.jpeg)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_11_18_3_08_29.jpeg)
Image note: This drawing could be better, but the idea is that the wave portion of the photon wave-particle (the wave fronts) go through both slits, and interfer with each other between the slits and the detector screen creating preferred paths (convergence of the valleys of wave energy density) that the particle portion follows. The particle portions strike the detector screen and the interference between the slits and the screen is revealed by the image that accumulates on the screen after multiple single wave-particles are sent through the apparatus.


————————————————————————————————————-

However, the wave-particle structure of the photon creates two possible scenarios with different circumstances: 1) the wave portion goes through both slits, and the dense core portion goes through only one, producing a “hit” on the detector screen. 2) the wave portion goes through both slits and the dense core goes through neither slit, and no “hit” is recorded on the detector screen.



Given those two circumstances, when the core does not go through either slit, i.e., case 2, there is no “hit” registered on the screen. There logically is still disturbed space occurring between the slits and the screen caused by the wave portion that went through both slits and interfered with itself. We just don’t detect the disturbance because there was no successful core portion pass-through, and no “hit” on the detector screen.

However, case 1 represents the case where the flattened/broadened wave front potion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, while the dense core portion goes trough one or the other slit, registering a hit on the detector screen.
Quote

As a photon enters into a slit it may or may not diffract.
True.
Quote
If the the photon diffracts, it creates an interference pattern.
Yes, but let’s clarify that I am detailing the single particle/two slit set up, where only one particle is sent through the apparatus at a time. The “mystery” has always been about how the interference patten can form when particles are sent through one at a time, because in experiments where one slit is closed off, no interference pattern builds up, even after many particles are sent through.

I’m proposing that the ISU wave-particle structure explains the mystery because the wave portion of the wave-particle goes through both slits, interferes with itself causing a disturbance pattern between the slits, and that disturbance pattern causes the wave-particle’s dense core portion to get diffracted into an interference pattern when it is registered as a “hit” on the detector screen.

So getting back to your statement about the cases where the photon diffracts, it may be diffracted by partially hitting the edge of the slit, in which case it still finds its way through the slit and hits the screen. In those cases the hit on the screen isn’t in a direct line from the slit because of the “edge” diffraction. It is that diffraction that causes the fringes on the edge of the pattern on the screen.

There would also be cases where the photon doesn’t hit the edge of the slit, but instead passes through without being diffracted by the edge of the slit.

In those cases, the disturbance caused between the slits and the detector screen as the wave portion interferes with itself, also interferes with the path of the core portion, and keeps it from going straight through to the detector screen. In that case it is the disturbance between the slits and the screen that causes the core “hit” on the screen to be diffracted.
Quote
If a another photon follows directly after the diffracting photon and doesnot diffract, and instead immerses itself into the wave interference pattern of the preceeding photon while maintaining zero disturbance, it will registers itself on the screen as an intact photon traveling in a dispersed photon's diffraction pattern. The double slit in this experiment is not a valid blind. A single slit will also create an interference pattern, although not as intense as a double slit pattern. The double slit's produces a more intense pattern with additional interference fringes, but the fact remains that both register photon hits in an interference pattern over time.


Why would one photon diffract and another would not passing through the same slit? Ask David Cooper about two particles sharing light information between themselves and it's effect on their acceleration. La Repteux also has an interesting theory on the particles having a push pull relationship particle in regards to mutual acceleration. Maybe they're both right! lol.
Either that or the ISU wave-particle structure is sufficient to explain the observations.
Quote

My apologies. I do admire your conscientious work.
You are kind to say so. 
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/11/2018 19:10:39
It has been an experience in quantum thinking to get this close to a reasonable point in describing the main mechanics involved in the ISU solution to quantum gravity. After a couple of days of being here at this point though, I miss the mental activity of being in the “quantum thinking” mode, and working on expanding the ISU/QG scenarios.

No problem though, because quantum thinking never ends for me, it just builds on itself, with the two-steps forward, one step back experience that you are familiar with if you have ever climbed a sand-dune or trudged through a rising snow drift, lol.

I’ll feel better if I add some thinking here that will clarify some concepts included in the thread, and then next time I update the ISU model, and/or its proposed solution to quantum gravity, these details will be in the baseline, and hopefully new and clearer words will be put together at that time.

The one quantum thought important to quantum gravity that could stand to be emphasized and elaborated on to start with is this:

There are no solid objects in the ISU, meaning that nothing has infinite density. Even in the tiniest increment of matter, there are no little hard pieces that are solid through and through. The tiniest bit of matter, the smallest increment of mass that we call a high energy density spot in the nomenclature of the ISU model, is composed of the convergence of a huge number of tiny gravitational wave fronts. A wave front carries energy through space, and its presence is indicated by a differential in the energy density in front of and behind the advancing wave front, but there is nothing solid in a physical sense to a tiny individual wave front at the foundational level referred to as the oscillating wave energy background of space. Those wave fronts are not individually substantial features in regard to the presence of the mass that is composed of them because they don’t qualify as “massive” in the ISU model until the convergence that is composed of them reaches the status of a standing wave pattern whose presence is maintained within the gravitational wave energy density profile of space by an interplay of the two components of mass, synchronized inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave fronts that give the particular convergence the status of a high energy density spot, which means that their density will slow down the pass-through gravitational wave fronts long enough, i.e., with a sufficient “time delay” associated with it to allow for the directional inflow from the profile of space to supply replacement wave energy equal to the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component during the time delay interval that is characteristic of the standing wave pattern that represents a qualified quantum of energy, i.e., to establish a high energy density spot that adds to the mass of a particle or object.

Image: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_2_22_44.jpeg)


This is an image of a space that contains a huge number of converging gravitational wave fronts in which exists a hypothetical wave-particle, a standing wave pattern with four quanta, moving through the profile of space in the direction of the red arrow, as a result of the net highest directional inflow of gravitational wave energy from the direction of the yellow arrow; quantum gravity in action. This particular wave-particle may itself even have a history of having been established as a result of the natural laws of physics that relate to the decay of more massive exotic particles that reach stability during the natural decay process of the massive hot dense ball of energy that emerges from the collapse/bang of a big crunch; keep in mind that the formation of big crunches out the convergences of multiple expanding big bang arena waves are common place events across the infinite and eternal big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

I purposefully wrote that without taking a breath, so if anyone wants to contemplate that audacious “chunk” of text, or wonder enough to judge it, feel free to intervene, but I feel better having just written it, lol. I’ll come back and break it down into more acceptable word bites later, and maybe go back and fold it into the thread in a way that no one will remember it in this form.


Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 18/11/2018 17:02:16
Another quantum thought, worthy of special mention in regard to the ISU model, and the solution to quantum gravity described in this thread (and that I may take the time to fold into the earlier posts to make it more detailed and complete), is this:

Wave-Particles and objects composed of wave-particles are quantized in the ISU, meaning that the amount of wave energy in a single quantum is dependent on the various meaningful levels of gravitational wave energy density referred to in the model, like 1) referring back to images - the foundational oscillating background at the lowest level of gravitational wave energy where each convergence produces a tiny quantized Huygens wavelet or third wave, 2) image - high density spot, like the high energy density gravitational wave energy convergences that represent the quantum increments that wave-particles are composed of, and 3) image - big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, like the big crunches that reach critical capacity and collapse/bang into hot dense balls of wave energy that expand, cool, and decay into the more stable (less exotic) wave-particles that we know to exist and that make up everything in the presently expanded state our observable big bang arena (the observable known universe).

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_25_07_17_11_46_46.jpeg)

Are there greater and lessor levels of order where quanta of greater or lessor increments of energy come into play? Not necessarily, according to the ISU model, which directly addresses just those three levels. But then, who is to say that there aren’t levels of order made up of multiple big bang arenas that naturally clump together into some quantum increment at a much more massive level than the big crunch/big bang level (maybe a SuperCrunch/SuperBang level), or at the lower energy end, maybe micro-density level spots that organize into quantum increments at even tinier level of order, and that in turn make up the high energy density spots that wave-particles are composed of (maybe a quantum mini-spot that occurs in the quantum action process preceding the formation of the meaningful high energy density spots).

I say those added levels are “not necessary” because the three known, and or speculated levels of order are sufficient, based on the scientific observations associated with the ISU model. The ISU is governed by the thresholds and limits associated with the quantum increments (quanta) of which known particles and objects are composed, and the necessary increments, smaller and larger, that are logical axiomatic necessities, like the high energy density convergences of the oscillating background, and the big bang arenas that populate the landscape of the greater universe.
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 13/01/2019 17:23:11
Reply #113


My last post pointed out that in my quantum gravity model, quantization takes place at various levels of gravitational wave energy density. The most obvious level of quantization is at the wave-particle level, where wave-particles are composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, and where the process of quantum action orchestrates quantization and quantum gravity; wave-particles make up all of the objects we see, all massive objects are composed of wave-particles.


There are two other major levels that I focus on and that I discuss in the ISU model to highlight where gravitational wave convergences group and form meaningful quanta. For this post, the one under discussion is the foundational level of the oscillating gravitational wave energy background, whose primary wave action serves to assist the advance of wave energy through space; it is akin to Christian Huygens’ concept of pinhole wave propagation (see reply #99 for a nice recap). The tiny wave convergences oscillate at the foundational level and the oscillations interact with the more meaningful wave fronts that pass through, and each pinhole point along the advancing wave front is advanced by “third wave” action. Don’t tell me you don’t recall what I mean by third wave action, lol; that just means you need a refresher, and didn’t go back to reply #99 yet.



After having written about the ISU for years, little things come to mind that would be logical questions for members to have, if you read my musings over time. So even though no one really is paid enough to think too hard about the volumes of word salad that I toss up, I do continue to speculate :) .


First, think empty space, and don’t get the idea that there is even an iota of empty space anywhere in the entire greater universe; there are just variances in the energy density brought to each point by multiple passing gravitational wave fronts. Remember the saying that there is no empty space in the ISU (not between arenas, not between wave-particles, not between quanta within wave-particles, and not separating wave fronts within the quanta that form the high energy density spots within the complex standing wave-patterns that make up wave-particles).


In the ISU, all there is, is gravitational wave energy traversing space, and in order to advance through space, propagation of every gravitational wave front requires point by point advance, via the tiniest third wave action, and that is made possible by the oscillating wave energy background. Wave convergences entail tiny time delays in the advance of the wave fronts, point by point, and the duration of the tiniest of those delays is sufficient to allow a brief period of energy density equalization to occur behind the advancing wave front, that allows for a synchronization between wave front advance, and point by point changes in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. But that is getting into Advanced ISU Speculation.


After having thought about it for some time, a point in space contains the cumulative amount of energy brought there by all of the gravitational wave fronts passing that point from all directions.


Given that the energy carried by directional gravitational wave fronts net out in terms of the accumulated amount of energy at any point, arriving from all spherical directions, there is an extremely high probability that there will be an imbalance in the net directional amount of wave energy accumulated at each point in space, at any point in time.


Those point by point imbalances, all taken together, constitute the whole of space, and the “whole of space” perfectly describes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.


It is worth mentioning from that these gravitational wave fronts are always in constant action, advancing through the oscillating foundational background at the speed of light and gravity, one oscillation at time. [humor]Wow, poke your finger into space anywhere, and you might expect all of that fast action to inflict pain, lol.[/humor :) ]


The new content though, is simply that multiple wave fronts, each carrying energy through space, are converging at every point in space, and so the hints of mass that form as a result of each gravitational wave front convergence produce an imbalance of inflowing wave energy at each point in space, and the directional imbalance has all of the information necessary for the gravitational wave energy density profile of space to orchestrate the motion of all objects in space.


The process of quantum gravity accounts for that motion, and I have tried to described in this thread, point by point, how high energy density spots that I continually refer to as quanta, form and disburse in the local space within and surrounding wave-particle-standing-wave-patterns, and that quantum action causes those pattens to move through space.


This means that complex standing wave patterns that represent the momentary position of mass, and the instant by instant motion of the mass, can be seen in terms of an incremental formation and reformation of the mass of an object, quantum by quantum, wave-particle by wave-particle, as it traverses the foundational medium of space, in the ISU model.


Would you say that is continuous motion or discrete motion? Is quantum gravity causing continuous motion of mass through space, or does the tiny quantum “third wave” action of wave convergence by wave convergence, qualify as discrete increments of motion of mass through space?


Any decision on that question should take into consideration that the foundational oscillating action that is making everything move through the medium of space supports variable levels of density produced by many multiple wave front convergences at each point, as meaningful wave fronts advance through it. But is the oscillating background itself moving, or simply accommodating the motion of more substantial groupings of wave convergences?
Title: Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 15/01/2019 16:27:42
Reply #114

Given that the energy carried by directional gravitational wave fronts net out in terms of the accumulated amount of energy at any point, arriving from all spherical directions, there is an extremely high probability that there will be an imbalance in the net directional amount of wave energy accumulated at each point in space, at any point in time.


Those point by point imbalances, all taken together, constitute the whole of space, and the “whole of space” perfectly describes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
If you think about natural forces applicable to the “whole of space” and, considering that the oscillating/foundational level of order fills the whole of space, then at the foundational level is where I expect to see the fundamental forces arise; there should be an explanation for the fundamental forces right there along with the explanation of quantum gravity at I am speculating about at that level.

Along that line of reasoning, the quantum action we are talking about in the ISU model suggests that when two (or more) wave fronts converge, they generate a third wave in the overlap space that continues to accumulate wave energy until the overlap space itself reaches a quantum of energy (relative to the local energy density environment). The third wave then, continues to expand spherically as its wave front advances at the local speed of light and gravity, following behind the advancing wave fronts of its “parent” waves.

Following that thought, the action is strikingly similar at each level of quantization, the big bang arena level, the wave particle level, and right down at the oscillating background level that fills all space; a “sameness” in the action processes across all scales.

That makes the role that the wave fronts play in the quantization process one of the common denominators among those levels. Conceptually, the wave front is a spherically expanding differential between the energy density behind the wave front, and the energy density in front of the wave front. The differential at the front marks where the meaningful pinhole action of wave advance is taking place.

Therefore, a new pinhole wave is a third wave occurring at the level of the oscillating background, and the occurrence of that new third wave involves the motion of the wave front as it advances through the space in front of the front.

The energy density behind the front is continually trending toward a state of equalization between the higher wave energy density behind the wave front, and the lower wave energy density in front of the wave front. As the spherical wave front advances, it is incorporating more lower density wave oscillations into the expanding volume of the advancing wave front, and the wave energy density behind that advancing wave front is therefore continually in a process of wave energy density equalization. That means that there is equalization going on behind the advancing front, while there is interruption of the equalization going on in front of the advancing wave front (and therefore behind the front of the other parent wave). It is at that line of differential between the two opposing fronts that the pinhole third wave action is occurring. The existence of a process of equalization behind the font, and the third wave action at the front, establishes the location of the advancing wave front and characterizes the conditions in effect at the point of the advancing front.

 What point is being made with this post?


I'm suggesting the presence of an electric force along the spherical wave front as it advances, and the presence of a magnetic force perpendicular to the advancing wave front, i.e., the question of whether a moving wave front produces electromagnetism as third waves are produced by the convergence of two or more “parent waves”.

Is that idea worthy of being considered as a foundational explanation for particle charge, and the fundamental explanation for electromagnetism? I say that rhetorically to indicate that it is a topic under consideration, that could fill a gap in the details of what I call the ISU model. It is not intended to imply that there is anything wrong with the generally accepted explanations of the physics of electric currents or the magnetic fields that they produce, as described in trusted sources, but it does bug me that I have not yet found the generally accepted explanation for the cause of particle charge in my layman level review of some of those sources.