[opportunity]

Colin, I've taken a digital record of the three pages that were erased.

Perhaps a warning from you earlier would have been better than cutting out ad-hoc 50% of the effort put in the post.

But that's your call.


The last page rang the moderator bell, I won't post it. Why would anyone tell the world the meds they're on anyway?

Probably a good call by the mod. "Sensitive".

I had the transcript because each time I was alerted to a reply a new tab comes up when I check the reply.......all these tabs. Nothing malicious. "But", hard call. It's a shame a problem-someone can be used as a reason to erase data put in play by other forum members. Hope you're on top of it.

[nilak]

Hi,
Regading the OP, I also think of this possibility that quantum fields should require a medium that excitates. Actually I don't see any other possibility.

From the start I'd like to clarify that space and a medium are different things. I think you either use some rules of spacetime or a medium in which the light and matter waves travel. Not sure if you can call what you have described space anymore. It still confuses me as the GR spacetime actually is like a medium.
In this case the medium can occupy a volume of space. This space can be euclidean or you can even use the Minkowsky spacetime but I suppose an euclidean spacetime would be the right option as it would be just for reference.

 Wether this medium is static or like a fluid is another question that would need to be answered. If you want to be closer to GR, a dynamic medium would be preferable. In this case the medium would react to let's say the intensity of the field. However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. But all particles have invariant rest mass, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle. We need some math to see if this works, and it is quite complicated from my point of view. Anyway, gravity would be the effect on this fluid. We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle, so it would be required completely new equations to work with these.
If on the other hand the medium is static, gravity could be mediated by quantum particles or just continuous effect between fields.
For now we have a good classical theory for gravity that we can't use because at a fundamental level there is quantum physics, and another problem is we don't have physical interpretation for Quantum physics either.

[Colin2B]

However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.

Relative motion is not necessary.

We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,

I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.

[nilak]

However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.

Relative motion is not necessary.

We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,

I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.

Why relative motion is not necessary?
A massive particle has invariant mass and if in motion it gets additional energy. The faster it goes the shorter the wavelength. Do you mean we can also take into account a potential energy in some context?


Whether there are conflicts between GR and Quantum physics is debatable, but you may be right.

Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity

[Colin2B]

Why relative motion is not necessary?

I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.

Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity

As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”

[guest45734]

In the OP I referred to quantum inflow gravity by R Cahill, I gave a link to his paper, I have found this link reefuting his claims https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0407059.pdf.

However various inflow concepts are persued by many other people.

From the start I'd like to clarify that space and a medium are different things. I think you either use some rules of spacetime or a medium in which the light and matter waves travel. Not sure if you can call what you have described space anymore. It still confuses me as the GR spacetime actually is like a medium.
In this case the medium can occupy a volume of space. This space can be euclidean or you can even use the Minkowsky spacetime but I suppose an euclidean spacetime would be the right option as it would be just for reference.

 Wether this medium is static or like a fluid is another question that would need to be answered. If you want to be closer to GR, a dynamic medium would be preferable. In this case the medium would react to let's say the intensity of the field. However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. But all particles have invariant rest mass, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle. We need some math to see if this works, and it is quite complicated from my point of view. Anyway, gravity would be the effect on this fluid. We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle, so it would be required completely new equations to work with these.
If on the other hand the medium is static, gravity could be mediated by quantum particles or just continuous effect between fields.
For now we have a good classical theory for gravity that we can't use because at a fundamental level there is quantum physics, and another problem is we don't have physical interpretation for Quantum physics either.

The following link may be inline with your views above, it is based on dark energy as the mechanism causing both gravity and and the expansion of the universe, and like MOND and Quantum foam inflow it does not require dark matter.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01423134v2/document

There is no such thing as a volume of space devoid of quantum fluctuations or matter. Space is not just volume it expands and contracts  according to the amount of dark energy or quantum fluctuations.

The concept of the graviton is a theoretical virtual particle/quantum fluctuation. We know quantum fluctuations exist.

I wonder if space can exist without quantum fluctuations. If we think about the BB or Big Crunch (QLG) Space expanded from a singularity and was purely radiation

I have read various articles recently on the subject of non locality and additional dimensions, this allows for information to travel from point a to point b in excess of 10000c which is not possible according to relativity. Can non locality be explained by a additional dimensions connecting point A to B directly or via a wormhole etc.

[nilak]

Why relative motion is not necessary?

I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.

Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity

As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”

Thanks. About the link, yes it explains that there are no contradictions, but some physicist think there are, so it must be some confusion somewhere, I don't know enough of the details so I can't comment on it.
Regarding gravitational effects I may have made a confusion. It was about what creates gravitational effects, or what makes spacetime to curve or if there is a medium what makes it react. And that should be I suppose the energy of the quantum field. A massive particle has rest energy in a form of mass and also if it has kinetic energy, then it should affect the spacetime. But can gravitational potential energy of a particle taken into account for evaluating how spacetime or presumably the medium is afected? It doesn't sound right.

[guest45734]

Why relative motion is not necessary?

I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.

Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity

As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”

I understand Relativity assumes space to be unchanging volume. It includes the cosmological constant (Dark Energy) to explain away the expansion of space. It does not explain the mechanism behind the apparent expansion(dark energy) and contraction(gravity) of space. The string and quantum theories trying to incorporate gravity ascribe gravity to the theoretical graviton. The the theoretical graviton is thought to cause gravity. If it exists it is a quantum fluctuation ie virtual particle. Space is full of quantum fluctuations (see casimir effect)., there is no where in space that does not have quantum fluctuations. Can space exist without quantum fluctuations.

What is space? It expands and contracts (possibly due to gravitons, quantum fluctuations, dark energy). Could space itself be considered a super fluid that flows and allows quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence, does it have additional dimensions allowing non local actions to occur in space (spooky action at a distance). If space is considered to be a super fluid could it explain frame draggingas predicted by einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging.

The following is a slightly updated version of the link I posted above ref dark energy inflow, it is based on space as a super fluid. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01312579v4/document

Looking at all the many theories available they may all be partly correct, and explain different aspects of what is observed in space.

Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)

Edit I found this link indicating non locality is a fact, but it may be able to be explained away via a wave function, I think that is what its conclusion was https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf

[Colin2B]

I understand Relativity assumes space to be unchanging volume.

Most of the problems GR is used to solve take place in none-expanding space. That’s not the same as constant volume. Look at the Schwarzschild metric, if distance changes so must volume!

It includes the cosmological constant (Dark Energy) to explain away the expansion of space.

More to stop it expanding or contracting.
But you can take that out or use a different value. See https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

It does not explain the mechanism behind the apparent expansion(dark energy) and contraction(gravity) of space.

That depends on what is causing these phenomena, at the moment we don’t know.

Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)

1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories, - most theories just ignore this.  As I said in @jeffreyH thread on inertia, space doesn’t offer any resistance to mass. Problem is how to detect superfluid, how would we know if there were permanent eddies? Best you can say is behaves like it when considersd in specific ways.
2) exist without quantum fluctuations. - that depends whether you consider space and the vacuum to be one and the same, or separate.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way. - depends what you mean by “can”. Do you mean “is” if no other known explanation exists? Not a logical conclusion.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it. - generally consider it is the field that supports particles, yes both exist but be careful what you interpret virtual particles to be. Fields exist in space.
5) expand due to dark energy - apparently. No comment on cause
6) contract due mass and gravity - it can, no comment on your cause.

Edit I found this link indicating non locality is a fact, but it may be able to be explained away via a wave function, I think that is what its conclusion was https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf

Yes, that is how the author tries to describe it.
The problem is the one I raised in the entanglement thread. The wavefunction is the description of probability distribution of the particles and those probabilities remain the same whether the 2 particles are in the same room or light years apart. So, you could argue both ways.
Depends whether you believe QM etc describes an underlying reality Eg I send you a playing card, in the post, drawn at random. I can either say that it takes all 52 values until you look at it, or I can say it has a value but we won’t know until you look. The probability of a specific card is the same no matter which description we choose.
There are arguments both ways at the moment. Have a look at this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4636.pdf

Interesting discussion. Won’t be around all the time over next 2 weeks, but will look in when I can.

[nilak]

.


Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)

Here is my opinion on this:
1. It is more of a terminology matter. If you assume a superfluid, normally it can exist within a volume of space, but you can treat space so that it behaves similarly to a superfluid. In relativity there is no preferred reference frame, therefore this superfluid should be defined in such a way so that it can make the same predictions as relativity does. I'm not sure this could be a problem.
2. I don't think it can. I can only think of space extending to infinity or space could change far away from the known universe like when aproaching a black whole. So I don't think you can have space without any particle field in it with non zero field value. Space and time can't exist separately.
3. You should define what other dimensions you want, space, time, how many and how they work. But normally, because of energy conservation you should not need another dimension as it would allow energy to escape.
4. Don't see a problem
5. I don't know enough about dark energy,
6. You mean mass and energy. You will need to show how it works and if it makes the right predictions. To simulate gravity some scientists use air vacuum tubes and sound. But I've asked some physicist and they say it is not quite how spacetime works. Personally I don't see the problem. Whether you play a movie with time marks or show all the slides at once basically is the same thing.

[guest45734]

3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way. - depends what you mean by “can”. Do you mean “is” if no other known explanation exists? Not a logical conclusion.

3. You should define what other dimensions you want, space, time, how many and how they work. But normally, because of energy conservation you should not need another dimension as it would allow energy to escape.

Some theories suggest wormholes as a means of almost instantaneous information transfer between points in space. Using Occams razor is it not just simpler to assume all points in space can be connected via another medium. This medium might be a dimension which does not include space or time, (it may have a form of meniscus as in a fluid, the reason I suggest meniscus is that once particles decohere, they would normally stay decohered). The concept of space time and relativity breaking down inside a black hole as been around for a long time. If space time ceases to exist inside a black hole, would it need to exist in another dimension, existing alongside space time in normal space, would we even know about it. Could proof of such a dimension be considered to be proven by non locality. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/455-what-happens-to-spacetime-inside-a-black-hole-intermediate

[guest45734]

1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories, - most theories just ignore this.  As I said in @jeffreyH thread on inertia, space doesn’t offer any resistance to mass. Problem is how to detect superfluid, how would we know if there were permanent eddies? Best you can say is behaves like it when considersd in specific ways.

Does frame dragging as predicted by relativity not demonstrate a fluid effect. Also mass can not be accelerated to light speed, is this not a demonstration of space presenting resistance.

[Colin2B]

Does frame dragging as predicted by relativity not demonstrate a fluid effect. Also mass can not be accelerated to light speed, is this not a demonstration of space presenting resistance.

Frame dragging as predicted by GR is a gravity equivalent of em induction.
Limitation on light speed is part of the energy, mass, momentum relationship.
What would be interesting would be to look at superfluid phenomena and see what might be expected eg if a superfluid is placed in a rotating container instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices - are there similar effects that might be noticable?

[andreasva]

For what it's worth, space is a substrate for energy to exist within.  It is a dimensionless void.  This defines space as infinite in any direction, because a void is defined roughly as length, width, height, and most importantly, depth.  The vastness leading outward is equal to the vastness leading inward.  There's no bottom end or surface to emerge from.  It is dimensionless.  Energy exists as a finite condition between the vastness leading outward and the vastness leading inwards.  The volume of space can always be described as infinite from any point defined in 3-dimensional space.           

[andreasva]

What is space? It expands and contracts (possibly due to gravitons, quantum fluctuations, dark energy).

Evidence only suggest energy is capable of expanding or contracting.  There's no evidence space itself has any malleable properties.  And there never will be either.  Space is not quantifiable, because it is always infinite in nature.  Space is homogeneous.  Energy is heterogeneous. 

[guest45734]

What would be interesting would be to look at superfluid phenomena and see what might be expected eg if a superfluid is placed in a rotating container instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices - are there similar effects that might be noticable?

Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

[guest45734]

There's no evidence space itself has any malleable properties. 

I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space. All things and forces are contained within space, if you zoom into a volume of space it is full of quantum fluctuations without which space as we understand it would not exist. Space is full of quantum fluctuations it is not empty nothingness. No virtual particles = no space = no gravity= nothing. Nothing has no dimensions it is nothing.

[andreasva]

I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space. All things and forces are contained within space, if you zoom into a volume of space it is full of quantum fluctuations without which space as we understand it would not exist. Space is full of quantum fluctuations it is not empty nothingness. No virtual particles = no space = no gravity= nothing. Nothing has no dimensions it is nothing.

That's the point I'm making.  Only energy can transform into other states.  That's all that's ever been proven.  The "space" we observe is 100% energy.  When you zoom in, you're simply zooming in to more energy.  The quantum fluctuations are derived from energy.  Space is the underlying substrate that we exist within.  It's not nothing, it's an infinite void.  That's something. 

[andreasva]

I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space.

I think these particles may represent dimensional collapse. 

[guest45734]

I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space.

I think these particles may represent dimensional collapse.

Please expand on your above answers, are you referring to the vacuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
Are you familiar with the zero energy universe. You maybe familiar with the zero energy universe concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe . Energy can not be created or destroyed from the law of thermodynamics. -ve energy + +ve energy = 0 . If -ve energy and +ve energy are out of phase would they not just appear as the same thing in normal space. Do you think the Heisenburg uncertainty principle applies in any way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle   etc

When you state dimensional collapse, how do you view those dimensions? Space + time + something else? perhaps