It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Space Theory

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Did a search and couldnt find any specific threads realting to Quantum Space Theory so I thought I'd post here with a view to discussing some of the ideas as I repeatedly find myself referencing it in regards to most of my favourite discussion topics across Space, Universe, Gravity, Holographic Universe, Quantum effects etc here on ATS.

I recognise that Thad Roberts version is bascially a congolmeration of several peoples ideas on Quantisation of Space however I provide it as a link as he originally sparked my interest in this area with a very easy to understand and intuitive breakdown of why quantised space works using the models we've already observed:

vimeo.com...


In summary ( again taken from Thad Robert's Website : einsteinsintuition.com...

As a spe­cific form of Superfluid Vacuum theory (SVT), quantum space theory (qst) is an approach within the­o­ret­ical physics and quantum mechanics that stands as a can­di­date for the theory of quantum gravity. The theory assumes a super­fluid vacuum whose geo­metric struc­ture can be prox­i­mately described as an acoustic metric and ulti­mately described as a hier­ar­chal fractal. Specifically it assumes that the super­fluid vacuum is con­structed from quanta that are in turn con­structed (via self-similarity and scale invari­ance) from sub­quanta, and so on ad infinitum.

This geo­metric pic­ture realigns our expec­ta­tions of Nature. In as much as those expec­ta­tions repro­duce the mys­teries of physics, they give us intu­itive access to (and geo­metric expla­na­tions of) their ori­gins. For example, the assump­tion that the vacuum is a super­fluid (or a BEC) auto­mat­i­cally enables us to derive Schrödinger’s non-linear wave equa­tion, also known as the Gross-Pitaevskii equa­tion, from first prin­ci­ples. This offers us unprece­dented onto­log­ical access to what the wave equa­tion means and why it is written into Nature. Furthermore, by treating the vacuum as an acoustic metric, or a BEC, we auto­mat­i­cally end up with an ana­logue for gen­eral relativity’s curved space­time within regimes of low momenta. This pic­ture also dis­solves the mys­tery of mass gen­er­a­tion, the ques­tion of how the Higgs boson gets its mass, because it por­trays mass gen­er­a­tion sim­ilar to the gap gen­er­a­tion mech­a­nism in super­con­duc­tors or super­fluids. In other words, mass become a con­se­quence of sym­metry breaking quantum vor­tices forming in the vacuum condensate.

The axioms of qst are:

The hier­ar­chical struc­ture of the super­fluid vacuum (or BEC vacuum) mimics a per­fect fractal: the familiar medium of x, y, z space is com­posed of a large number of “space atoms” called quanta that inter­ac­tively mix about; those quanta are com­posed of a large number of sub-quanta and so on, ad infinitum. This claim of vacuum super­flu­idity con­strains the pos­sible states of the vacuum in accor­dance with energy con­ser­va­tion, de Broglie rela­tions, and lin­earity. More gen­er­ally it con­strains the vacuum as an acoustic metric.
Time is uniquely defined at each loca­tion in space (for each quantum) as the number of whole res­onations each quantum under­goes. As a result, the acoustic metric inherits a Newtonian time para­meter and there­fore exhibits the impor­tant prop­erty of stable causality.
Energy (total geo­metric dis­tor­tion) is con­served. Energy con­ser­va­tion means that all metric dis­tor­tions (phonons, quantum vor­tices, etc.) are inter­change­able from one kind to another, including the trans­fer­ence of metric dis­tor­tions from one hier­ar­chical level to another, like the quantum level to the sub-quantum level.


Some of the the­o­rems/consequences that follow from those axioms are:

The wave equa­tion (the non-linear Schrödinger equa­tion, also known as the Gross-Pitaevskii equa­tion) can be derived from first prin­ci­ples (see here, or here) in its com­plete form, from the assump­tion that the vacuum is a BEC whose state can be described by the wave­func­tion of the condensate.
Modeling the super­fluid vacuum as an acoustic metric repro­duces an ana­logue for gen­eral relativity’s curved space­time within low momenta regimes.
Mass gen­er­a­tion is a con­se­quence of the sym­metry breaking that occurs when quantum vor­tices form in the vacuum con­den­sate.
The total number of space­time dimen­sions in or spa­tiotem­poral map depends on the res­o­lu­tion we desire. (Are we only quan­tizing the fabric of x, y, z? Or are we also keeping track of the sub­quanta that those quanta are com­posed of? and so on.) For any arbi­trary res­o­lu­tion, the number of dimen­sions is equal to 3n + n. A second order per­spec­tive (n = 2) quan­tizes the fabric of space one time, and a third order per­spec­tive quan­tizes the vol­umes of that fabric, and so on, ad infinitum.
Quantization restricts the range of space­time cur­va­ture: the min­imum state of cur­va­ture (zero cur­va­ture) can be rep­re­sented by the ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter in flat space (π), and the max­imum state of cur­va­ture can be rep­re­sented by the value of that ratio in max­i­mally curved space­time, a number that we will rep­re­sent with the letter ж (“zhe”).
The con­stants of Nature are deriv­a­tives of the geom­etry of space­time: they are simple com­pos­ites of π, ж, and the five Planck numbers.
When the quanta of space are max­i­mally packed they do not expe­ri­ence time because they cannot inde­pen­dently or uniquely resonate.
Black holes are col­lec­tions of quanta that are max­i­mally packed — regions of max­imum spa­tial density.
When two objects occupy regions of dif­ferent quantum den­sity, the object in the region of greater den­sity will expe­ri­ence less time.
Because the quanta are ulti­mately com­posed of sub­quanta, all prop­a­ga­tions through space nec­es­sarily transfer some energy from the quantum level (motion of the quanta) to the sub­quantum level (to the internal geo­metric arrange­ments and motions of the sub­quanta). Although this trans­fer­ence of energy is pro­por­tion­ally very small (being approx­i­mately equal to the energy mul­ti­plied by the ratio of the sub­quantum scale to the quantum scale) it is addi­tive. Therefore, it can become sig­nif­i­cant over large scales — leading to what we now call red-shift.





edit on 29-5-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
einsteinsintuition.com...

Plagiarism.......

Link to source, a few paragraph or 2 from said source in [ex ] [/ex ] and a summary of what you think etc...whats this site coming to!
edit on 29-5-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


Havent read the rules recently but when I provided a link to said website in post with multiple mentions of the authors name and credits I thought it would be self evident that I'm not trying to imply I have invented my own theory!



edit on 29-5-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Is there some observation to base this theory upon?
Where does it derive from?
To which theories is it connected - calling formulas like Schroedinger is not enough, as long as you don't show how it fits into this theory.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jukiodone
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


Havent read the rules recently but when I provided a link to said website in post with multiple mentions of the authors name and credits I thought it would be self evident.



Na no one reads the rules thats why the site has become so rife with stuff like this.
Once upon a time the site was full of original content, now its plagiarized with little or no effort put into creating a thread.

As i say, you should like external text with the correct tags, use only a couple of paragraphs and then add your own content, thoughts, ideas, your take on it, and even an argument for or against. But hey, im no mod so carry on lol



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


There are observations but there is no hard and fast mathematical proofs to suggest this is a silver bullet solution.
Same could be said for many things so still worth a watch/read if you are interested.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jukiodone
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


There are observations but there is no hard and fast mathematical proofs to suggest this is a silver bullet solution.
Same could be said for many things so still worth a watch/read if you are interested.



Yes, but then its not considered science but philosophy.

Sorry, I just always shudder as soon as I read "quantum somethingsomething" - usually its the direct hint that there speculations based on some half-cooked version of "we don't know why or how, but maybe it is like thiiiiis" - which is not a sign of science.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 


Nice enough summary, don't know why its necessary to speculate on the sub quanta sized bits of space. Normal physics is known to break down at this length. It is expected that the effects and attributes of the fundamental particles are caused by the wrapping up of these little bits of space. Its already been shown to an extent by Casimir with particles spontaneously jumping from the vacuum and the high energy density of the vacuum.

Again I don't know why the complex terms are of quantum vortices and the like are given to just folding up bits of space. If it leaves a gap, the gravitational effect will nicely link with Einsteins view of space (minus the time). Imo their will be a neat formulae analogous to the energy to mass ratio (E=mc2) when it comes to spac just much higher. Something like E=volume of space x C3 x k.

Look forward to the limitless energy that will come from this field of research.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


sure. dark matter, dark energy, quantum theory. All great achievements in observational science looking for a model that makes sense.

Einstein had a sense that a solution to a problem should be as simple as possible but not simpler. Dark Matter is a theory that is simpler than it should be simply because it's missing key features.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join