Quantized Space & Time

mbkennel

ChaoticOrder
We already know that energy and matter are the same thing

This is not meaningful in actual physics, any more than saying we know mass and 7 are the same thing.

lol... what ever bud. When you collide two particles together in a particle accelerator, the collision turns the particles into "pure energy", and the products which come out of the collision do not have to be components of the particles that went into the collision, they merely need to have the same energy. If you separate two quarks far enough apart, eventually the bond will break, but the energy of the bond will go into creating two more quarks, you can never truly separate two quarks. If a photon collides with an electron orbiting a nucleus, the electron can absorb the entire photon and jump up an energy level around the nucleus. Or it can release a photon which it has created from thin air by giving up some of it's energy and jumping down a level. It's clear in the realm of physics that energy and matter are directly interchangeable. Perhaps they are not the exact same thing, but they are both energy in one form or another and can be easily interchanged. For all intents and purposes it's fair to say that matter and energy and the same thing, and if it were meaningless in actual physics then E=mc^2 would be meaningless.

reply to post by Moduli

Yes, any discreetness of spacetime would cause the speed of light to depend on wavelength (very high energy light would travel at nearly c, and lower energy light would travel at less than c). The difference in speeds is small, but when traveling for very long amounts of time (millions or billions of years), the difference in arrival times would be easily large enough to measure. But for astronomical sources, we see no such difference (very far away things don't look delayed compared to very close things).

It's the vacuum fluctuations which is supposed to cause the photons to vary in speed, not the quantization of the vacuum. But of course we need vacuum fluctuations for loop quantum gravity to work. I think phenomena such as the casimir effect strongly show that vacuum energy exists, but I'm not entirely sure why photons aren't affected by the vacuum fluctuations. The most obvious answer seems to be that the photons don't don't feel the fluctuations as if they were literally an obstacle, it just travels through the stretched space as if it were any other type of space. There's no good reason imo for why vacuum fluctuations should affect the speed of photons. It's like saying that photons travel a different speed in our solar system because our sun causes the space in the solar system to become very much warped. It just doesn't work that way, and I don't think that should change because we're talking about warped space at the Planck scale, it's the same principle.

The result does not necessarily strike a blow to quantum gravity. Only a subset of models predict the effect, and "while it seems reasonable to expect that the variation of the speed of light with energy is a sign of quantum space-time, there is no well developed theory of quantum space-time that cleanly makes this prediction," says Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.

Universe's quantum 'speed bumps' no obstacle for light

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


You cant have it both ways; You cant say space is nothingness, and that energy/matter was created solely by space. You cant say space is nothingness, but can have properties such as curvature.

So its either there is eternal and true nothingness that exists somewhere, and in essence everywhere, its just that somethingness exists in and on and overlapping somewhere and somewhen in this eternal and infinite expanse of nothingness.

Its actually just the biggest conundrum, that something exists, lots of it, and its nature is so mysterious and complex. If the universe is the only batch of energy in existence, then the fact that the nothingness is infinite, is meaningless, because all that would ever be able to exist would be a branching off of that/this batch of energy.

It could very well be that nothingness exists and gives rise to phenomenon like vacuum, and plays a part in the characteristics of all energy and particles, and fields. And the the gravity field is separate entity from this nothingness space, so that is what is being curved.

What do you think occurs at the forefronts of the universe, the edge, the boundry, energy interacting with a wall of infinite nothingness? this could possibly have a reverberating effect back through the system of the universe, maybe keeps the universe stable, and causes order.

reply to post by mbkennel


Thank you for the reply.

I really dont get how it can be both wave and particle like objectively. It cant be. A particle is like a ball, a rock, a grain of sand, can you describe any way how those enlarged particles can be waves? A wave is like a shaken jump rope or spaghetti. Is a particle acting like a wave a particle that is like a piece of spaghetti but has no components and it wiggles? And are all fundamental quanta like that, though they are particles when their associated energy 'crashes' into something, and that associated energy is proportional to the physical characteristics of said energy wave, which is discrete value, which is then imparted onto the object it collides with? its a particle when it is measured, because measuring a wave directly destroys the wave?

Some times I squint at faint lights, dashboard, night lights (as to not hurt my eyes, and to ponder the nature of light) and I move around and try to see what I can see, see rays, usually a very small number, im guessing thats related more to the make up of my eye mechanism, but also sometimes i can get glimpses of these really tiny perfect circles, and it makes me think that those are the representative impact of the light on some detector of my eye, like i am seeing the imprint of a 'particle''... but yes I have no idea.

small is the new big!

Remember!

Moduli


Yes, any discreetness of spacetime would cause the speed of light to depend on wavelength (very high energy light would travel at nearly c, and lower energy light would travel at less than c). The difference in speeds is small, but when traveling for very long amounts of time (millions or billions of years), the difference in arrival times would be easily large enough to measure. But for astronomical sources, we see no such difference (very far away things don't look delayed compared to very close things).

Could this be confused as the expansion of space? Also how does the earths rotation, revolution around sun, and revolution around milky way, and whatever movement milky way as a whole is doing affect measurements of light from beyond the galaxy? And how do those motions factor in the measurements of light on earth? If the photon field is motionless (is it?) and all the material is moving, does this factor in when light is created on earth or is this the strange nature of speed of light, that if material has velocity and momentum in a direction and light is created in a moment, it will progress outward in all 3 dimensional directions, like a sphere? Like if we were on a motor boat on the water going fast and dropped a rock into the water, or would the water react unevenly because of the rocks momentum?

reply to post by ImaFungi

You cant have it both ways; You cant say space is nothingness, and that energy/matter was created solely by space. You cant say space is nothingness, but can have properties such as curvature.

I know it is quite contradictory... but it makes sense on some level. The moment space is curved, that's what creates energy from nothing. The vacuum fluctuations are tiny brief fluctuations of the vacuum, but they quickly rebound into equilibrium, the vacuum fluctuations only cause very tiny curvature for extremely small amounts of time. If we imagine space as a flat sheet, we can say that if the sheet is perfectly flat then we have no energy, only empty space with 0 energy. The moment you create a bump or dimple in the sheet is the moment you create energy from nothing, that is how I think all energy comes into existence and that is how loop quantum gravity tells us that energy comes into existence, and by knotting those fluctuations into little "braids" which cannot neutralize you get particles. The fluctuations occur for more complex reasons which I don't fully grasp, but the easiest way to think of it is that the rules of quantum mechanics even affect the raw nature of nothingness, and cause it to fluctuate randomly. But I don't think energy is ever created from nothing, I think when a lump occurs in the space-time sheet, an inverse dimple also occurs in the sheet which provides exactly the same amount of negative energy, so that if the bump and the dimple were to cancel each other out the remaining energy would be 0.

What do you think occurs at the forefronts of the universe, the edge, the boundry, energy interacting with a wall of infinite nothingness? this could possibly have a reverberating effect back through the system of the universe, maybe keeps the universe stable, and causes order.

The only "boundary" we know of is the end of the observable universe, beyond which it's impossible for light to reach us because the space between us and the objects beyond the boundary is expanding at a rate which out paces the speed of light. My own belief is that space-time expands out for infinity in all directions, and that our universe is just a small blip of energy in that infinite universe, space-time wasn't actually created with our universe imo, nor was the start of time. And since I'm saying that flat space is the equivalent of nothing, I'm basically saying that the fabric of nothing extends out for infinity in all directions, which seems perfectly logical. But then the problem becomes how can space be infinite and quantized at the same time, are the fluctuations the only thing which is quantized or is nothingness its self quantized?

Moduli

It's not a belief, it's a fact. It would be very obvious if there were any kind of discreteness to spacetime.

And it doesn't make sense to say "the same infinite as if...". It's true that there are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers. But the distance is the meaningful metric to use, and that's obviously different for different points.

So your ideas sound similar to zenos paradox but i thought you said it was bad and wrong?

Any way you are telling me, in any size box we can imagine, lets imagine a small one, like the boxes wedding rings are held in, there is an infinite amount of space in there? what does that mean? Does that mean an infinite amount of energy can fit in that area? The term infinite in my opinion is silly, because we are using it as a term to insinuate an exactness by giving a word for the concept to being with, when it means the opposite, I dont think it can be infinite, in the sense that it goes on forever, or can be divided forever. Why do you think it can be? If your hands had to travel an infinite distance of space to touch, how could you ever clap?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There will always be limits. Isnt there a limit to energy, the highest force or confine or burst of energy, if not theoretically and hypothetically, realistically and physically? Though it might be extremely high number, because the mind can always abstractly say, well what about higher then that, what about 9999 times more energy then that, and more and more, doesnt meant that there is no limit. So I would assume it is the same with time. There must be a limit, because you can say, shorter time then that, and shorter time then that, and perhaps even in time and space with energy shorter times will be possessed and realized, but why not 9999 times shorter then that. What exists will always be limited by the nature of it existing.

spartacus699
small is the new big!

Remember!

try telling that to my girlfriend

reply to post by ImaFungi


How do you answer space? Is there a boundary? If so, does that boundary have a boundary?

If you believe all energy that will ever be has always existed(can't create or destroy), then it must be a self-contained system?

Is space just the depth of consciousness? Close your eyes and envision an apple. The space around the apple is space? Where does it end? Is this our space? Or is the apple our space?

Funny how space-fabric and space 3dplan seem to resemble our mental images, isn't it?

Oh and I hold that the apple is space-fabric and space the 3d plan is just depth of consciousness. (I can't think of any feasible way to close the boundaries.)

And the expansion of space is the apple spreading out as it goes through entropy or it gains energy - which I don't know. I guess it is gaining energy from stars. As a star gives off energy, the aether gains it and spreads the apple as it gains momentum. Maybe the gain is entropy still? Maybe there is energy gain from tachyons?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Maybe this is why the guy who got a Nobel prize for advancing the understanding of quantum mechanics said nobody understands quantum mechanics, and if you don't like the way things work in this universe, move to another one where nature behaves the way you expect it to, or something like that.

But instead of thinking of a particle as a grain of sand (yes that's a particle), maybe think of it as being quantized. That's a more broad concept than the grain of sand concept, since a wave packet can be quantized but isn't really much like a grain of sand. I see a wave and a "particle" (using that more broad definition) at the same time in this illustration, so I can understand how I might see the wavelike properties in some experiments and particle-like properties in other experiments, from this single phenomenon, without any paradox or dual nature conflict:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ImaFungi


There are an infinite number of points in any length or volume. It doesn't matter.

OP: you might enjoy Information Mechanics by Kantor, it's pretty hard going in terms of physics, but enjoyable. He postulates that nothing exists but information, and energy is the way that information is transmitted. You can take his physics and derive Maxwell from it, so it's at least as good as Kalusa-Klein.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The focus looks more like a fractal or a disturbed wave/particle. A particle should look like the red wave broke off and went into the white wave and was surrounded by the white wave on all sides.


No what I mean?

Like all forms are made of fields which are really just wave patterns, and when a field breaks away from its field cluster it is quantized or becomes a particle if it is surrounded on all sides by a different field cluster/field that it will not join with to make a new form.

images.all-free-download.com...

Look at that picture. The water drop above is a water wave that is surrounded on all sides by air. Because it doesn't combine with the air to form a new field, it becomes a particle. And the splash of water beneath the water drop never broke away from the large wave so it is a fractal.

Something I find similar to the idea of measuring time to the smallest units is with angles and grades I try to wrap my head around but have never succeeded in getting it or always left with the feeling there's a missing compartment in the thought train.

Suppose the thought train becomes a though spaceship which could travel a location B but it's countless of astronomical units away, when setting a course even 0,00000000001 to the gazzilionth decimal off could make the spaceship end up somewhere completely different if the distance is large enough. So if someone some day would invent such an engine there must be a computer in there also which could divide up angles to incredibly small units so to be so precise as needed to get to B without having to compensate along the way. Not counting any obstacles like planets, asteroids or other phenomena. Don't know if the idea is completely false but it reminded me of the problem of dividing time and reality in the smalles units and how it's all perceived.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok well that image is certainly a wave, the term particle then refers to '1 wave'. The problem then is describing 'what exactly and actually is it, that is waving'? And also how did everything that was caused to exist in this current manifestation of universe turn into a bunch (uberbunchload) of little waves? So on the fundamental level there are no particles, in the sense of little grains of sand of different charge and mass, bumping into one another to make other particles, and then atoms etc?

Imagine a guy dribbling a basketball down a basketball court lineally, and the ball somehow produces light non stop, just a small amount, and we had a camera that took a low exposure time lapse of this event. It would appear as if the basketball was truly a wave, though it would be a singular object, particle like, though in reality, in time, it traveled in a wavefunction. So could this problem (the wave /particle of quanta one) be due to methods of measuring/detecting/objectifying and being fated to do so using time in different manners? We cant pause the universe (maybe) and zoom in and see what everything is truly made of, and even if we could by doing so would we be wrong in what we discover for altering the true flow and existence of nature?

Bedlam
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

There are an infinite number of points in any length or volume. It doesn't matter.

No in the nature of numbers there are infinites between 2 abstract points 1 -------------2 . But in reality there is no evidence that there is infinite amount of space, or potentially infinite amount of points (means the same thing) between two points. I am not using this as proof, but plancks length, which you dont believe in, is supposed to be this idea, that between two points an infinite number of plancks length dont exist. And this basis allows or has affect on all the quanta and their discrete values of interactions due to their distance to other particles. The energy states of electrons and so on. If there was infinite space between a nucleus and its electrons, how would an electron receive energy from an incoming photon, why wouldnt that energy leak into the infinite depths of all space that surrounds it? If there are infinite points at every point, and infinite points at those, and infinite points at those, it would be impossible for anything to exist stably, let alone everything.

reply to post by Dragonfly79


The way I think time is processed is pretty similar to a running pathfinder algorithm. That was a good analogy.

Here's the problem though: If time is processed (which it seems to be), then is the rate of time the rate of change, or the rate at which change is processed? I believe it is the later, and to try to solve for it, you would get the reactionary rate of a thing to the processed information. The complete rate of change would have to be discounted though, because there could be latency issues in there where it says: start change: pause: go: pause: go: pause; and for that reason, we might have relative time.

So do we measure time by process speed (reactionary speed), complete change (start to finish with finish being the end of measurement), or do we count some abstract notion of the motion of two forms relative to one another?

Certainly, there has to be a minimum value to be calculated/processed/experienced but what that is, is anyone's guess.

Can it be quantized? We'll the information has to be a value, but its physicality may just be qualities/quantities of fields all with different qualities/quantities, and different amounts of information, that form to a single value. So, I wouldn't know where to begin with that.

The real time, however, is 1 or true or a value. That is, all time is equal to a value. All time has been created and is a value or else time does not exist. I believe all time is a value that God created and we are all just reacting to it byway of evolution, change, reaction, interaction.

Oh and one of the misfit truths that people keep discarding is that people and things react to future events. Because of that, and the fact that reality is order, there must be predetermination. (We experience time that was created in the real time's future/past, depending on your view point.)

p.s. the way I use the term fields is that a group or cluster of aether form a field which creates a form or a larger field cluster(larger form). Like a magnet's field cluster is the metal and the magnetic field. It is all fields/forms that make up the entirety of the magnet.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

It was just an over simplified analogy to address the confusion over the apparent paradox of wave-particle duality which isn't all that paradoxical to me.

It wasn't meant to be an accurate representation of the wave function, which is discussed in the link I provided.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ok well that image is certainly a wave, the term particle then refers to '1 wave'. The problem then is describing 'what exactly and actually is it, that is waving'?

If you figure that out, explain it to me.

Here's Max Tegmark talking about the lack of consensus regarding interpretation:

Max Tegmark: An interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Part 1

ImaFungi

No in the nature of numbers there are infinites between 2 abstract points 1 -------------2 . But in reality there is no evidence that there is infinite amount of space, or potentially infinite amount of points (means the same thing) between two points.

Points are dimensionless. That's the definition of a point. It has location, but no extension. If you want to start trying to redefine "point" then you're going to have to get everyone to go along with it, but a point has no dimension. No volume. No length. It's a point. That's why it's a point.