View Full Version : ngeo's questions on space (etc)
ngeo
2007Jan10, 01:54 AM
Sorry to interrupt, offtopic, things move too fast for me.
In answer to my question “Is there a physical entity called ‘space’ which by some method expands? Or is it simply another way of saying that distances between objects increase?” Bjoern answered “Essentially, yes to the last question.”
I assume the answer is according to GR, correct me if I am wrong. If this answer means that there is not a physical entity called “space”, then is there a physical entity called “time”? Or to make the meaning more clear, is “time” physically real? (By this wording, “space” would not be physically real according to the answer.)
Maybe this should be somewhere else but I would appreciate a discussion on it somewhere.
Bjoern
2007Jan10, 03:10 PM
In answer to my question “Is there a physical entity called ‘space’ which by some method expands? Or is it simply another way of saying that distances between objects increase?” Bjoern answered “Essentially, yes to the last question.”
I assume the answer is according to GR, correct me if I am wrong. If this answer means that there is not a physical entity called “space”, then is there a physical entity called “time”? Or to make the meaning more clear, is “time” physically real? (By this wording, “space” would not be physically real according to the answer.)
With my answer you quote above, I simply wanted to point out that "space expands" means essentially the same as saying "distances increase". I didn't want to comment on the "physical reality" of space.
I'd say the answer to your questions depends on what exactly you mean with "a physical entity"...
Jerry
2007Jan10, 03:12 PM
Sorry to interrupt, offtopic, things move too fast for me.
In answer to my question “Is there a physical entity called ‘space’ which by some method expands? Or is it simply another way of saying that distances between objects increase?” Bjoern answered “Essentially, yes to the last question.”
I assume the answer is according to GR, correct me if I am wrong. If this answer means that there is not a physical entity called “space”, then is there a physical entity called “time”? Or to make the meaning more clear, is “time” physically real? (By this wording, “space” would not be physically real according to the answer.)
Maybe this should be somewhere else but I would appreciate a discussion on it somewhere.
In order to account for the size of the universe, and cram the observed light paths into 13 billion years, it is necessary to assume space itself is expanding and not that there is a simple relationship between a 'big bang' explosion and the current distribution of matter and light. The obvious question here is, if the gravimetric forces pull galaxies back together, does space contract  has the energy potential of the system increased? As Bjoern conceded, GR is not thermaldynamically balanced  or as one modern astrophysicist recently stated: "In the current model energy is not conserved. Deal with it!"
Bjoern
2007Jan10, 04:17 PM
In order to account for the size of the universe, and cram the observed light paths into 13 billion years, it is necessary to assume space itself is expanding
You wrote that as if you want to imply that "space is expanding" was an ad hoc madeup idea when one discovered that the "observed light paths" don't fit into the universe otherwise. But the idea of expanding space was in the theory right from the start  long before people had an idea that the universe has a size of more than 13 billion light years.
and not that there is a simple relationship between a 'big bang' explosion and the current distribution of matter and light.
What "simple relationship" would that be?
The obvious question here is, if the gravimetric forces pull galaxies back together,
You still have not explained what "gravimetric force" actually means. Please clarify. If you simply mean "gravitational force", why don't you say so?
does space contract
Locally, yes.
has the energy potential of the system increased?
The amount of vacuum energy increases. I don't know the term "energy potential". Did you perhaps mean "potential energy"?
As Bjoern conceded, GR is not thermaldynamically balanced  or as one modern astrophysicist recently stated: "In the current model energy is not conserved. Deal with it!"
You probably meant "thermodynamically" instead of "thermaldynamically"?
Sorry if it seems as I were nitpicking about the spelling of words  but I really am not sure what you mean, and hence I ask for clarifications.
ngeo
2007Jan10, 05:15 PM
After consulting the search engine, I would say that being physically real would be occurring in physical fact  fact associated with matter and energy  or having verifiable physical existence.
Maybe one could ask for a comment on the statement that “matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move”. In this statement, is “space” taken to be physically real? Or, taking the statement, “if you drop a few grains of matter in it, they fly away from each other”, is “it” physically real?
To try to keep this simple, loosely rendering a remembered Hawking book passage, “space is not what is empty, it is what is filled”, I might ask whether space and time are a physically real in that they are filled with energy (and its material forms). So space and time might then “contain” energy. Then the question would be whether space and time could exist without energy  and conversely, whether energy could exist without space and time. I think the answer is clear (someone else might not): at their root, “energy” and “space” and “time” are integrally connected, they cannot be separated from each other. That is, they are the same, in different forms. If energy is the ability (I see Bjoern used that word elsewhere  can ability be quantified?) to do work, that ability does not exist without space and time since, again at the root, work requires motion.
Maybe one could say that “space” and “time” are mathematical terms used to describe motion, but that they have no physical reality. So the mathematical term is separated from the physical reality. And maybe the problem with “spacetime geometry” is precisely that. In attempting to use a mathematical description for physical reality that is presumed to be completely separate from the terms, the physical reality, described mathematically, cannot be described. So when somebody asks a question like those above, conditions have to be attached to both the question and the answer to render the subject itself obscure and ultimately meaningless.
On the other hand if you try to look as clearly as possible at the terms “energy”, “space” and “time”  and “motion“  and think about them for awhile, and come to the conclusion that they are indeed the same, or are different words that mean the same, then you endow “space” and “time” with some qualities that geometry doesn’t describe, that lead to quite a different picture of the universe and how it might evolve. And that picture, described either mathematically or in words, might make sense.
Nereid
2007Jan10, 05:23 PM
[Moderator Note]
This thread has been created by splitting out posts from an ATM thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=51428) as those posts are quite irrelevant to that thread.
[/Moderator Note]
Bjoern
2007Jan10, 05:52 PM
After consulting the search engine, I would say that being physically real would be occurring in physical fact  fact associated with matter and energy  or having verifiable physical existence.
Well, both of these sound still rather vague to me. Obviously, space is "associated with matter and energy" in some sense  the equations of GR relate the curvature of space to the presence of energy/matter. Does that satisfy you?
And obviously space exists. But I don't know what "having verifiable physical existence" exactly is supposed to mean.
Maybe one could ask for a comment on the statement that “matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move”. In this statement, is “space” taken to be physically real? Or, taking the statement, “if you drop a few grains of matter in it, they fly away from each other”, is “it” physically real?
It is taken for real. If it is taken for "physiscally real", I can still not say.
To try to keep this simple, loosely rendering a remembered Hawking book passage, “space is not what is empty, it is what is filled”,
I would disagree with that statement. Could you please quote what Hawking exactly wrote?
I might ask whether space and time are a physically real in that they are filled with energy (and its material forms). Then the question would be whether space and time could exist without energy
Neglecting vacuum energy (which wasn't in the original equations of GR, although the cosmological constant is a possible and even natural parameter), space can also exist without energy.
 and conversely, whether energy could exist without space and time.
I don't think that this is possible. After all, energy is the ability to do work, and work is (roughly) force times distance. If there is no space, "distance" makes no sense, hence "work" is undefined, and hence "energy" is also undefined (well, that's essentially an ontological argument  and hence not really satisfying  at least to me). But you yourself made a quite similar argument in your post already.
I think the answer is clear (someone else might not): at their root, “energy” and “space” and “time” are integrally connected, they cannot be separated from each other. That is, they are the same, in different forms.
No, they are not the same. Why do you think so?
ngeo
2007Jan10, 07:07 PM
Nereid when I think about it I'm not so sure this was so far off topic in that there is some storytelling physics. But I don't mind at all that it is moved (smileyface)!
Bjoern wrote, “Neglecting vacuum energy (which wasn't in the original equations of GR, although the cosmological constant is a possible and even natural parameter), space can also exist without energy.”
Can you refer to an observation of a space that exists without energy?
Professor Hawking wrote, “What we think of as empty space is not really empty, but it is filled with pairs of particles and anti particles. These appear together at some point of space and time, move apart, and then come together and annihilate each other. These particles and anti particles occur because a field, such as the fields that carry light and gravity, can't be exactly zero. That would mean that the value of the field, would have both an exact position (at zero), and an exact speed or rate of change (also zero). This would be against the Uncertainty Principle, just as a particle can't have both an exact position, and an exact speed. So all fields must have what are called, vacuum fluctuations. Because of the quantum behaviour of nature, one can interpret these vacuum fluctuations, in terms of particles and anti particles, as I have described.”
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/dice.html
That “energy”, “space” and “time” are the same has become over time selfevident to me, so I guess it would be hard to form a statement “proving” it. I guess the reason why I think they are the same is that they can’t be separated (which is why I would have to disagree that space could exist without energy. Maybe you would have to let go of the math and try to envision what space (and time) without energy would look like  like nothing. And to me, nothing is a place that isn’t worth going to.
So the return question would be, why would it be thought that “energy”, “space” and “time” are not the same? Is it not because for the purpose of the geometry, there must be a distinction between the measuring device and what is measured?
In the Hawking quote above, it is interesting that fields are mentioned. In other threads it has been stated (and I believe it is physics orthodoxy) that an electric (electromagnetic) field permeates all space. Is this field energetic?
Nereid
2007Jan10, 07:34 PM
Sorry to interrupt, offtopic, things move too fast for me.
In answer to my question “Is there a physical entity called ‘space’ which by some method expands? Or is it simply another way of saying that distances between objects increase?” Bjoern answered “Essentially, yes to the last question.”
I assume the answer is according to GR, correct me if I am wrong. If this answer means that there is not a physical entity called “space”, then is there a physical entity called “time”? Or to make the meaning more clear, is “time” physically real? (By this wording, “space” would not be physically real according to the answer.)
Maybe this should be somewhere else but I would appreciate a discussion on it somewhere.What follows almost certainly isn't the kind of answer you are looking for, ngeo, but it is (I hope) entirely relevant within the framework of modern physics.
General Relativity (GR) is a theory within (modern) physics.
It's domain of applicability is, naively, unlimited; however, it is incompatible with another (set of) theory(ies) in modern physics, quantum mechanics (QM), and the regimes in which the incompatibility is intolerable include the Planck regime.
GR has been tested, both here on Earth, within the solar system, within our own galaxy, and in the universe at large. So far, it has passed every test, with flying colours.
GR's incompatibility with QM cannot, at present, be tested, either in any Earthbound lab or experiment, or by any astronomical observation ... to date.
GR 'talks about' space and time.
To the extent that a theory of physics, which seems to be an accurate description of everything we have ever observed, to date  period  and which includes 'an account of' space and time is relevant to the questions such as the ones in the OP, then we may answer all those questions by asking an equivalent set of questions, recast in 'the language of GR'.
What might those recast questions be?
....
Before proceeding to try to answer them, could you, ngeo, please state in what way the approach to providing an answer (outlined above) would be unsatisfactory to you?
Bjoern
2007Jan10, 08:15 PM
Bjoern wrote, “Neglecting vacuum energy (which wasn't in the original equations of GR, although the cosmological constant is a possible and even natural parameter), space can also exist without energy.”
Can you refer to an observation of a space that exists without energy?
I was talking about what GR says, not about observations. If you don't accept GR as a valid theory, then it becomes a bit hard to address your questions...
Professor Hawking wrote, “What we think of as empty space is not really empty, but it is filled with pairs of particles and anti particles. These appear together at some point of space and time, move apart, and then come together and annihilate each other. These particles and anti particles occur because a field, such as the fields that carry light and gravity, can't be exactly zero. That would mean that the value of the field, would have both an exact position (at zero), and an exact speed or rate of change (also zero). This would be against the Uncertainty Principle, just as a particle can't have both an exact position, and an exact speed. So all fields must have what are called, vacuum fluctuations. Because of the quantum behaviour of nature, one can interpret these vacuum fluctuations, in terms of particles and anti particles, as I have described.”
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/dice.html
Yes, that's the vacuum energy which I said I'd neglect. My point was that GR says that space can exist even when there is no energy present (i. e. the chain of reasoning was: no energy present ==> space can exist). But when we take QFT into account additionally, we see that every space which exists has to be filled with "vacuum energy". I. e. QFT says: space exists ==> energy is present. You can count this as a point where GR and QFT make somewhat contradictory statements, if you like. :)
That “energy”, “space” and “time” are the same has become over time selfevident to me, so I guess it would be hard to form a statement “proving” it.
Who am I to argue against a selfevident truth? :)
I guess the reason why I think they are the same is that they can’t be separated
So what? That does not make them identical.
(which is why I would have to disagree that space could exist without energy. Maybe you would have to let go of the math and try to envision what space (and time) without energy would look like  like nothing.
Space existing between two bodies would still mean that the bodies are separated. If there is truly nothing between two bodies, they are not separated.
So the return question would be, why would it be thought that “energy”, “space” and “time” are not the same?
Energy is the ability to do work. It is something which is associated with bodies or fields, i. e. which exists in space. How could that be the same as space itself? Do you want to say that e. g. a body of mass m which moves with velocity has the "kinetic space" of 0.5 m v^2? I don't see how that could make any sense, sorry.
In the Hawking quote above, it is interesting that fields are mentioned. In other threads it has been stated (and I believe it is physics orthodoxy) that an electric (electromagnetic) field permeates all space.
Electromagnetic, yes. Photons are seen as "excitations" of that field in Quantum Electrodynamics.
Is this field energetic?
If you mean "Does it contain energy?", then yes.
ngeo
2007Jan11, 12:24 AM
It seems to me that a physical theory would attempt to explain observed phenomena. In this case GR seems to be attempting to explain observed phenomena by invoking the existence of a nonenergetic yet active (?) spatialtemporal “container“, whereas all space that is observed  even in the sense of a container  appears to have energy “in” it. (I say “active” since it appears to tell matter how to move.)
I don’t accept or reject GR as a mathematical tool, but I do seek to understand physical reality, and I think it would be a good thing to be able to fit the mathematical language (which I do not understand in the least) to the word language. I wonder what is meant by “i.e. the chain of reasoning was: no energy present = = (arrow) space can exist”. Does this mean “no energy present, therefore space can exist”? If that is so, then it seems that according to GR, space excludes energy, and energy excludes space. This implies some kind of interaction.
With regard to the identical nature of energy and spacetime, attempting an analogy: take an object whose entire substance is contained in its form. So the substance and form of this object cannot be separated. Would it not be accurate to say that the substance and the form of this object are identical?
With regard to electromagnetic fields, which (I presume) according to GR exist within a spatial container, are these fields separate from the space they are supposed to permeate? Suppose one were to suggest the existence of a spatial “field” with the ability to do work. Would that not be an energetic spatial field, i.e. an energetic space, as opposed to a nonenergetic, not to say nonexistent, “space“?
Bjoern
2007Jan11, 05:10 PM
It seems to me that a physical theory would attempt to explain observed phenomena. In this case GR seems to be attempting to explain observed phenomena by invoking the existence of a nonenergetic yet active (?) spatialtemporal “container“, whereas all space that is observed  even in the sense of a container  appears to have energy “in” it. (I say “active” since it appears to tell matter how to move.)
Yes, the observed space has (vacuum) energy in it. But that's not the job of GR to explain (which merely explains how space(time) curves under the influence of energy, and how that affects matter), but the job of QFT.
You can't expect one single theory to explain every observed fact  as least not as long we don't have a "Theory of Everything"...
I wonder what is meant by “i.e. the chain of reasoning was: no energy present = = (arrow) space can exist”. Does this mean “no energy present, therefore space can exist”?
Sorry, that was indeed confusing. What I meant was "even when there is no energy present, nevertheless space can exist".
With regard to the identical nature of energy and spacetime, attempting an analogy: take an object whose entire substance is contained in its form.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
With regard to electromagnetic fields, which (I presume) according to GR exist within a spatial container, are these fields separate from the space they are supposed to permeate?
As you said, it is "contained" in the space. I don't know exactly what you mean with "separate from the space". It is surely not identical to space, if you meant that!
According to differential geometry, the electromagnetic field is an U(1) fiber bundle on the fourdimensional spacetime manifold. But I don't suppose telling you that helps much...
Suppose one were to suggest the existence of a spatial “field” with the ability to do work.
I don't know what you mean with "spatial field", sorry.
Would that not be an energetic spatial field, i.e. an energetic space, as opposed to a nonenergetic, not to say nonexistent, “space“?
Please explain what you mean with "energetic". Being identical to energy? Containing energy? Or what?
ngeo
2007Jan11, 09:05 PM
The idea which prompts my questions directly relates to the explanation for energetic space. That is that space (spacetime) has, or is the manifestation of, the ability to do work  hence “energetic spatial field“.
Then spacetime could be said to be the “initial condition” of energy  in that at its root, energy could be seen as the ability to move. (I realize this is not orthodoxy.) So spacetime in this idea is very different from the GR spacetime you describe, which does easily lead to misunderstanding.
I think like many other amateurs I am indeed interested in a “Theory of Everything” although given the (apparent) success of GR and the proven success of QED I would be searching to find some way of reconciling their conflicts (and maybe even an internal problem or two).
It appears that the differing concepts of space are a major difficulty, which you have pointed out. It seems an additional problem, which might lie more with quantum theories, is the idea of point particles. Postulating an energetic space may answer both the conflict between GR and quantum theories, and the “point particle” problem. The idea being that rotating energetic space creates the equivalent of an electromagnetic field  but this “electromagnetic field” is an effect of the more fundamental energy field. On the GR side, gravity is (I believe) also an effect of the fundamental field, and while my idea of the workings inside atoms is still somewhat hazy, the quantized energy transfer inside atoms and by photons is a clue to this field  in other words, the existence of a fundamental field may explain quantization in electromagnetism (and maybe in gravity).
It seems to me that neither GR nor quantum theories need to be amended in their mathematical workings  as far as they work, that is. But recognition of the possibility of energetic space could be a way to bring them closer together conceptually at least.
This idea really conflicts with the mainstream big bang ideas of a hot dense initial state and a finite amount of massenergy. Energetic space will naturally expand, and as the force of the energetic spatial field works within the field it creates pressure, which causes rotation, which is matter, so there is a constant expansion and a constant creation of matter. You have said that universally GR does not require energy conservation, and I wonder why (or maybe even whether) the big bang theories require this finite amount (and further, it doesn’t make any sense to me to quantify “4%”, “25%”, or “100%” of “the universe” and I suspect these quantities have a special meaning only within the theories themselves). Which also naturally puts me at odds with the mainstream.
Having laid that out I don’t expect agreement, but I believe the concept is valid and from a metaphysical view at least could help to bridge a gap between GR and quantum theories. I have done some math giving at least one astounding (to me) result which suggests an electronproton system is a system of superconducting current loops or a current loop and rotating charge, and I am continuing to do algebraic equations. I must end with a question, so I will say that my understanding of the spacetime manifold of differential geometry is pretty meager  four axes?  and I don’t understand those matrices with the rows and columns (or anything they refer to, or actually anything above high school algebra). However, if there is a way to describe a U(1) fiber bundle on the fourdimensional spacetime manifold in any terms other than mathematical, what would that description look like?
Bjoern
2007Jan11, 09:23 PM
The idea which prompts my questions directly relates to the explanation for energetic space. That is that space (spacetime) has, or is the manifestation of, the ability to do work  hence “energetic spatial field“.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Space has the ability to do work? Space is "the manifestation" of that ability???
And why do you call that a "field"? You seem to use the term "field" with another meaning than physicists here...
Then spacetime could be said to be the “initial condition” of energy  in that at its root, energy could be seen as the ability to move. (I realize this is not orthodoxy.)
What has the energy in electric fields to do with the ability to move? What has chemical energy to do with the ability to move? What has nuclear energy to do with the ability to move? etc.
And I don't understand what you mean with "initial condition" here.
So spacetime in this idea is very different from the GR spacetime you describe, which does easily lead to misunderstanding.
I thought you talked about the spacetime of GR. If you mean a different spacetime, please define the concept clearly.
I think like many other amateurs I am indeed interested in a “Theory of Everything” although given the (apparent) success of GR and the proven success of QED I would be searching to find some way of reconciling their conflicts (and maybe even an internal problem or two).
You probably mean QFT (or the Standard Model of Particle Physics) here, not (only) QED.
Physicists have looked for ways to reconcile the two for decades now. I don't think it likely that an amateur will find the solution  after all, for reconciling the two, one first needs to know both intimately, don't you think?
Postulating an energetic space may answer both the conflict between GR and quantum theories, and the “point particle” problem. The idea being that rotating energetic space
What does it mean to say that space rotates?
creates the equivalent of an electromagnetic field
Equivalent in what sense?
What you describe here sounds vaguely like gravitomagnetic fields  have you ever heard of those?
It seems to me that neither GR nor quantum theories need to be amended in their mathematical workings  as far as they work, that is.
In order to make such a statement, you need to know the "mathematical workings" of both theories. Do you?
This idea really conflicts with the mainstream big bang ideas of a hot dense initial state
If one extrapolates the expansion back in time, that's an almost inevitable conclusion.
and a finite amount of massenergy.
Two of the three Big Bang models describe a universe with an infinite volume, hence an infinite amount of massenergy.
Energetic space will naturally expand,
Why?
and as the force of the energetic spatial field works within the field it creates pressure,
Why?
which causes rotation,
Why?
which is matter,
Huh?????
it doesn’t make any sense to me to quantify “4%”, “25%”, or “100%” of “the universe”
Why not?
(Please notice that usually, these percentages refer to densities, not to amounts of energy/matter.)
Having laid that out I don’t expect agreement, but I believe the concept is valid and from a metaphysical view at least could help to bridge a gap between GR and quantum theories.
So far, I don't understand why you think so.
I have done some math giving at least one astounding (to me) result which suggests an electronproton system is a system of superconducting current loops or a current loop and rotating charge,
Please show this math. Perhaps a link to a pdf file?
so I will say that my understanding of the spacetime manifold of differential geometry is pretty meager  four axes?  and I don’t understand those matrices with the rows and columns (or anything they refer to, or actually anything above high school algebra).
So you don't understand the math of GR. So your statement about the "mathematical workings" above had no basis (other than a gut feeling, apparently).
However, if there is a way to describe a U(1) fiber bundle on the fourdimensional spacetime manifold in any terms other than mathematical, what would that description look like?
I don't see how, sorry. A "field" in itself is already essentially a mathematical concept. Hence I don't know of any way to describe what an electromagnetic field actually is other than by using mathematical language. True, there are these nice little pictures learned in school with field lines etc.  but these don't reall grasp the essential concepts.
ngeo
2007Jan11, 11:37 PM
If you can imagine no space, then a real space, then some ability to create real space has done some work in creating that real space. What shape, in the absence of any other real space, does that real space take, and at what rate is that real space created? The idea is that the shape is a sphere, expanding at c  spacetime as an initial condition of the ability to create real space.
Then does that ability cease, or does it create more real space? And within that real space which is already created, does that ability not attempt to create real space? Yet there is already real space there. So the ability is faced with either ceasing to exist or to create real space  to expand  in a region where real space already exists and is attempting to expand into it. Say there is no off switch to this ability, so it cannot cease to exist. Pressure of space then causes a region of space to rotate, absorbing the pressure.
Bjoern wrote,
“What has the energy in electric fields to do with the ability to move? What has chemical energy to do with the ability to move? What has nuclear energy to do with the ability to move? etc.”
Sorry I don’t understand. Are you asking what energy has to do with the ability to move? In order to do work, doesn’t something have to move? And isn’t energy required to do work?
“You probably mean QFT (or the Standard Model of Particle Physics) here, not (only) QED.
“Physicists have looked for ways to reconcile the two for decades now. I don't think it likely that an amateur will find the solution  after all, for reconciling the two, one first needs to know both intimately, don't you think?”
I have to doubt whether someone who spends his or her life learning the intimate details of two complex physical theories will have the motivation to unlearn a lifetime of learning. I base this doubt on the failure of several generations of intimately knowledgeable physicists to reconcile or even begin to reconcile GR and quantum theories. But there is always a chance, slim though it may be.
“What does it mean to say that space rotates?”
It means to say that space rotates.

Originally Posted by ngeo
creates the equivalent of an electromagnetic field

“Equivalent in what sense?”
Equivalent in the sense that an “electromagnetic field” is a term already in use in another theory, which would be equivalent to an effect of a fundamental field in this idea.
“What you describe here sounds vaguely like gravitomagnetic fields  have you ever heard of those?”
Yes. Not that I understand them.

Originally Posted by ngeo
It seems to me that neither GR nor quantum theories need to be amended in their mathematical workings  as far as they work, that is.

“In order to make such a statement, you need to know the "mathematical workings" of both theories. Do you?”
No. Neither do I believe that in order to make such a statement, I need to know the “mathematical workings” of both theories.

Originally Posted by ngeo
This idea really conflicts with the mainstream big bang ideas of a hot dense initial state

“If one extrapolates the expansion back in time, that's an almost inevitable conclusion.”
Extrapolating the expansion back in time may be the problem.
“Two of the three Big Bang models describe a universe with an infinite volume, hence an infinite amount of massenergy.”
That’s interesting.

Originally Posted by ngeo
it doesn’t make any sense to me to quantify “4%”, “25%”, or “100%” of “the universe”

“Why not?
“(Please notice that usually, these percentages refer to densities, not to amounts of energy/matter.)”
So the total density of the universe is 100 percent. Wow.
“So you don't understand the math of GR. So your statement about the "mathematical workings" above had no basis (other than a gut feeling, apparently).”
True  a gut feeling emanating after speculation on the words people use to describe the mathematical workings of GR.

Originally Posted by ngeo
However, if there is a way to describe a U(1) fiber bundle on the fourdimensional spacetime manifold in any terms other than mathematical, what would that description look like?

“I don't see how, sorry. A "field" in itself is already essentially a mathematical concept. Hence I don't know of any way to describe what an electromagnetic field actually is other than by using mathematical language. True, there are these nice little pictures learned in school with field lines etc.  but these don't reall grasp the essential concepts.”
http://www.answers.com/field&r=67
“Field
“Physics. A region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region.”
Bjoern
2007Jan15, 08:59 PM
If you can imagine no space, then a real space, then some ability to create real space has done some work in creating that real space. What shape, in the absence of any other real space, does that real space take, and at what rate is that real space created? The idea is that the shape is a sphere, expanding at c  spacetime as an initial condition of the ability to create real space.
What expands at c? The radius of the sphere? Or its circumference?
And: do you mean the (3d) surface of a (4d) sphere here, or are you talking about the interior of a 3d sphere?
Then does that ability cease, or does it create more real space? And within that real space which is already created, does that ability not attempt to create real space? Yet there is already real space there. So the ability is faced with either ceasing to exist or to create real space  to expand  in a region where real space already exists and is attempting to expand into it. Say there is no off switch to this ability, so it cannot cease to exist. Pressure of space then causes a region of space to rotate, absorbing the pressure.
Sorry, I don't see how this pressure could lead to rotation.
Bjoern wrote,
“What has the energy in electric fields to do with the ability to move? What has chemical energy to do with the ability to move? What has nuclear energy to do with the ability to move? etc.”
Sorry I don’t understand. Are you asking what energy has to do with the ability to move?
I was pointing out that there are forms of energy which have little to do with the ability to move.
In order to do work, doesn’t something have to move?
No, not always. E. g. an electric field can do work on charged particles without moving itself.
“What does it mean to say that space rotates?”
It means to say that space rotates.
Not clear. Try again, please.
Originally Posted by ngeo
creates the equivalent of an electromagnetic field

“Equivalent in what sense?”
Equivalent in the sense that an “electromagnetic field” is a term already in use in another theory, which would be equivalent to an effect of a fundamental field in this idea.
The effects of the fundamental field are equivalent to the effects of an electromagnetic field  do I understand this correctly?
Originally Posted by ngeo
It seems to me that neither GR nor quantum theories need to be amended in their mathematical workings  as far as they work, that is.

“In order to make such a statement, you need to know the "mathematical workings" of both theories. Do you?”
No. Neither do I believe that in order to make such a statement, I need to know the “mathematical workings” of both theories.
How can you judge if the "mathematical workings" need to be amended when you don't even know them???
Originally Posted by ngeo
This idea really conflicts with the mainstream big bang ideas of a hot dense initial state

“If one extrapolates the expansion back in time, that's an almost inevitable conclusion.”
Extrapolating the expansion back in time may be the problem.
Well, the observations are nicely consistent with the results of such an extrapolation.
Originally Posted by ngeo
it doesn’t make any sense to me to quantify “4%”, “25%”, or “100%” of “the universe”

“Why not?
“(Please notice that usually, these percentages refer to densities, not to amounts of energy/matter.)”
So the total density of the universe is 100 percent. Wow.
(1) I didn't say that.
(2) Please answer my question why this does not make sense to you?
“So you don't understand the math of GR. So your statement about the "mathematical workings" above had no basis (other than a gut feeling, apparently).”
True  a gut feeling emanating after speculation on the words people use to describe the mathematical workings of GR.
Why on earth do you think such vague ideas of the mathematicak workings of GR gives you any insights on what the problem may be???
Originally Posted by ngeo
However, if there is a way to describe a U(1) fiber bundle on the fourdimensional spacetime manifold in any terms other than mathematical, what would that description look like?

“I don't see how, sorry. A "field" in itself is already essentially a mathematical concept. Hence I don't know of any way to describe what an electromagnetic field actually is other than by using mathematical language. True, there are these nice little pictures learned in school with field lines etc.  but these don't reall grasp the essential concepts.”
http://www.answers.com/field&r=67
“Field
“Physics. A region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's essentially a mathematical concept, I'd say. (what I had in mind was actually "a function of the three spatial coordinates", but that's essentially the same as what you quoted here)
ngeo
2007Jan16, 01:45 AM
“What expands at c? The radius of the sphere? Or its circumference?”
The radius of a ball.
“Sorry, I don't see how this pressure could lead to rotation.”
That’s okay.
“I was pointing out that there are forms of energy which have little to do with the ability to move.”
Sorry, I don’t understand. Try again, please.
(Re rotating space): “Not clear. Try again, please.”
Sorry, I can’t make it any clearer than that.
“The effects of the fundamental field are equivalent to the effects of an electromagnetic field  do I understand this correctly?”
There is an electromagnetic effect of the fundamental field.
“How can you judge if the "mathematical workings" need to be amended when you don't even know them???”
Well, where they work, they don’t need to be amended, and where they don’t work, they need to be amended, and where they don’t go, who knows?
(Re “100% of the universe): “Please answer my question why this does not make sense to you?”
It’s like this, Bjoern. Say you quantify the total number of apples in the universe. You give that a number. Then you say, well, that doesn’t match the theory, so you add a few more apples. You give that a number. Whether it is a number of joules or a number of apples, it is a number. Then you say, well, that’s it for the apples, now we will add some dark energy. That makes one hundred percent. But there is no number. Can you understand that logic?
“Why on earth do you think such vague ideas of the mathematicak workings of GR gives you any insights on what the problem may be???”
What is the problem?
Ken G
2007Jan16, 02:26 AM
Perhaps there is another angle that this discussion could take. Physics is a science about quantitative measurements, so if you want to talk about the "reality" of things in the context of physics, you have to talk about how you measure and quantify them. "Space" is a mental construct that has no "reality" to it until you talk about measuring distance with, say, a ruler, just as time becomes real when you measure it with a clock. It was originally thought that these were absolute concepts, but the lesson of relativity is that they depend on the frame of the observer.
ngeo
2007Jan16, 03:37 PM
Ken G, I will not disagree with your statement that space (and time) is a construct that has no “reality” to it until you talk about measuring, if by “construct” you mean a mental construct for the “real” purpose of measurement. I accept that space and time are how we measure events. However since an electromagnetic field (and a gravitational field) “permeates” i.e. is present in all of space, this concept (construct!?) of “space” as a construct seems moot, since (to use the description of “field” given in the previous posts) it is everywhere characterized by physical properties. Only if “reality” is a mental construct would “space” and “time” be mental constructs. Otherwise, if you accept an objective reality outside yourself, you have to accept that this reality moves, or changes, or transforms  due to those fields, whether you call them “space” etc. And since without energy nothing moves, I take energy as the ability to move, and motion is work. And in the absence of any other physical property, that ability is manifested as spatial expansion, which you might say is an unreal spatialtemporal construct, but it describes reality to me.
It appears (to me) that GR requires bodies of matter, and requires spacetime as a construct in order to measure their motion. However this does not mean that the bodies of matter required by GR actually exist in the form required by GR, i.e. as nuggets or agglomerations of “stuff“ measurable in kilograms. It is possible (and I believe very likely) that bodies of matter are forms of a fundamental field, one of whose effects is electromagnetism, whose field permeates all of space. So I guess “energetic spatial field” is a construct to reproduce this possibility.
Ken G
2007Jan16, 04:06 PM
Ken G, I will not disagree with your statement that space (and time) is a construct that has no “reality” to it until you talk about measuring, if by “construct” you mean a mental construct for the “real” purpose of measurement. Yes, that's what I mean.
However since an electromagnetic field (and a gravitational field) “permeates” i.e. is present in all of space, this concept (construct!?) of “space” as a construct seems moot, since (to use the description of “field” given in the previous posts) it is everywhere characterized by physical properties.No, the field is also a construct that only has "real" properties in the context of some kind of measurement. We measure the response of charges, for example, so the reality of the field is simply that its presence implies charges will do certain things. We can picture it as "permeating space" if we choose, but in physics, reality is inseparable from making measurements.
Only if “reality” is a mental construct would “space” and “time” be mental constructs.What "reality" is is a word. Connected to that word is a vaguely defined construct, and the precise meaning of that construct varies from application to application. I'm talking about the physics application of the term.
And since without energy nothing moves, I take energy as the ability to move, and motion is work.Movement and energy are two additional constructs, and you are right, they are deeply connected. Their intersection with what you are calling "objective reality" is defined in physics only in terms of the objective measurements we can make on them.
It is possible (and I believe very likely) that bodies of matter are forms of a fundamental field, one of whose effects is electromagnetism, whose field permeates all of space. So I guess “energetic spatial field” is a construct to reproduce this possibility.
Such fields are very useful in particle physics, that is true. But all we can really say about them is that they are mental constructs that help us understand and predict the objective results of measurements.
Bjoern
2007Jan16, 05:38 PM
“Sorry, I don't see how this pressure could lead to rotation.”
That’s okay.
I. e. you don't want to explain?
“I was pointing out that there are forms of energy which have little to do with the ability to move.”
Sorry, I don’t understand. Try again, please.
I gave an example: electric fields contain energy and can do work on charged particles without moving themselves. Why did you delete this example, instead of addressing it?
(Re rotating space): “Not clear. Try again, please.”
Sorry, I can’t make it any clearer than that.
Well, let's try it in another way: how could one measure this rotation?
(Re “100% of the universe): “Please answer my question why this does not make sense to you?”
It’s like this, Bjoern. Say you quantify the total number of apples in the universe. You give that a number. Then you say, well, that doesn’t match the theory, so you add a few more apples. You give that a number. Whether it is a number of joules or a number of apples, it is a number. Then you say, well, that’s it for the apples, now we will add some dark energy. That makes one hundred percent. But there is no number. Can you understand that logic?
No. Especially, I don't understand what you mean here with "there is no number". If this is supposed to mean that dark energy can't be counted, then you should consider that normal matter also isn't counted in cosmology. Instead, what is given in cosmology is the ratio of the average density (of normal matter, of dark energy, etc.) to the critical density.
ngeo
2007Jan16, 07:28 PM
Regarding the statements that in physics, “reality” is inseparable from making measurements, and that “objective reality” is defined only in terms of objective measurements and the objective results of measurements, would “physics”  as a word  represent a mental construct in which “reality” is constrained to being the “objective results of measurements”? In other words, does “physics” assign an “objective reality” to results of measurements?
Regarding the statement (from the CMB thread) that the goal of science is to take processes you already understand and try to use them to explain something you don’t understand yet, which if you succeed will result in a “working theory”, then when “objective measurements” are at odds with a “working theory”, the measurements must prevail?
At that point, what is the “known physics”, as a mental construct representing “objective results of measurements” predicted by a “working theory”? Applied to the Big Bang theories, do “objective results of measurements” produce a “working theory” which qualifies as “known physics”, prior to Big Bang nucleosynthesis?
I have to say I find this kind of discussion over words pretty tiresome, particularly in view of the following: Giving an electron and proton a frequency in accordance with E=hf, a value for E being found by E=mc2, then voltages for electron and proton can be derived according to v = hf/q, q being the elementary charge. (Then m = hf/c2.) Then the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140. In addition the frequency of either particle is approximately ½ the product of the square of the voltage of that particle and the voltage of the other particle. When 140 is replaced by the inverse of alpha the fine structure constant (a), then the frequencies are exactly equal to twice the product of the square etc. The voltages and frequencies of each particle are slightly altered also. And a ratio (r) of approximately 1860.308707 appears between proton and electron voltages and frequencies. It is then possible to derive the (new) voltage of the electron as 2 x r / a and of the proton as 2 x r^2 / a, and also the frequencies, using r and a.
Now all this may not make much sense, but it turns out that the product of electron and proton voltages in this method is exactly equal to the Josephson constant, 2 x q / h, the inverse of the magnetic flux quantum. And this allows the possibility of a system of superconducting current loops between which a quantized magnetic current flows. My first question then is, is the electronproton system already known to be a system of superconducting current loops? And secondly, could this be tested by “known physics”? Because at the root of this speculation is that a mental construct, “energetic spatial field”, produces these super conducting current loops via a mental construct, “pressure of space”. This speculation also requires that the values for bound electron and proton “mass” are not exactly what is “objectively measured” in their “free” state, and that such an “objective measurement” cannot be made in their “bound” state.
(I am through posting for today at least)
Ken G
2007Jan16, 08:36 PM
In other words, does “physics” assign an “objective reality” to results of measurements?Physics doesn't assign objective reality to anything, it gives us an understanding of and ability to predict the results of measurements. We are the ones who assign the sense of objective reality. Scientists may each do this in their own personal way, but what is objective about the science itself is the measurements.
Regarding the statement (from the CMB thread) that the goal of science is to take processes you already understand and try to use them to explain something you don’t understand yet, which if you succeed will result in a “working theory”, then when “objective measurements” are at odds with a “working theory”, the measurements must prevail?Quite.
At that point, what is the “known physics”, as a mental construct representing “objective results of measurements” predicted by a “working theory”?I believe you are answering your own question.
Applied to the Big Bang theories, do “objective results of measurements” produce a “working theory” which qualifies as “known physics”, prior to Big Bang nucleosynthesis?The known physics comes from other experiments, such as can be done in laboratories and accelerators, and applied to the Big Bang under the assumption that physics stays the same. It is hard to get the results of observations from prior to Big Bang nucleosynthesis!
I have to say I find this kind of discussion over words pretty tiresomeMe too.
ngeo
2007Jan17, 02:13 PM
(Re pressure leading to rotation) “I. e. you don't want to explain?”
Not at all. I don’t know. I am imagining that there is a difference in pressure, because of the shape of the expansion and the universe not being perfect.
“I gave an example: electric fields contain energy and can do work on charged particles without moving themselves. Why did you delete this example, instead of addressing it?”
It seemed fairly evident to me that something has to move in the relation between electric fields, which “contain” the ability to do work, and charged particles. And it seemed there is more than “a little” to do with the ability to move in that relationship.
(Re rotating space) “Well, let's try it in another way: how could one measure this rotation?”
Frequency.
(Re 100% of the universe) “No. Especially, I don't understand what you mean here with "there is no number". If this is supposed to mean that dark energy can't be counted, then you should consider that normal matter also isn't counted in cosmology. Instead, what is given in cosmology is the ratio of the average density (of normal matter, of dark energy, etc.) to the critical density.”
I guess I am not talking about cosmology. I think there is a name for the logic which determines that “everything” is 100% of “everything”. I guess if “everything” is either apples or music, and all you can count is apples, then apples and music still makes 100%.
Are you saying that the ratio of the average density to the critical density is 100%?
Bjoern
2007Jan17, 04:04 PM
In other words, does “physics” assign an “objective reality” to results of measurements?
Most of what you wrote before this sounded rather metaphysically. But to this question, I'd answer yes.
Regarding the statement (from the CMB thread) that the goal of science is to take processes you already understand and try to use them to explain something you don’t understand yet, which if you succeed will result in a “working theory”, then when “objective measurements” are at odds with a “working theory”, the measurements must prevail?
Obviously, yes.
Applied to the Big Bang theories, do “objective results of measurements” produce a “working theory” which qualifies as “known physics”, prior to Big Bang nucleosynthesis?
I'd say yes again. The theory (inflation) is still quite provisional, but it is nevertheless working.
I have to say I find this kind of discussion over words pretty tiresome, particularly in view of the following: Giving an electron and proton a frequency in accordance with E=hf, a value for E being found by E=mc2, then voltages for electron and proton can be derived according to v = hf/q, q being the elementary charge. (Then m = hf/c2.)
You don't need E=hf for assigning a voltage to the electron and proton. But assigning such a voltage makes little sense  after all, E=vq gives the energy which a particles gains (or loses) when it travels through a region with a potential difference of v. Since the rest energy of electrons and protons obviously are not acquired in that way, the voltage you calculate here is meaningless.
BTW: the frequency f you mention here is not the frequency of the particles themselves, but of the wavefunctions describing them.
Then the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140.
Err, what happened to the units in this calculation? Do you mean 140 Hz/V^2, or what?
In addition the frequency of either particle is approximately ½ the product of the square of the voltage of that particle and the voltage of the other particle.
And again, the units don't match.
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or do you really not know that one can't simply neglect the units of physical quantities?
I'll leave out the remainder of this numerology...
My first question then is, is the electronproton system already known to be a system of superconducting current loops?
No.
And secondly, could this be tested by “known physics”?
I'd think that this should show up in scattering experiments done with atoms, protons and electrons...
This speculation also requires that the values for bound electron and proton “mass” are not exactly what is “objectively measured” in their “free” state, and that such an “objective measurement” cannot be made in their “bound” state.
Well, the mass of a hydrogen atom is (within the limits of measurement) equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron...
Bjoern
2007Jan17, 04:09 PM
...because of the shape of the expansion and the universe not being perfect.
I don't understand what you mean here, please explain.
“I gave an example: electric fields contain energy and can do work on charged particles without moving themselves. Why did you delete this example, instead of addressing it?”
It seemed fairly evident to me that something has to move in the relation between electric fields, which “contain” the ability to do work, and charged particles. And it seemed there is more than “a little” to do with the ability to move in that relationship.
The particles move, yes. But the electric field, which is the thing doing the work, does not move. Hence obviously "ability to do work" does not depend on "moves".
(Re rotating space) “Well, let's try it in another way: how could one measure this rotation?”
Frequency.
Very vague. Please elaborate.
(Re 100% of the universe) “No. Especially, I don't understand what you mean here with "there is no number". If this is supposed to mean that dark energy can't be counted, then you should consider that normal matter also isn't counted in cosmology. Instead, what is given in cosmology is the ratio of the average density (of normal matter, of dark energy, etc.) to the critical density.”
I guess I am not talking about cosmology.
Well, as long as you don't make clear what you are talking about, I can't help you. But all your other remarks seemed to imply that you were talking about cosmology.
Are you saying that the ratio of the average density to the critical density is 100%?
If one includes everything (radiation, normal and dark matter, and dark energy) when computing the average density, then yes.
More accurately, IIRC, the latest measurements showed that the ratio is somewhere between 99% and 101%.
Cougar
2007Jan17, 04:20 PM
In answer to my question “Is there a physical entity called ‘space’ which by some method expands? Or is it simply another way of saying that distances between objects increase?” Bjoern answered “Essentially, yes to the last question.”
I assume the answer is according to GR, correct me if I am wrong. If this answer means that there is not a physical entity called “space”, then is there a physical entity called “time”? Or to make the meaning more clear, is “time” physically real?
As Bjoern and Ken have indicated, these are kind of philosophical questions that physicists don't really concern themselves with, particularly when you ask, "What is the reality of the situation?"
I'm not big on philosophically oriented discussions either, but I guess I am not physicist enough to completely remain silent on some of these questions, so I will give you my feeling (read: speculation) about this "space" question.
I think of space as a real thing, like a rising loaf of bread... only apparently clear. :shifty: As your Hawking quote says, space is filled with virtual particles of various sorts. And since the expansion has been determined to be accelerating, I speculate that space is also an ocean of some sort of negative vacuum energy. This is different than EM energy, and it may or not be related to the virtual particles. There is also theorized to be a "Higgs ocean" that confers mass to all the various particles, rather like a vat of molasses affects the inertia of a ballbearing dropped into it. I don't know if the Higgs field is related to the acceleration either. The "negative pressure vacuum energy" does sound strongly reminiscent of the driving force of Guth's inflation. I forget the fine details, but the energy level of early space is thought to be very high, but then it is thought to "decay" to its ground state, as most things do. I speculate that perhaps this early vacuum energy did not decay all the way to its ground state, leaving an almost undetectable amount of this expansion energy in the "fabric" of space, which we have recently detected as "dark energy."
Again, all speculation.
Tim Thompson
2007Jan17, 04:56 PM
Space, time & energy are all intuitive elements that come from our everyday, common sense observations of the world around us. They are enshrined in Newtonian mechanics, the physics of the common sense world, as elements in the mathematical development of classical physics. However, they are, like beauty, entirely in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the single greatest lesson that comes out of 20th century physics is the realization that, when viewed on scales that are far removed from our common sense world, space, time & energy all behave in demostrably non common sense ways. The universe does not follow our common sense rules when it operates on scales of the very small (quantum physics) or on scales of the very large (general relativity).
The big deal in theoretical physics these days is trying to use some form of quantum field theory to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics. But time, space & energy are all classical concepts, originally imported into quantum mechanics out of necessity, as we had no other ideas by which to understand the universe. But things have changed. The old classical mechanics of Newton, and quantum mechanics of the early 20th century have given way to classical field theory and quantum field theory, which are distinctly mathematical ways of approaching physics, somewhat less recognizable pehaps, than the older tools more firmly rooted in our more physical way of seeing the world.
In both cases, the emphasis is on the field. We treat field theory as a field imposed on a preexisting background of spacetime, but only for convenience, because we think we intuitively understand what space & time are. But as far as the mathematics is concerned, space & time are unnecessary baggage that can be dispensed with rather easily. That is the direction that quantum field theory is heading in. All we really need to know is the field, while space & time (and energy) are derived quantities that we use only to find our way around in the physics, like roads on a map.
Visit Ed Witten's webpage (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/), at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies, and download the PDF article Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime. He talks about the elimination of spacetime from quantum field theory.
In my view, spacetime, like Newtonian mechanics, is real only in limited applications. It's real where it works, but it is only some kind of an approximation for something else, which we do not yet understand. It's like the waveparticle duality problem. Wave? Particle? Both? Neither? Something else, I think, neither wave nor particle, really, but we just don't have the intuitive insight to know what we are approximating by using waves & particles. So, space? Time? Energy? They are all approximations for something else, but here too, we just don't have the intuitive insight to know what we are approximating by using space, time & energy.
ngeo
2007Jan17, 09:24 PM
Response to Bjoern’s comments:
“You don't need E=hf for assigning a voltage to the electron and proton. But assigning such a voltage makes little sense  after all, E=vq gives the energy which a particles gains (or loses) when it travels through a region with a potential difference of v. Since the rest energy of electrons and protons obviously are not acquired in that way, the voltage you calculate here is meaningless.”
Have it your way, Bjoern.
From Wikipedia:
“The volt is defined as the potential difference across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power. Hence, it is the base SI representation m2 · kg · s3 · A1, which can be equally represented as one joule of energy per coulomb of charge, J/C.”
￼.
It looks to me like a potential difference is just as much a result of a current as a current is a result of a potential difference. But I know nothing!
“BTW: the frequency f you mention here is not the frequency of the particles themselves, but of the wavefunctions describing them.”
Wow. I had no idea.
Then the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140.
“Err, what happened to the units in this calculation? Do you mean 140 Hz/V^2, or what?”
Err, alpha is a dimensionless constant, isn’t it? Since volts would be J/C, the units would be in seconds, and the frequency would also be in seconds. But to tell the truth, Bjoern, I am not that interested in the units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
In addition the frequency of either particle is approximately ½ the product of the square of the voltage of that particle and the voltage of the other particle.
“And again, the units don't match.
“Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or do you really not know that one can't simply neglect the units of physical quantities?
“I'll leave out the remainder of this numerology…”
Please do, Bjoern. Leave it out. Indeed, forget it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
My first question then is, is the electronproton system already known to be a system of superconducting current loops?
“No.”
That’s interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
And secondly, could this be tested by “known physics”?
“I'd think that this should show up in scattering experiments done with atoms, protons and electrons…”
Also interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
This speculation also requires that the values for bound electron and proton “mass” are not exactly what is “objectively measured” in their “free” state, and that such an “objective measurement” cannot be made in their “bound” state.
“Well, the mass of a hydrogen atom is (within the limits of measurement) equal to the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron…”
Sounds fine to me.
ngeo
2007Jan18, 12:52 AM
Cougar there really seems to be a problem in assigning a physical reality to space or spacetime. Beside the rising loaf of bread, the raisins on the balloon, the molassesvat Higgs field, and the fabric of space, there is the vacuum which as far as I can tell resides inside a Planck length and Planck time. The lack of understandable imagery may be a clue to a fundamental problem that even the physicists and mathematicians are missing.
The comment of Tim Thompson that space, time and energy are approximations of something else is interesting in that in my “numerology”, replacing the gravitational constant with Planck time squared, h, c^5 and 2 pi in the gravitational force equation, you end up with one volt equaling one second. Whatever the “something else” is, I get the feeling that spacetime and energy are the same. Whether this is just a naming problem or points to a mathematical formulation for “something else”, I don’t know. Thank you for the link.
Bjoern
2007Jan18, 02:11 PM
Response to Bjoern’s comments:
“You don't need E=hf for assigning a voltage to the electron and proton. But assigning such a voltage makes little sense  after all, E=vq gives the energy which a particles gains (or loses) when it travels through a region with a potential difference of v. Since the rest energy of electrons and protons obviously are not acquired in that way, the voltage you calculate here is meaningless.”
Have it your way, Bjoern.
From Wikipedia:
“The volt is defined as the potential difference across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power. Hence, it is the base SI representation m2 · kg · s3 · A1, which can be equally represented as one joule of energy per coulomb of charge, J/C.”
￼.
It looks to me like a potential difference is just as much a result of a current as a current is a result of a potential difference. But I know nothing!
What has all of that to do with my comment above that assigning a voltage to particles is meaningless???
Then the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140.
“Err, what happened to the units in this calculation? Do you mean 140 Hz/V^2, or what?”
Err, alpha is a dimensionless constant, isn’t it?
Yes, alpha is a dimensionless constant. So what??? What has that to do with your calculation above???
Since volts would be J/C, the units would be in seconds,
How on earth does that follow???
and the frequency would also be in seconds.
No, the unit of frequency is Hertz (1 cycle per second), not seconds.
But to tell the truth, Bjoern, I am not that interested in the units.
A discussion with someone who insists stubbornly upon making the most elementary errors in physical calculations is pointless. Bye.
ngeo
2007Jan19, 03:07 AM
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Originally Posted by ngeo
Response to Bjoern’s comments:
“You don't need E=hf for assigning a voltage to the electron and proton. But assigning such a voltage makes little sense  after all, E=vq gives the energy which a particles gains (or loses) when it travels through a region with a potential difference of v. Since the rest energy of electrons and protons obviously are not acquired in that way, the voltage you calculate here is meaningless.”
Have it your way, Bjoern.
From Wikipedia:
“The volt is defined as the potential difference across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power. Hence, it is the base SI representation m2 · kg · s3 · A1, which can be equally represented as one joule of energy per coulomb of charge, J/C.”
It looks to me like a potential difference is just as much a result of a current as a current is a result of a potential difference. But I know nothing!
__________________________________________________ _____________________
“What has all of that to do with my comment above that assigning a voltage to particles is meaningless???”
In the word “voltage” in the set of equations v = fh/q, f = vq/h, f/v= q/h, etc. I am not describing a particle moving through a region with a potential difference, I am describing a current loop or rotation which forms, or is, a particle. The “potential” is in the external and internal fields, and the current flow from these fields maintains the loop. In this description the particle has no rest energy because it is a continual creation of the field. So your comment above, that assigning a voltage to particles is meaningless, is accurate in that there is no particle in the sense of a particle with a rest mass to enter into an equation for rest energy. But I am not sure your comments are meaningful in this description.
(Re alpha and electronproton frequencyvoltage relationship of alpha) “Yes, alpha is a dimensionless constant. So what??? What has that to do with your calculation above???”
If the particle is a product of the field, you could say that the potential of the field is manifested by the frequency it produces. So potential and frequency cannot be separated. They are the same thing. In this sense the relationship between the square of a potential of one particle, manifested in a frequency, is related to the potential of the other particle, also manifested in a frequency. I don’t believe it is absolutely necessary to deal with the units in describing the relationship among the field and the particles. The field and the particles have no idea what units they are in. But they have a physical relationship which it turns out can be described by two “dimensionless” ratios, alpha and the ratio of electron and proton potentials/frequencies. To me, the number 140 above is a clue to this physical relationship which is worth following, and it leads to a slightly different set of values which in turn allow the description of the relationship in terms of the two “dimensionless” ratios. The relationship includes the Josephson constant and the magnetic flux quantum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
Since volts would be J/C, the units would be in seconds,
“How on earth does that follow???”
If J/C is in this case h/q, the elementary charge is measured in current per second, and the energy required or work done represented by h is work done per cycle, and the number of cycles of h joules of work done is represented by the frequency/potential, you could express work done per unit current but it ends up in seconds anyway. So I guess I am saying “seconds” as opposed to “per cycle” is the significant unit. These four identities, h, q, v and f are faces of the same thing. I guess I don’t feel it is a worthwhile exercise to try to separate them at this point. There is work done; there is a flow of current; there is a potential; and there is a frequency. But they cannot really be separated from each other. So in a sense the “units” are simply different faces of the same phenomenon.
“A discussion with someone who insists stubbornly upon making the most elementary errors in physical calculations is pointless. Bye.”
They may seem to be elementary errors in “physical” calculations as physics is done today, but the results of the mathematical calculations are a fact.
Bjoern
2007Jan22, 09:13 AM
In the word “voltage” in the set of equations v = fh/q, f = vq/h, f/v= q/h, etc. I am not describing a particle moving through a region with a potential difference, I am describing a current loop or rotation which forms, or is, a particle.
What has "voltage" to do with a current loop?
The “potential” is in the external and internal fields,
And what is that supposed to mean?
and the current flow from these fields maintains the loop.
What does it mean to say that a current flow is "from fields"?
What does it mean to say that a current flow "maintains a loop"?
If the particle is a product of the field, you could say that the potential of the field is manifested by the frequency it produces.
To what does the "it" (secondtolast word) refer here? To the potential? To the particle? To the field? Either way, I don't understand what this sentence is supposed to mean  but from your following sentence, I suspect that you mean the potential.
Well, then what does it mean to say that "a potential produces a frequency"?
So potential and frequency cannot be separated. They are the same thing.
Then why are they measured in different units?
I don’t believe it is absolutely necessary to deal with the units in describing the relationship among the field and the particles.
But ignoring the units is an absolutely basic mathematical error.
The field and the particles have no idea what units they are in.
So what??? An area also has "no idea what unit it is in", and nevertheless it would be an absolutely basic error to measure an area in, say, meter instead of square meters!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngeo
Since volts would be J/C, the units would be in seconds,
“How on earth does that follow???”
If J/C is in this case h/q,
And what on earth is that supposed to mean???
h is probably Planck's constant, but what is q? And why on earth should J/C be the same as h/q in this case??? J (Joule) is the unit of energy, C (Coulomb) the unit of charge. So the denominator would match (charge). But the numerator does not match  h is not an energy! h has the unit Jouleseconds, not simply Joule!
the elementary charge is measured in current per second,
And how on earth does this follow now???
Charge is current times time, not current per time! Come on, this is yet again absolutely basic!
and the energy required or work done represented by h
But h does not represent an energy, it represents something measured in Jouleseconds! (an action, essentially).
is work done per cycle,
But h has units of Joules times seconds. Not Joules per second.
So I guess I am saying “seconds” as opposed to “per cycle” is the significant unit.
Indeed. Apparently, you constantly confuse the two!
“A discussion with someone who insists stubbornly upon making the most elementary errors in physical calculations is pointless. Bye.”
They may seem to be elementary errors in “physical” calculations as physics is done today, but the results of the mathematical calculations are a fact.
But ignoring and mistreating the units in calculations is a mathematical error...
ngeo
2007Jan22, 02:12 PM
Nereid I apologize for using this Q & A to elicit a response which invokes an ATM idea (I didn’t realize how ATM it must appear). If you want to ship it back to ATM that is fine with me. As far as GR terms go, I think it is useful if the GR experts try to put the concepts into English. I find the scientists are able to explain in English words some of the concepts behind the Math used in GR, and it is good to read them and get a feel for how the scientists look at their own field. Never having taken a single “physics” class after grade nine (nor a math class after grade 12), I often don’t know what the English words mean so it is always a stretch. There doesn’t seem to be complete unanimity on what the English words mean, but I am sure the Math makes it clear to those who know it. This being a science forum I guess there is no compulsion for anyone to use English, but a lot of the time what is going on is people speaking in English about Math, and in English about mathematicalscientific concepts. So there is a de facto translation program going on. I believe mankind is direly in need of a common understanding of some of these words. Maybe a profession of MathtoEnglish translators would help bridge the gap that I sense between the scientists, the press release science, and the nonscientists. Until that happens if the scientists do their best to translate Math to English and the nonscientists also do their best to grasp what the scientists are saying, maybe there will be some progress.
Nereid
2007Jan22, 02:48 PM
I'm not sure how much of an ATM thread this is yet ... here are some thoughts.
The reason I started down a GR path has to do with just what sort(s) of question(s) you are asking:
Our everyday, intuitive sense of what space and time are?
What the best theories in science today have to say about space and time?
A philosophical question, only loosely tied to science?
(and so on).
My impression is that many of the difficult questions posed here, in this Q&A section, are not, in fact, about astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, etc at all*
If your questions are, in fact, to do with our intuitive experiences, then BAUT may not be a good place for an answer  how such intuitions arise, how they connect with 'the real world', etc is more a matter of neuroscience than astronomy.
If your questions are, in fact, to do with philosophy, then equally, BAUT may not be a good place to find an answer.
My impression is that you are asking something that's on the border between GR and philosophy; or, more generally, about the relationship between science and philosophy (e.g. how good scientific theories are related to 'the real world'). This kind of question has come up many times here. Each time it does, I become less interested in trying to answer it ... if only because I think there's a lot of work one would need to do to first knock the question into a shape where it is capable of being answered satisfactorily. Why? Because I've found that if you've not had much experience with how a good theory 'works', especially when it produces results that conflict with our intuitions, the effort to untangle the intuitions from the halfunderstood popularisations (which are, let's face it, sometimes to often wrong, in one or more key aspects) from chains of implicit logic linking all this together is both essential and unappreciated.
I admire the patience of folk such as Ken G, Tim Thompson, and many others who put in so many hours trying.
Finally, if you've read Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" (which I highly recommend BTW), you'll see that he considers some of the deep questions about space, time, GR, dimensions, causality, etc, etc, etc to be at the forefront of modern physics, and that he thinks the next big advance in physics will come from someone who has worked on this, to some extent, from outside the hothouse of string theory dominated physics departments.
On the one hand, this would seem to give encouragement to folk to think deeply themselves, and (perhaps) hope that they may find the next Einsteinian breakthrough. However, that could be huge mistake ... because Smolin also says (and I agree) that a precondition for any such deep thinking is to become au fait with GR (and QM), by getting a physics PhDlevel mastery of it.
Thus I find myself more and more agreeing with Celestial Mechanic, when he says "get thee to a library!"
Or, more prosaically, let's return this Q&A section to straightforward questions and answers, and leave the development of ATM ideas, whether cast as ATM claims or apparently simple questions, to the ATM section.
*Of course, many are  getting to grips with SR and GR is hard work.
ngeo
2007Jan23, 02:57 PM
Nereid I agree with what you say about getting educated, as long as the facts are kept in the perspective of fundamental assumptions which are themselves understood. I think lately on BAUT the scientists are also learning how to deal with the various levels of understanding they meet, which must be a difficult thing and they do deserve credit for it. For young “geniuses” (one of which I never was), contributing and adding to knowledge is crucial for the survival of humankind. I am not sure the education system helps (maybe no education system ever did), but that is not an excuse for wasting time dreaming (which I was really good at).
Of the three “alternatives” you listed above, the ideal on BAUT would be fairly simple statements which capture the scientific understanding of “space” and “time” (as well as other concepts used everyday). I guess that’s what popular science does. Of course being “made of” words, the statements tend to expand (like the math does). And maybe there are some concepts that just can’t be translated. But I do sense ambiguity in space and time concepts, and there may be a problem of understanding to be solved there.
My last response to Bjoern here:
“What has "voltage" to do with a current loop?”
Well, in order to maintain a current you would need a potential.
(Re potential is in internal and external fields) “And what is that supposed to mean?”
“What does it mean to say that a current flow is "from fields"?
“What does it mean to say that a current flow "maintains a loop"?”
I don’t believe that you really do not understand. However, that is possible. I have been thinking on these lines for a long time, and I guess you haven’t.
“Well, then what does it mean to say that "a potential produces a frequency"?”
See “Josephson constant”, “Josephson effect“, etc.
(Re potential and frequency being same thing) “Then why are they measured in different units?”
That is the problem of trying to understand a system. You have to break it down into parts. But you have to keep in mind that it works as a whole.
“But ignoring the units is an absolutely basic mathematical error.”
I don’t ignore them, I try to figure out what they mean. Now once you end up with a relationship that can be expressed in terms of alpha and electronproton ratio, giving numbers that match the “unit” numbers, exactly what units would you want?
“h is probably Planck's constant, but what is q? And why on earth should J/C be the same as h/q in this case??? J (Joule) is the unit of energy, C (Coulomb) the unit of charge. So the denominator would match (charge). But the numerator does not match  h is not an energy! h has the unit Jouleseconds, not simply Joule!”
See below.
“Charge is current times time, not current per time! Come on, this is yet again absolutely basic!”
I did not say charge is measured in current per time, I said it is measured in current per second.
From Wikipedia:
“1 coulomb is the amount of electric charge carried by a current of 1 ampere flowing for 1 second.”
“The ampere, in practice often shortened to amp, (symbol: A) is a unit of electric current, or amount of electric charge per second.”

“But h has units of Joules times seconds. Not Joules per second.”
Again from Wikipedia:
“Planck's constant is stated in SI units of measurement, joules per hertz, or joules per (cycle per second) . . . .
In SI units Planck's constant is expressed in Jouleseconds.”
It seems the wikipedia author is not that worried about how h is expressed or stated, and neither am I, because I am not thinking about how to express or state h, I am thinking about what it represents. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.
“Per” (Answers.com)
prep.
To, for, or by each; for every: Gasoline once cost 40 cents per gallon.
According to; by: Changes were made to the manuscript per the author's instructions.
By means of; through.
adv. Informal.
For each one; apiece: sold the cookies for one dollar per.
Per hour: was driving at 60 miles per.
Bjoern
2007Jan23, 08:09 PM
“What has "voltage" to do with a current loop?”
Well, in order to maintain a current you would need a potential.
Wrong. For current loops, no potential is needed, and can't even be defined in a sensible way. Please read up on the basics of electrodynamics.
I don't bother to address the rest if you already start with such a wrong statement.
ngeo
2007Jan24, 05:48 AM
Response in ATM forum
01101001
2007Jan24, 06:01 AM
Response in ATM forum
Thank you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.