So I had these two colleagues whom I thought were going to convince me that space emergence was somehow connected with gravity. One put forth some ideas similar in principle to those of Erik Verlinde arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010 The other had a theory he called SGM (Space Generation Model) which is similar to ideas about space used by General Relativity, but suggests that a new dimension be added which generates space without apparent cause and which by the way results in gravity. His math is extensive, but seems stuck somewhere around physics ideas known circa 1918. It could be compared to quintessence in some respects, although it is not about cosmology. I've given up on these ideas of emergent space, and also some other ideas like those advanced by Julian Barbour. Why is a theory of emergent space necessary? In a word, Higgs. The vacuum is evidently swimming with virtual particles, energy, electroweak charge, and the Higgs field. It evidently interacts continuously with matter, and not in a manner you could fail to notice. All of the inertia of matter in the universe originates from there. Particle physicists can be excused for not asserting that Higgs is responsible for gravity, but in all likelihood it is, by the principle of equivalence alone. It is a General Relativity idea that gravity is not a force that conserves energy, but it does, and does so as a direct result of matter interaction with vacuum energy. The principle of equivalence is the assurance that this is the case, regardless of any math that only considers what we know about matter may try to tell us. We know for a fact that "space" is discrete. Each event or virtual event in space on the Planck scale has its own Minkowski light cone that is separate and distinct from the light cone of the most closely associated adjacent event. Right away, we are in trouble, because we have used the concept of distance 'space' when we understand full well that to virtual energy, there is only one dimension and that is in the direction the energy is propagating. Other dimensions are not necessary for electric and magnetic fields to vary; neither does time actually stop for energy that is propagating. Time is continuous and so is energy. Energy only gets quantized in atomic structure due to the way atoms are constructed, which, once again, requires continuous energy interaction with vacuum energy in order to exist. When a pair of virtual photons are produced traveling in opposite directions in the vacuum, there is only ONE continuous spatial dimension, and the continuous dimension of time. When one of the photons encounters energy from another virtual photon, interference happens. It may change frequency (energy), which is undefined as it is propagating and its proper time is the frame from which it was first created. It may change direction (remember, it was originally only one dimension and time). This is how three apparently continuous dimensions (and time) are created out of virtual energy in the vacuum. Any other ideas about this? Is emergent space needed to extend the Standard Model? An awful lot of contemporary ideas seem to be floating around about it, and not just my nut job version.
Are you making some assumptions based on theories that are intended to explain our observations of the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, and therefore you take it that space is discrete? Your conclusion that energy from the creation of virtual particles is expressed in one dimension really needs to be explained to me in layman terms. Why wouldn't such an event be spherical instead of linear. Also, there is a possibility that virtual particle generation is not spontaneous, but is caused by wave energy that expands equally in all directions (spherically) from its source and traverses space; convergence of sufficiently energetic wave energy might cause particles to appear to "pop" into existence, and might be an alternative cause of virtual particle generation. I wasn't familiar with Verlinde, but the Wiki quote below shows he is a reputable professional who is interested in the same things I am interested it, with the distinction that I have no credentials to speak of : String theory doesn't excite me, and I'm not a Sean Carroll follower either, though I did first see your name there on his blog in the comments, when you mentioned the "Atlas Boogie". I luv to listen to that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I guess you cautioned me not to impose my layman ideas over here, and so I just posted my vote "no" to your poll question, and posted here to acknowledge your post in my thread where you mention this new thread. I suspect you are looking for participation from members better informed and knowledgeable than a simple layman with a hobby, lol. I'll watch though and see if I can comment on topic as the discussion unfolds.
Thanks as always for your considered response. I've already learned (from another forum), that evidently I have much to learn about the mathematics of how virtual particles work. It is fascinating, and I am trying hard to catch up before the next results are in from the LHC. All ideas are welcome here; layman to expert. I have no idea which direction this thread may go.
I will not be voting on vacuum energy dynamics whatsoever since its explanatory capacity is not a case of "too early to tell" or yes or no. Rather, the whole concept is a mistaken one, based as it is on Einstein's spacetime. Unless arguments are brought back anterior to 1905 when Einstein introduced Relativity and the erroneous conceptions that flow from it, all argumentation to resolve these issues is futile. What is required is the backward inferences needed to remove logical paradoxes from our conceptions of physics. The acceptance of SR is merely proof that this task has not only NOT been achieved but has barely begun. Continued use of conceptions that lead to logical paradoxes guarantees absolute and complete failure in advance. Quantum electrodynamics - which turns logical paradoxes into mathematical infinities so cancels them out - works brilliantly for what it can do, but cannot progress from there due to its lack of physical models. Continued mathematical speculation will not progress it. FOLZONI
Only vote if you feel strongly about it, otherwise, just pass. Actually, I think you are right. Some philosophy may be needed here., which came as something of a shock to someone whom has never made any real use of philosophy, even though I studied it. I would have agreed with the remark about mathematical speculation just before posing the question of this thread. Just the mathematics having to do with virtual particles is ponderous. All the more so after witnessing what it has finally accomplished (found the Higgs from its predictions). Yes, avoiding infinities is a big motivation for things like string theory. There never was a guarantee that the mathematics that we model things with carries a 1 to 1 correspondence with the bindings of the physical universe. In the physical universe, things analogous to division never leads to infinities, for a start. Lots of proportional relationships exist that it makes to sense to take to the limit of the infinitely small anyway. Go figure. Carefully. All / any comments welcome here. I'm stuck, you may have noticed. I seem to have half a theory going nowhere fast.
Your sentiments might be justified, and if so, it points to a suspicion that theoretical physics can get off on a wrong track. Let's say that has happened. How we would know, is that we would start coming to dead ends where the theoretical physics gets more and more complex, instead of what we would all like to see, which is a simple underlaying concept of nature with which all theory should be internally consistent. Here is one perspective. BBT is like the Cliff Notes of the Cosmology of the Universe. It is a consensus view, but it leaves out many nuances that need to be addressed. Ultimately, BBT is nothing more than a convenient scenario, flexible enough to be modified for every new discovery over the past 100 years, that, if all of the applied changes had come up at one time, would have sent cosmologists back to the drawing board for a complete new theory of cosmology. Vacuum energy density might have been one of the casualties. I share half of your sentiment about Vacuum Energy Density. If you look at it from the perspective of current theory from which it has emerged, you can see it has started to look like a dead end. If you get rid of it, you still have to have the physics in place to fill the role left empty. The cosmological constant, which in current theory is synonymous with vacuum energy density, will have to have to be superseded, much like the light carrying aether theory before it was superseded by GR. Do you agree that the way forward will be to try new logic that is suggested by the alternatives? Give us a few ideas of what you are contemplating. I'm not sure why the role of philosophy would come as a shock, lol. Let me define the way I use the word philosophy in the context of theory vs reality. Reality is philosophical, and takes us to what I said to Folzoni about the risk of going down the wrong path. When you are on the wrong path, progress gets more complicated instead of becoming simpler and more generally applicable. Philosophically, the answers should be getting simpler. The theory of vacuum energy density filled a need in cosmology that was brought to light by General Relativity Theory, which itself superseded an aether theory that was wrong. It did not falsify aether theories, just the particulate luminiferous aether that carried light and could not be found because it was wrong. SR and GR are mathematical explanations for the physical observation of light and gravity, but they don't give us the mechanistic answers about "how". Logic demands something like the Higgs boson given the observable evidence. If it is a successful, or somewhat successful, prediction of Supersymmetry (predicted to be 120 Gev, not 126 Gev), it too would have been a prediction of any similarly detailed theory; it has to be there if we are to believe our eyes. The Higgs or its counterpart consistent with the combined logic that humans are able to bring to bear on problems that need to be understood. An expanding observable universe causes particles to decay as the energy density declines. Higgs type particles exist in nature in the early period of particle formation, and decay as expansion occurs. That is the logical part. Supersymmetry, Higgs, virtual particles, and more, are empirical and not mechanistic, meaning we don't yet know the mechanics of how they show up. Exactly, figure carefully, and don't wave off the tentativeness of science just because we have been on the path for a hundred years.
Greetings, danshawen. And thank you very much for your measured concerns. I can certainly more than sympathize with your last statement as I spent decades stuck on theories - half my own, half others' - that get nowhere!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FOLZONI
Concerning Daniel's remarks about the Space Generation Model, as its author, I'd like to clarify a couple things and provide a couple links so that readers can make their own judgments. First, as the name indicates, it is more of a "model" than a full-blown "theory." The name derives from the dimensions of Newton's constant, G. Given generic Mass, Length, and Time, M, L, and T, respectively, we have (L^3 / MT^2). Intuitively, G's dimensions may be thought of as "acceleration of volume per mass." Mass generates space and regenerates itself by extension from (3+1) to (4+1) spacetime dimensions. By analogy with uniform rotation, this process of perpetual outward motion is the cause of spacetime curvature. The readings of accelerometers and clocks seem to be telling us that we are in such a state (perpetual outward motion). If these motion sensing devices are to be believed, if this process is actually taking place, it does not "by the way result in gravity," it IS gravity. (It is also inertia.) Most importantly, the model can be tested by conducting a very simple experiment. The experiment was proposed by Galileo in 1632, but has yet to be performed. Here is a link to the most comprehensive exposition of the model: http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0090 Here is a link to an abbreviated exposition: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1491 And here is a link to a paper that argues that Galileo's experiment is way overdue to be performed even in the absence of a model that predicts a novel result: http://vixra.org/abs/1407.0041
except your links are vixra. which means anything from this server should be ignored. the fq link is just a bunch of nonsense trying to re-establish. typical.
krash661: Are we judging books by their covers now? The cited work is not from establishment archives, so it can't possibly be of value, is that it? Please base your assessment of "nonsense" on content, not blind prejudice.
some of us have been doing this for decades, crap is easy to see. yes, that's the exact reason why it's on that server. what i meant by re-establishing, is exactly what your attempt is. trying to re-establish a theory. not only is it massively typical it's also pathetic. also,i did base my comment of it being nonsense on the content, and i still stand by it.
krash661: OK, I get it. Without referring to any relevant facts, you have decided that you are qualified to assess me as a fool. While we wait for Nature to speak on the matter (by performing Galileo's experiment) I will be urging that the experiment is indeed performed, so that the issue can be settled in a polite and scientific manner. You, on the other hand, may continue your presumptuous diatribe, if that's what turns you on. I would suggest doing it elsewhere, however. as the disagreements between you and I cheapen the thread initiated here by Daniel.
it's a joke.it's nothing but denying relativity with a philosophy view point. all three links are a joke. it's that simple.
richard benish, i was enjoying this thread until you stepped in with your nonsense. spew it on your own thread.
So observation of a gravitational redshift (wavelength) of \(z > \sqrt{2} - 1 \approx 0.414\) would disprove the Benish model? We have lots of examples from cosmology. What say you? We have a relativistic theory of neutron stars that requires \(z < 0.9 \). So would you agree that observation of \(0.415 \lt z \lt 0.9\) for emissions from the surface of a neutron star would prefer GR strongly over your claimed model? // Edit -- A 2002 redshift measurement claim cannot be reconciled with latter determination of rotation rate, so as of 2012, it appears noone has made such a local neutron star observation. Not just any neutron star will do, however, since the less massive ones won't be compact enough.
If your cover is vixra you're getting judged by it. That's where folks go to spend their cash posting nonsense.
