Spin, Twist & GUT

[Gorlitz]

Could the inertial fields within quantum mechanics that define wave functions describing physical phenomenon help us show that all physical motion can ultimately be reduced to rotation?

If so would this then help us to use Einstein's metric torsion tensor to show that spin fields twisting spacetime can point us in the direction towards a grand unifying theory?

 

[Farsight]

I don't know, Gorlitz. But if it's any use there is such a thing as reciprocal relativity that might be relevant. See this presentation by Stephen G Low, where the last line is The wave equations may be computed, [via a?] coupled set of relativistic spinning oscillators. It sounds as if the proposal there is that space itself is some kind of spin lattice. And he's got a paper on arXiv called Reciprocal relativity of noninertial frames: quantum mechanics which might be relevant. I haven't read it I'm afraid, and it looks like it's above my pay grade anyhow.

 

[Gorlitz]

I'll have a look at those, thanks.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Could the inertial fields within quantum mechanics that define wave functions describing physical phenomenon help us show that all physical motion can ultimately be reduced to rotation?

What is your motivation for proposing such a thing? Define what you mean by an 'inertial field'. How do they define wave functions describing physical phenomena?

If so would this then help us to use Einstein's metric torsion tensor to show that spin fields twisting spacetime can point us in the direction towards a grand unifying theory?

You need to be more precise with your terminology. By 'spin fields' do you mean spinor fields or spin connections? Neither of those necessarily imply or require space-time to have torsion. The terminology 'GUT' in the mainstream literature refers to models which unify the electroweak and strong forces, gravity isn't included in that terminology. GUT models stand or fall on how their gauge group breaks down under symmetry breaking, gravity and curved space-time doesn't come into it.

I don't know, Gorlitz. But if it's any use there is such a thing as reciprocal relativity that might be relevant. See this presentation by Stephen G Low, where the last line is The wave equations may be computed, [via a?] coupled set of relativistic spinning oscillators. It sounds as if the proposal there is that space itself is some kind of spin lattice. And he's got a paper on arXiv called Reciprocal relativity of noninertial frames: quantum mechanics which might be relevant. I haven't read it I'm afraid, and it looks like it's above my pay grade anyhow.

Given you're functionally innumerate and couldn't pass a 1st year test on mathematics I do not believe you understand that presentation you've linked to. Instead I believe you're picking out particularly wordy bits which you think contain the right words to somehow justify some view you have. Given you do not understand the mathematics and thus do not know precisely what the wordy phrase 'relativistic spinning oscillators' is referring to in the presentation it is unwise, perhaps even dishonest, if you were to try to use such a document as a citation/reference in any claims you wish to make about wave equations or quantum mechanics.

 

[phyti]

I've had a little experience in this field.
If I spin and twist, it's hard on my gut.

 

[Gorlitz]

So I take it your not a big a fan of idea of including gravity within a GUT? I would hope that gravity could be explained within a GUT as it would not be complete without it and present a whole new set of questions and challenges if it isn't. Also I think we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that all forces including gravity can and will be explained as amplifications of quantum effects. Since there are notable problems or holes if you like within GR, it leaves us with new avenues that we can explore. Even Einstein allowed for the possiblity of quantum fields, though couldn't fully explain them. Though evidence of quantum fields and effects at the macroscopic level is somewhat sketchy what does appear to be true is that often they cannot be explained by conventional physics.

Of particular note should be the Bose–Einstein condensate, this actually allows us to see quantum effect at macroscopic level.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So I take it your not a big a fan of idea of including gravity within a GUT?

I didn't say that. Rather I explained that 'GUT' doesn't refer to a model which includes gravity. They are usually called 'theories of everything'. Walk into a theoretical physics research group's offices and say "GUT" and they'll assume you mean something without gravity.

I would hope that gravity could be explained within a GUT as it would not be complete without it and present a whole new set of questions and challenges if it isn't.

As I said, it's a matter of terminology, it doesn't mean people aren't trying to meld gravity into other gauge theories.

Also I think we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that all forces including gravity can and will be explained as amplifications of quantum effects.

Very much so. Quantum gravity models attempt to describe the large scale gravitational effects we can observe and test using microscopic origins. More specifically many approaches involve trying to construct a quantised gravity model involving gravitons and then show that the model necessarily leads to the Einstein Field Equations when you go to the classical limit. This is already how quantum electrodynamics recovers Maxwell's equations, they are the classical limit of a quantum system.

Since there are notable problems or holes if you like within GR, it leaves us with new avenues that we can explore.

GR is fundamentally not a quantum model. This is seen due to its description of singularities. At the ultra short scale quantum gravity would become important and significant alter what is going on but GR has effectively thrown such things away. By that I mean that when you go from quantum electrodynamics to Maxwell's equations you are essentially saying "All of the quantum processes are turned off" and when you cross them all out of your equations you're left with Maxwell's equations (well, more specifically you construct a classical limit effective theory). String theory includes gravitons, quantisation of gravity, and when you compute their classical effective theory you get general relativity.

So generally it's done not by starting with GR and modifying it but starting with something more fundamental and making sure it simplifies to GR in the right way.

Even Einstein allowed for the possiblity of quantum fields, though couldn't fully explain them. Though evidence of quantum fields and effects at the macroscopic level is somewhat sketchy what does appear to be true is that often they cannot be explained by conventional physics.

Quantum phenomena cannot be described by classical physics, almost by definition. However, quantum mechanics is conventional physics, it's been around for 100+ years now. If you had made that statement in 1904 I might agree with you, as the conventional physics then was what we now call classical physics.

Of particular note should be the Bose–Einstein condensate, this actually allows us to see quantum effect at macroscopic level.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

Yes, there are more and more phenomena observable on macro scales which illustrate fundamentally quantum properties but the BEC was predicted decades ago using quantum mechanics, so it isn't like BECs are somehow a thorn in the side of 'conventional physics'. They're fatal to classical physics but that's a different thing.

 

[eram]

Aren't inertial frames distinct from rotational frames?

 

[Gorlitz]

Thanks for the helpful and imformative responses AlphaNumeric I feel I can really probarbly learn something, though I must say I am a little concerned of making any more posts though, there seems something going on with you and Farsight and I don't want to go anywhere near getting in the middle of it. So if guys wouldn't mind leaving me out of it I would be very grateful and can consentrate on learning useful things from you guys.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If you ask physics questions I'll give physics answers replying just to your posts. Whatever interactions I have with Farsight will be kept separate. Farsight makes it clear he doesn't want to learn or listen, you seem to be showing a better attitude, hence I have the time to answer your questions.

 

[Gorlitz]

Thank you for those positive and constructive comments, perhaps you wouldn't mind helping to explain a little problem I'm having understanding or where I might be going wrong.
Given that as I understand it we don't actually know whether or not the universe is infinite it leaves for the possibility that it might be. If this were to be so given that the maximum velocity we know of is C, it seems to be the case that it would require an infinite amount of time to travel across an infinite universe even at C so that would suggest to me at least that if the universe is infinite then so time must also be infinite.

Now working on the basis of infinite time and given the fact that there are only a finite number of possible elements it again seem to suggest that there could only ever be a finite possible number of chemical reactions, but because time is infinite then surely these reactions must be repeated over and over to fill up the available time, meaning infinite time allowing for infinite possibilities but with only a limit set of potential possibilities seems to suggest constant repetition must occur.

Now if we get to the point where constant repetition of the same chemical reactions is occuring and we can reduce life to a chemical reaction it seems to suggest to me at least that if the universe if inifinite then we must either have an infinite life span, which we don't, or our lives are repeated over and over to end of infinity.

Ok, now there could well be some holes in that, but if there are I don't know what they are so your assistance in pointing out any mistakes would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Farsight]

Given that as I understand it we don't actually know whether or not the universe is infinite it leaves for the possibility that it might be.

It isn't a good start I'm afraid. Some people would assert the same sort of thing about angels and unicorns. Our astronomical observations suggest to us that the universe expanded from a small size to its present large size, which we believe to be more than 93 billion light years in diameter. See the observable universe on wikepedia. We also believe the universe to be "flat", see WMAP. That article says "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error." No problem with that. However the article then says "This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent;" I'm afraid it doesn't suggest that at all. There's no foundation for this assertion, none whatsoever. It's based upon the "hypersphere" concept of the universe wherein regardless of which direction you took you always end up back where you started. Sadly my here Einstein kind of got an F for cosmology, if you know what I mean.

If this were to be so given that the maximum velocity we know of is C, it seems to be the case that it would require an infinite amount of time to travel across an infinite universe even at C so that would suggest to me at least that if the universe is infinite then so time must also be infinite.

Have a look at Heat death of the universe:

"The heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that consume energy (including computation and life)."

Taken to extremis, there wouldn't be any available energy to run a clock. All clocks will have stopped, so it's difficult to assert that time is infinite.

Now working on the basis of infinite time and given the fact that there are only a finite number of possible elements it again seem to suggest that there could only ever be a finite possible number of chemical reactions, but because time is infinite then surely these reactions must be repeated over and over to fill up the available time, meaning infinite time allowing for infinite possibilities but with only a limit set of potential possibilities seems to suggest constant repetition must occur.

I don't think that follows I'm afraid.

Now if we get to the point where constant repetition of the same chemical reactions is occuring and we can reduce life to a chemical reaction it seems to suggest to me at least that if the universe if inifinite then we must either have an infinite life span, which we don't, or our lives are repeated over and over to end of infinity.

Ditto. When you're dead you're dead and that's it. You aren't going to live again.

OK, now there could well be some holes in that, but if there are I don't know what they are so your assistance in pointing out any mistakes would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry Gorlitz, but to be blunt the name in the game for this sort of thing is a tottering tower of conjecture. It just isn't scientific.

 

[Gorlitz]

Cheers farsight for the helpful and informative response, one slight thing though I don't understand, Markus exlpained to me that it is unknown whether the universe is infinite or not?

 

[Farsight]

That's the official line, but you could also say it's unknown whether the universe resembles a chocolate teapot. For myself I don't think the idea of an infinite universe sits too well with an expanding universe. You'll have heard about the expanding-balloon analogy or the raisins-in-the-cake analogy. Both feature a non-infinite universe. Another analogy that I rather like is a stress-ball. Squeeze it down in your fist and let go, and it expands. It gives you a simple picture of the expanding universe, and in this picture the universe has an edge! That's conjectural too, but I'm more attracted to it than the idea of multiple Earths dotted about infinite space along with repeated lives.

 

[Neverfly]

Cheers farsight for the helpful and informative response, one slight thing though I don't understand, Markus exlpained to me that it is unknown whether the universe is infinite or not?

Infinite but bounded.

That's the official line, but you could also say it's unknown whether the universe resembles a chocolate teapot. For myself I don't think the idea of an infinite universe sits too well with an expanding universe. You'll have heard about the expanding-balloon analogy or the raisins-in-the-cake analogy. Both feature a non-infinite universe. Another analogy that I rather like is a stress-ball. Squeeze it down in your fist and let go, and it expands. It gives you a simple picture of the expanding universe, and in this picture the universe has an edge! That's conjectural too, but I'm more attracted to it than the idea of multiple Earths dotted about infinite space along with repeated lives.

It's true that a certain aesthetic can be the bias of the scientist. Look at Einstein and his Marble vs. Wood problem. He wanted a Static Universe.
This is why we use the scientific method. Aesthetics are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a theory doesn't sit right with you or if you like it or not. What matters is whether observation supports it. I'm sure a lot of people would be much happier and more comfortable with QM if it wasn't so damned weird.

 

[Farsight]

It isn't mere aesthetics, Neverfly. Einstein talked of stress-energy, and referred to pressure in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Stress is directionless pressure - both stress and pressure and measured in Pascals. Given a flat universe we look to space as having an innate pressure that can only lead to expansion if space is finite. I don't know if you ever read "Universe measured: we're 156 billion light years wide!" written by Robert Roy Britt. There was a bit of misreporting to it because that was a lower limit, but it was reportage of robust science, namely Constraining the Topology of the Universe by Neil Cornish and others which appeared in Physical Review Letters. Here's an excerpt:

"Our technique for studying the shape, or topology, of the Universe is based on the simple observation that, if we live in a universe that is finite, light from a distant object will be able to reach us along more than one path". The one caveat is that the light must have sufficient time to reach us from multiple directions or, put another way, that the Universe is sufficiently small. The idea that space might be curled up in some complicated fashion has a long history. In 1900, Schwarzschild [2] considered the possibility that space may have nontrivial topology, and used the multiple image idea to place lower bounds on the size of the Universe. Recent progress is summarized in Ref [3]."

They drew a blank, but note that they were looking at the hypersphere scenario rather than a total-internal-reflection scenario. Robert Roy Britt referred to "a hall of mirrors" which isn't much like "a video game in which an object disappearing on the right side of the screen reappears on the left". IMHO it's scientific to look for evidence of this total internal reflection, and it's aesthetics to say the universe is flat and therefore must be infinite.

PS: I think that in the fullness of time QM will be shown to be not weird at all.

 

[Neverfly]

and it's aesthetics to say the universe is flat and therefore must be infinite.

Infinite but bounded is not the same as "infinite."
Also, referring to flatness is a bit misleading as well. Popular Science Magazine might say something "is this way or that." But a peer reviewed journal article rarely will.
I'm pretty sure you are referring to Minkowski spacetime when you say, "flat." That is to say that an expanse of spacetime lacking in gravitational curvature will appear asymptotically flat.

I'm going to give a quick opinion on this while ignoring the technicalities. In expressing this 'opinion' I'll try to be as conscious of scientific thinking as I can to be clear.

Theory represents models of reality. Theories are not intended to always claim that reality is a certain way. They are intended to model reality as accurately as possible in order to help us to understand reality.
In a case where more information is needed, a theory, or model of reality, that is primarily accurate, meets observation and allows for prediction will not be cast aside simply because more information, once acquired, may show errors in the model. Rather, the model must then be tested and observations made to increase the models accuracy.
Flat space is an idealization. It very well may not be the most accurate model of reality. But until we've learned more, it doesn't need to be the Most accurate since we are lacking information. It needs only meet the criteria of what we can currently observe and measure.
But I do not believe any Astronomer worth his salt is claiming it as a reality- rather as a mathematical construct- the use of metrics to describe what is out there- not to be what is out there. This is an important distinction.
In order to effectively progress and improve our understanding of the Universe, we must employ these trade offs. Sure, in the meantime, many might question their validity or offer up different solutions. Mainstream science will use the most effective model and that doesn't always mean the most accurate one.
The most effective model can help us to move forward in order to make better observations and lead to re-working a theory to model reality even better, more accurately, increase understanding and then- repeat the whole process all over again.

My point is that just because you can criticize a mainstream theory doesn't mean that those who defend mainstream accepted theory believe it is without fault.
It doesn't mean that you are always without merit. Granted, Farsight, I will admit (And you won't like this bit) that by champing at the bit and presenting mismatching data, you are, quite honestly, barking up the wrong tree a great deal of the time. Misinformation is not good for helping to re-work theory into a more accurate model.
It only increases confusion.
That you don't see this difference is a big part of why you meet the opposition that you do. It's not because 'mainstreamers' are biased against you and accept mainstream science as Perfect.
Perfect? Far from it. Mainstream scientists gleefully hack at their own theories, hoping to gather data to make them... BETTER.

It's because you need to look in the mirror instead of placing blame on others for what you fail to see. It really is a shame, because with your intelligence, you could achieve so much more than you are. You are holding yourself back. You can disagree with my opinion, of course. But I'll just shake my head and move along the threads. It would be far better were you to drop the defensive impulse- step back and choose on your own- to go back to the drawing board and start again. No one is out to beat you down- you're inhibiting yourself and only you can do something about it and sadly- no one else but you can you make you see that. But if you ever do- maybe then you can make important and lasting contributions to the scientific hope of Progress. I'm sure to say, many who you believe oppose you would be more than happy to clap you on the back and commend you on a job well done. Because the truth is they never really opposed you, only your flawed ideas.

Gorlitz, my apologies. But sometimes, I get the urge to say what I think and this was one of those moments.

PS: I think that in the fullness of time QM will be shown to be not weird at all.

On this, I agree.

 

[Farsight]

You misunderstand me, Neverfly. I'm not some "my theory" guy making things up as I go along. There tends to be some confrontation because I talk about bona-fide physics that I've gleaned from papers people haven't heard about, and which doesn't match some fifty-year-old textbook.

The whole point about the flat universe is that if you strike out in some given direction you don't end up coming back from the other direction. That's what people used to presume - that the universe was finite but unbounded like a hypersphere. The WMAP result indicates that that isn't the case, but people then tend to presume that the universe must therefore be infinite. Have a look into Does the Universe Have An Edge? to find a variety of opinions on the subject.

Check out Jeff Lundeen's web page re QM and in particular this re wavefunction. He's essentially saying it's something real, and that the Copenhagen Interpretation is thereby misleading.

 

[Neverfly]

You misunderstand me, Neverfly. I'm not some "my theory" guy making things up as I go along. There tends to be some confrontation because I talk about bona-fide physics that I've gleaned from papers people haven't heard about, and which doesn't match some fifty-year-old textbook.

Let me tell you what I've observed again: Mismatched data.
If you were aware of doing it, you wouldn't do it.
Mismatched means you will use relevant data, irrelevant data and even contradictory references. I don't catch all of it because I'm strictly amateur. But I do catch it sometimes. And that is suggestive all by itself.
Yes, papers some people haven't heard about sometimes maybe and sometimes, they are older than a fifty year old textbook. You're speaking more from your own personal bias that I referred to earlier. I don't recall ever watching anyone debate you with a fifty year old textbook while you waved about new and updated information. Maybe I missed that one.
Some of it is bona fide, some of it is inconclusive and all of it deals with you supporting your preferred viewpoint (Which is FINE in and of itself) except that it doesn't refute your bias and it certainly doesn't help when you choose a series of supports that don't agree with eachother.
It gets worse for you when you fumble the math.
This is where you run into confrontation. Not because you posit good physics that are rejected by the mainstream. Hell, you don't always post bad physics and you often bring a lot of real science to the table. Problem is when you also bring outdated, refuted, bad math, etc and then you get defensive instead of re-examining your position.
That is what a scientist does. He examines his position. He re-examines it, too.
When you post inconclusive ATM against inconclusive Mainstream- refer to what I said above^.
The mainstream interpretation is selected by consensus- it may not be perfect or complete but it's judged as the most effective model of reality. Effective means that the pursuit of that theories accuracy holds the best odds of making progressive observations to lead to more understanding. Make sense? There's nothing wrong with questioning the mainstream ideas- at all. But if one questions them, they must bring solid math, strong data. I think that's reasonable.

This is my last response to the ego war. What I have typed here is for the benefit of many readers, not to argue with you Farsight. I'll only say, I doubt it but... maybe you'll think about this a bit. Maybe you'll take some time to re-examine your position and your purpose for proposals.
In the meantime, I look forward to strong contributions with solid math and peer review support

 

[Gorlitz]

Cheers for all the help guys.

Gorlitz, my apologies. But sometimes, I get the urge to say what I think and this was one of those moments.


On this, I agree.

Neverfly, certainly no need to apolagise for anything you've been very informative. Also never be afraid to say what you think, that said though a very wise person said that to me once.
He said "Never be afraid to say what you think, just choose wisely the words with which to say it", I thought that was kind of cool.