A new take on why Spacetime expanded Originally - a way to a new kind of unification

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Aethelwulf, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. Aethelwulf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    13
    In this work, I will show you why uncertainty at the big bang is important and how it has everything to do with our understanding of spacetime and our concurrent goal of unification. I will also present a new type of Larmor Hamiltonian.

    I have been exploring a possibility and wanted to know what others thoughts were here. I have been trying to mathematically compose a theory which treats the very beginning of space (which according to current belief would involve a time dimension) as being highly unstable due to the uncertainty regarding to matter and space between particles. In short, there was little to no space at all in the beginning, meaning that particles where literally stacked up on top of each. This completely violates the uncertainty principle and I conjecture it caused ''space to grow exponentially'' between particles to allow them degrees of freedom and to bring a halt to the violation of the quantum mechanical principle.

    Of course, how do you speak about space or even time if niether existed fundamentally? Fotini Markoupoulou has been using a special model. In her recent idea's, she believes that space is not fundamental.

    In her model, simply put, particles are represented by points which are nodes which can be on or off, which represents whether the nodes are actually interacting. Only at very high temperatures, spacetime ceases to exist and many of us will appreciate this as Geometrogenesis. The model also obeys the Causal Dynamical Triangulation which is a serious major part of quantum loop gravity theory which must obey the triangle inequality in some spin-state space. Spin state spaces may lead to models we can develop from the Ising Model or perhaps even Lyapanov Exponential which measures the seperation of objects in some Hilbert spaces preferrably. We may in fact be able to do a great many things.

    Heisenberg uncertainty is a form of the geometric Cauchy Schwarz inequality law and this might be a clue to how to treat spacetime so unstably at very early beginnings when temperatures where very high.

    http://www.scribd.co...ainty-Principle

    Since Markoupoulou's work is suggesting that particles exist on Hilbert Spaces in some kind of special sub-structure before the emergence of geometry, then now I can approach my own theory and answer it in terms of the uncertainty principle using the Cauchy-Shwartz inequality because from this inequality one can get the triangle inequality.

    So, this is my idea. Space and time emerged between particles because particles could not be allowed to infinitely remain confined so close to other particles, that the uncertainty forbid it and created degrees of freedom in the form of the vacuum we see expanding all around us.

    The mathematical approach


    So let me explain how this model works. First of all, it seems best to note that in most cases we are dealing with ''three neighbouring points'' on what I call a Fotini graph. Really, the graph has a different name and is usually denoted with something like \(E(G)\) and is sometimes called the graphical tensor notation. In our phase space, we will be dealing with a finite amount of particles \(i\) and \(j\) but asked to keep in mind that the neighbouring particles are usually seen at a minimum three and that each particle should be seen as a configuration of spins - this configuration space is called the spin network. I should perhaps say, that to any point, there are two neighbours.

    Of course, as I said, we have two particles in this model \((i,j)\), probably defined by a set of interactions \(k \equiv (i,j)\) (an approach Fotini has made in the form of on-off nodes). In my approach we simply define it with an interaction term:

    \(V = \sum^{N-1}_{i=1} \sum^{N}_{i+1} g(r_{ij})\)

    I have found it customary to place a coupling constant here \(g\) for any constant forces which may be experienced between the two distances made in a semi-metric which mathematicians often denote as \(r_{ij}\).

    If \(A(G)\) are adjacent vertices and \(E(G)\) is the set of edges in our phase space, (to get some idea of this space, look up casual triangulation and how particles would be laid out in such a configuration space), then

    \((i,j) \in E(G)\)

    It so happens, that Fotini's approach will in fact treat \(E(G)\) as assigning energy to a graph

    \(E(G) = <\psi_G|H|\psi_G>\)

    which most will recognize as an expection value. The Fotini total state spin space is

    \(H = \otimes \frac{N(N-1)}{2} H_{ab}\)

    Going back to my interaction term, the potential energy between particles \((i,j)\) or all \(N\)-particles due to pairwise interctions involves a minimum of \(\frac{N(N-1)}{2}\) contributions and you will see this term in Fotini's previous yet remarkably simple equation.

    \(K_N\) is the complete graph on the \(N\) - vertices in a Fotini Graph i.e. the graph in which there is one edge connecting every pair of vertices so there is a total of \(N(N-1) = 2\) edges and each vertex has a degree of freedom corresponding to \((N-1)\).

    Thus we will see that to each vertex \(i \in A(G)\) there is always an associated Hilbert space and I construct that understanding as

    \(H_G = \otimes i \in A(G) H_i\)

    From here I construct a way to measure these spin states in the spin network such that we are still speaking about two particles \((i,j)\) and by measuring the force of interaction between these two states as

    \(F_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \hat{n}\)

    where the \(\hat{n}\) is the unit length. The angle between two spins in physics can be calculated as \(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij}) \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix} = \mu(\frac{1 + cos \theta}{2})\)

    Thus my force equation can take into respect a single spin state, but denoted for two particles \((i,j)\) as we have been doing, it can describe a small spin network

    \(F_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij})^2 = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mathbf{I}\)

    with a magnetic coefficient \(\mu\) on the spin structure of the equation and \(\mathbf{I}\) is the unit matrix.

    I now therefore a new form of the force equation I created with an interaction term, as I came to the realization that squaring our spin state part

    \(-\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2\)

    \( = -\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2\)

    Sometimes it is customary to represent the matrix in this form:

    \(\begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_{3}) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_{3}) \end{bmatrix}\)

    As we have in our equation above. The entries here are just short hand notation for some mathematical tricks. Notice that there is a magnetic moment coupling on each state entry. We will soon see how you can derive the Larmor Energy from the previous equation.

    Sometimes you will find spin matrices not with the magnetic moment description but with a gyromagnetic ratio, so we might have

    \(\frac{ge}{2mc}(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij}) = \begin{bmatrix}\ g \gamma(n_3) & g \gamma(n_{-}) \\ g \gamma(n_{+}) & g \gamma(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}\)

    The compact form of the Larmor energy is \(-\mu \cdot B\) and the negative term will cancel due to the negative term in my equation

    \(-\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2\)

    \(= -\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2\)

    The \(L \cdot S\) part of the Larmor energy is in fact more or less equivalent with the spin notation expression I have been using \((\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij})\), except when we transpose this over to our own modified approach, we will be accounting for two spins.

    We can swap our magnetic moment part for \(\frac{2\mu}{\hbar Mc^2 E}\) and what we end up with is a slightly modified Larmor Energy

    \(\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} \frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} (\hat{n}\cdot \sigma_{ij}) \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix}\)

    This is madness I can hear people shout? In the Larmor energy equation, we don't have \((\hat{n}\cdot \sigma) \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix}\) we usually have \((L\cdot S)\)?

    Well yes, this is true, but we are noticing something special. You see, \((L\cdot S)\) is really

    \(|L| |S|cos \theta\)

    This is the angle between two vectors. What is \((\hat{n}\cdot \sigma) \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix}\) again? We know this, it calculates the angle between two spin vectors again as

    \(\frac{1 + cos \theta}{2}\)

    So by my reckoning, this seems perfectly a consistent approach.

    Now that we have derived this relationship, it adds some texture to the original equations. If we return to the force equation, one might want to plug in some position operators in there - so we may describe how far particles are from each other by calculating the force of interaction - but as we shall see soon, if the lengths of the triangulation between particles are all zero, then this must imply the same space state, or position state for all your \(N\)-particle system. We will use a special type of uncertainty principle to denote this, called the triangle inequality which speaks about the space between particles.

    As distances reduce between particles, our interaction term becomes stronger as well, the force between particles is at cost of extra energy being required. Indeed, for two particles [math](i,j)[/math] to experience the same position [math]x[/math] requires a massive amount of energy, perhaps something on the scale of the Planck Energy, but I have not calculated this.

    In general, most fundamental interactions do not come from great distance and focus to the same point, or along the same trajectories. This actually has a special name, called Liouville's Theorem. Of course, particles can be created from a point, this is a different scenario. Indeed, in this work I am attempting to built a picture which requires just that, the gradual seperation of particles from a single point by a vacua appearing between them, forced by a general instability caused by the uncertainty principle in our phase space.

    As I have mentioned before, we may measure the gradual seperation of particles using the Lyapunov Exponential which is given as

    \(\lambda = \epsilon e^{\Delta t}\)

    and for previously attached systems eminating from the same system, we may even speculate importance for the correlation function

    \(<\phi_i, \phi_j> = e^{-mD}\)

    where \(D\) calculates the distance. Indeed, you may even see the graphical energy in terms maybe of the Ising model which measures the background energy to the spin state \(\sigma_0\) - actually said more correctly, the background energy

    \(\sum_N \sigma_{(1,2,3...)}\)

    acts as coefficient of sigma zero. Thus the energy is represented by a Hamiltonian of spin states

    \(\mathcal{H} = \sigma(i)\sigma(j)\)

    Now, moving onto the implications of the uncertainty principle in our triple intersected phase space (with adjacent edges sometimes given as \((p,q,r)\), there is a restriction that \((p+q+r)\) is even and none is larger than the sum of the other two. A simpler way of trying to explain this inequality is by stating: \(a\) must be less than or equal to \(b+c\), \(b\) less than or equal to \(a+c\), and \(c\) less than or equal to \(a+b\).

    It actually turns out that this is really a basic tensor algebra relationship of the irreducible representions of \(SL(2,C)\) according to Smolin. If each length of each point is necesserily zero, then we must admit some uncertainty (an infinite degree of uncertainty) unless some spacetime appeared appeared between each point. Indeed, because each particle at the very first instant of creation was occupied in the same space, we may presume the initial conditions of BB were highly unstable. This is true within the high temperature range and can be justified by applying a strong force of interactions in my force equation. The triangle inequality is at the heart of spin networks and current quantum gravity theory.

    For spins that do not commute ie, they display antisymmetric properties, there could be a number of ways of describing this with some traditional mathematics. One way will be shown soon.

    Spin has close relationships with antisymmetric mathematical properties. An interesting way to describe the antisymmetric properties between two spins in the form of pauli matrices attached to particles \(i\) and \(j\) we can describe it as an action on a pair of vectors, taking into assumption the vectors in question are spin vectors.

    It is well known that this is actually a map, taking the form of

    \(T_x M \times T_x M \rightarrow R\)

    This is amap of an action on a pair of vectors. In our case, we will arbitrarily chose these two to be Eigenvectors, derived from studying spin along a certain axis. In this case, our eigenvectors will be along the \(x\) and \(z\) axes which will always yield the corresponding spin operator.

    \((d \theta \wedge d\phi)(\psi^{+x}_{i}, \psi^{+z}_{j})\)

    with an abuse of notation in my eigenvectors.

    It is a 2-form (or bivector) which results in

    \(=d\theta(\sigma_i)d\phi(\sigma_j) - d\phi(\sigma_j)d\phi(\sigma_i)\)

    This is a result where \(\sigma_i\) and \(\sigma_j\) do not commute.

    The following work will demsontrate a way to mathematically represent particles converging to a single point and highlighting why uncertainty at the big bang is inherently important.

    We should remind ourselves, that there are three neighbours which form a triangle in our phase space. Our original phase space constructed of Fotini's approach for a pairwise interaction which had the value \(\frac{N(N-1)}{2}\). It is still quite convienient not to involve any other particle yet, just our simple two-particle system; more specifically, two quantum harmonic oscillators. It seems like a normal approach according to Fotini to assume the energy of the system as a pair of interactions given as \((i,j) \equiv k\) where \(k \in \mathcal{I}\) where \(\mathcal{I}\) is the set of interactions. Using this approach, I construct a Hamiltonian for myself which has the physics of describing the convergence of two oscillations into a single seperation neighbouring point/position. First I begin with the simple form of the Hamiltonian

    \(\mathcal{H} = \sum_i E_{i_{(x,y)}} + \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} h_k + x \Leftrightarrow y\)

    Where \(h_k\) is the Hermitian Operator. This equation describes the Hamiltonian of our pairwise interactive system which can be exchanged for particle \(i\) satisfying, say for example, position \(x\) and particle \(j\) in position \(y\). These two particles form two sides of the triangle, so if we invoke the idea of two particle converging to a single point, space position \(z\) then it will follow this tranformation \((x,y) \rightarrow z\). Before I do this, since I am working in a phase space with potentially the model known as the spin network, it might concern me then to change the energy term in the Hamiltonian for \(\sigma(i)\sigma(j)\) which is just the Ising Energy. So our Hamiltonian would really look like:

    \(\mathcal{H} = \sum_{ij}\sigma(i)\sigma(j) + \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} h_k + x \Leftrightarrow y\)

    Now, for a Hamiltonian describing two particles converging to the adjecent edge \(E(G)\) we should have

    \(\mathcal{H} = \sum_{ij}\sigma(i)\sigma(j) + \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} h_k + (x,y) \Leftrightarrow z\)

    As one of a few possibilities. There are six possible solutions in all for different coordinates. The spins in our space is assigning energy to our particles \((i,j)\), in fact perhaps a very important observation of the model we are using, is that energy is assigned to points in this space we are dealing with. In fact, as has been mentioned before, if \(A(G)\) are adjecent vertices and \(E(G)\) are the neighbouring edges, then on each edge there is some energy assigned in our Hilbert Space. It seems then, you can really only deal with energy if there are really adjecent vertices and neighbour edges to think about. Remember, I am saying that it might be possible to state that the uncertainty principle could have tempted spacetime to expand, but this was because there was really no spacetime, no degree's of freedom for energy to move in -- which seems to be the way nature intended. So if there are no degrees of freedom, we cannot really think about energy normally in our model, since we define energy assigned to points in a Hilbert Space, which deals with a great deal more particles/points. But for this thought experiment, we have chosen two particles, and another possible position for convergence, so the equation

    \(H = \sum_{ij}\sigma(i)\sigma(j) + \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} h_k + (x,y) \rightarrow z\)

    Actually looks very innocent. But it cannot happen in nature, not normally. Nature strictly refuses two objects to converge to a single point like \((x,y) \rightarrow z\). One way to understand why, is the force required to make two objects with angular momentum to occupy the same region in space. I won't recite it again right below my OP, but my force along a spin axis could determine such a force, or atleast, the force required to do so - which would in hindsight even seem impractical thinking about it... But it does give us some insight into what kind of conditions we might think about mathematically if somehow the singularity of the big bang can be overcome with some solution. In my force equation with the spin between two vectors, would state that as the angle between the vector closed in to complete convergence, the force should increase exponentially. I haven't came to an equation which describes this exponential increase, however, I do know that this is what experimentation would agree on.

    The same is happening in our Hamiltonian. The force equation, with it's rapid increase of energy is proportional to the Hamiltonian experiencing an increase of energy from the spin terms \(\sigma(i)\sigma(j)\) through it's crazy transformation \((x,y) \rightarrow z\). In field theory, this would be the same as saying that the distortions of spacetime of some quantum field(s) are converging to a single point in spacetime.

    Let's study this equation a bit more:

    \(\mathcal{H} = \sum \sigma (i) \sigma (j) + \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} h_k + (x,y) \rightarrow z\)

    What we have in our physical set-up above, is some particle oscillations which presumably, under a great deal of force, being measured to converge to position \(z\). In our phase space, we are using the triangulation method of dealing with the organization of particles. At \(z[/mtex] we may assume the presence of a third spin state, let's denote it as [tex]\sigma_z \in (-1,+1)\) which seems to be a favourable way to mathematically represent the spin state of a system, meaning quite literally, ''the spin state at vertex z''. [1] Let us just quickly imagine that at any positions, \((x,y,z)\) to make any particle move to another position where a particle is already habiting it requires a force along a spin axis. (I can't stress enough this is not what happens in nature), this is only a demonstration to explain things better later. Sometimes working backwards, from maybe illogical presumptions can lead to a better arguement. The calculation to measure the angle between two spin states is

    \(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij}) \begin{pmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{pmatrix} = \frac{1 + cos \theta}{2}\)

    Thus my force equation can take into respect a single spin state, but denoted for two particles \((i,j)\) so you may deal with either spin respectively.

    \(F_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij})^2 = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mathbf{I}\)

    But perhaps, more importantly, you may decompose the equation for both particles. Let us say, particle \(i\) is in position/vertex \(x\) and particle \(j\) is in position \(y\), meaning our final spin state is \(z\). In the force equation, making all lengths of your phase space go to zero, means that your are merging your spin state's together. Hopefully this can be intuitively imagined, but here is a good diagram: http://en.wikipedia....pin_network.svg provided by wiki. If we stood in the z-vertex, and made the xy-vertices merge to the zth \((xy) \rightarrow z\) then obviously the lengths of each side would tend to zero. This means, whilst the force between particles may increase by large amounts, the angle between the vectors also goes to zero. The unit length, or unit vector which seperates particles from an origin on an axis will also tend to zero. Indeed, if you draw a graph, and make the \(xy\)-axis the two lengths of both particles \(i\) and \(j\), where the origin is vertex spin state \(z\) then by making the lengths go to zero would be like watching the \(xy\) axes shrink and fall into the origin. So when complete convergence has been met, the force equation has been mangled completely of it's former glory. We no longer have an angle seperating spin states, nor can we speak about unit vectors, because they have shrank as well. Using a bit of calculus, we may see that

    \(F_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}}\lim_{\hat{n} \rightarrow 0} \hat{n}\)

    Then naturally it follows that the force once describing the seperation of particles no longer exists, because anything multiplied by zero is of course zero. Here we have violated some major principles in quantum mechanics. Namely the uncertainty principle and for the fact that particles do not converge like this. By making more than one particle occupy the same space is like saying that either particle will have a definate position and this of course from the quantum mechanical cornerstone, the uncertainty principle is forbidden. May we then speculate that the universe was born of uncertainty? Uncertainty has massive implications for statistical physics. In the beginning of the universe, most physicists would agree that statistical mechanics will dominate the quantum mechanical side... quantum mechanics is afterall a statistical theory at best. Perhaps then, no better way to imagine the beginning of the universe other than through the eye's of Heisenberg?

    [1] - http://www.math.bme....swork/ising.pdf

    In the language I have been using, there was a paper I have been reading in which spin foam is evaluated by summing over the adjacent vertices in your spin configuration space. This following equation also takes into consider two spin states and has the form

    \(<s|s'> = <s|P|s'> = \sum_{\sigma-foam} \Pi_{\nu \in \sigma} A_{\nu}\)

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9910079v2.pdf

    A Mathematical Discovery - a New Way to Write the Larmor Hamiltonian

    In my thread, I explain how (at least) one problem with unification of all physics is that when you wind the clock back in the universe to the big bang, you come to a point with zero spacetime - this condition, the point where everything is believed to have come from called the big bang is a problem for physics and has been known for a while, because the more you squeeze particle into a single confined position (or point), you inevitably violate the uncertainty principle. One of the consequences of doing this I explained, was that the force to do this would be tremendously large, and I derived a force equation to help explain this phenomenon:

    \(F_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \sigma_{ij})^2 = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \mathbf{I}\)

    Which took advantage of a spin network, to also explain an uncertainty of the spacetime. -- keep in mind that \(\hat{n}^{2}_{i} = 1\)

    \(\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij} = \begin{vmatrix} \hat{n}_1 & \hat{n}_2 & \hat{n}_3 \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial}{\partial y} & \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \\ \hat{F_x} & \hat{F}_y & 0 \end{vmatrix}\)

    (Incidently, the lowercase ij denotes particle's 1 and particles 2 in the \(F_{ij}\) term and shouldn't be mistaken for the unit vectors, however, if they were, they work out on the same column as would be found in the determinant matrix.

    This gives

    \(\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij} = \frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z} \hat{n}_1 + \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z} \hat{n}_2 + (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}) \hat{n}_3\)

    Now, this just gives

    \(\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij} = (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}) \hat{n}_3\)

    and

    \(\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij} \cdot \hat{n} = (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}) \)

    The Larmor equation is

    \(\Delta H = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} ( L \cdot S)\)

    What I kept deriving was:

    \(\vec{F}_{ij} \cdot \hat{n} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}}\)

    What we really need is the original derivation

    \(\vec{F}_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \hat{n}\)

    Then taking the curl of F gives

    \(\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij} = \frac{\partial V(r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}}\)

    Which removes the unit vector because \(\nabla\) again is 1/length.

    \(\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} (\nabla \times \vec{F}_{ij}) L \cdot S\)

    Which is a type of new Larmor equation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Holy crap, is this the new Reiku incarnation?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I sleuthed the net because I was curious if you took the normal Reiku approach and spammed this "theory" across the internet. Sure enough, I see at least 4 forums that you spammed this stuff to (at least one of which you have been banned from). To address your question, I don't think what you wrote predicts anything as it is more of an exercise in creative writing; however, that is why it's in pseudoscience.

    Your premise of course is that space and time were emergent because "all particles" are forbidden from existing at a single point. The concept has a built in contradiction because if "all particles" are forbidden from existing at a single point then the scenario would have never arisin to begin with. Additionally, particles are fluctuations in fields and fields are a property of space-time. If there is any point where space-time doesn't exist as we know it now then there are no particles.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Rather than sharing with the world, why not grab a student loan and get a physics degree in... where did you live? Scotland or something like that?

    Photons occupy the same space all the time.

    The point might have been missed. Reality doesn't support violation. The Big Bang theory technically provides no real knowledge as to what happend in the planck era. It's very speculative; however, the popular idea is that the universe had no size. No size means no space. No space means no fields. No fields means no particle.

    For the first part of your objection, I'll redirect you to my earlier point. Reality doesn't support violation (even momentary). It's the law of QM. What isn't forbidden will happen, but what is forbidden never happens. As far as unification goes, that's fine; however, we are talking about dimensionless point... no space-time. No fields. No particles.
     
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I personally have no idea what happened at t=0 or anywhere in the planck era for that matter. Nobody does... it's all speculation. Because of the recent confirmation of a boson in the Higgs Boson testing range, I suspect that the higgs field permeates a reality of supersymmetrical stuff and fluctuates at various moments causing the stuff to gain structure of a while (i.e. make universes). Very very speculative however. Your statement about particles is incorrect however as we are dealing with real physical particles (not abstractions), and they are literally fluctuations in fields. We have a whole branch of physics (the Standard Model) that describes this.
     
  9. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    You are incorrect and here is why. Photons are not magically immune to superposition. That means that the peak intensity of two or more intersecting waves can overlap at a point in space-time.

    It's not an attempt to belittle you, it's an attempt to educate you. Do you realize how retarded it is to spend years trolling forums with pseudoscience when you could go to school and learn real science instead? I realize you have problems with math... get over it, that's what tutors are for. A PhD... Christ, I would settle if you got yourself a bachelor's degree.
     
  10. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Don't worry about what I do or don't believe. I am stating a simple fact of particle physics. Particles are field fluctuatons and fields are a property of space-time. If all particles are confined to a single space then that means the universe already had space. I don't have an issue with that. The universe in the original Big Bang theory has zero size at t=0. No space.
     
  11. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    That isn't a zero-size initial universe you are describing. Even a single dimensional element constitutes a size.
     
  12. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    You are either trying to lie intensly or you really just don't know. Maybe you just need a real life example... have you ever used a radio? The signal you are receiving is due to a crap load of photons on top of one another moving in sync. Maybe you just need to see an actual experiment performed with your own eyes. Find a lab at your local university and do this experiment:

    http://www4.ncsu.edu/~risley/labs/Interference.pdf

    I can't take you any further. You have an explanation, a real life example, and an experiment to demonstrate it to yourself.
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Interesting, even that wiki you posted agrees with me. I never made any claims about photons and the uncertainty principle. I am not sure what kind of straw man you were about to try and build but consider it pre-burned.
     
  14. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Correct (OMG did I just say that?)! A point is a location and has no dimension. A particle is a fluctation of a field. A field is a property of space-time. Space-time is non-zero dimension. So, to specifically have a particle you need at least one element of space-time in order to produce it.
     
  15. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I am ok with geometrogenesis; although, I am not sure if you are representing what it states correctly.
     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Yes and I'll give you some examples. Below you are claiming that photons don't occupy the same space. An existing real life demonstration that they do was provided as well as an opportunity to demonstrate it to yourself.

    Right after that you incorrectly claimed that particles occupying the same space are a violation of the uncertainty principle, knowing full well that reality does not support violation (not to mention I had just given you a real life example of particles occupying the same space).

    I'm out, there is no point in continued discussion of this topic. Maybe some of the crazies will give you an audience and validation.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Your random nonsense, stolen from various sources you don't understand, predicts, neigh, proves, you need to do something more constructive with your life Reiku. For god sake, why do you bother? Is your existence so empty you have nothing more constructive to do than always return here?
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    If this isn't a sockpuppet of Reiku, I'll eat my hat. It is classic Reiku - increasing his number of posts by using separate post to answer each line in a previous post, taking others work and applying it incorrectly and finally the only actual math he does is simple highschool level algebraic rearranging of other equations. Oh, and of course the absurdly long rambling post that end with wierd conclusions.
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You aren't doing actual physics though, you're just cobbling together other things other people have done, which you don't understand. Repeating mindlessly because you don't understand it and then claiming some completely unjustified conclusion is made is dishonest. You are wasting your life doing this endlessly and repeatedly. Grow up. Move on.
     
  20. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Aethelwulf,
    Maybe theoretical physics is a waste of your time. It certainly seems to be a waste of their time. Do something fun, interesting, (useful?). Theoretical physics is none of these. People who spend their lives playing computer games have more to show for their efforts than any theoretical physicist. Join a religion (or a cult?) and your life will be filled with meaning and purpose. Support your political leaders, and bask in their power; they are people who actually accomplish something. Find a girl (or whatever you're into), have some fun, start a family; don't die alone in your underwear like theoretical physicists do. Spend your life picking daisies which is actually relaxing. Or sit back, watch TV and eat potato chips (which is still more productive and healthier than theoretical physics).
     
  21. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    If you find physics fun, then good for you. But to tell you the truth, one parlor psychic can be of more benefit, give more insight, and be more helpful than a dozen theoretical physicists. A parlor psychic will charge you $10 for a reading, and it will be worth it. A theoretical physicist will complain that they don't charge money. But in reality, shit is free.

    In any event, Uncertainty is a fact of life. A sane and rational person will deal with uncertainty by making sensible decisions and learning from experience. However, a string theorist will endlessly calculate, and calculate, and derive and bullshit around until they accomplish exactly nothing.
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Just like you 'learnt' the Dirac equation and all of that but you couldn't then do anything with it. Simply being able to parrot the equations doesn't mean you understand them. Learning to work with Stokes' theorem takes people a long time, slowly learning more and more elaborate applications. Given you, Reiku, are not at the mathematical level to be able to understand vector calculus, saying you learnt some specific part of it is just nonsense. We've all seen how terrible you are at even the most basic of concepts but you delude yourself into thinking you're doing something viable. I could ask you any questions expected of undergrads and you'd fail to be able to answer it.

    Bitter much? Funny how you're having a go at theoretical physics yet you've spent months and several threads trying to claim you have the answers to the sorts of questions people like Hawking try to address. What's the matter, the complete and utter rejection of your claims got you a little upset?

    I'm absolutely certain I'll contribute more to science than you will/have. And this 'not dying alone' thing is also nonsense. Obviously you don't actually know any theoretical physicists personally, you're just looking for mud to sling. It's an admission you haven't got anything viable to say, you just want to ad hom.

    Reiku, we've all been around the block so many times we all know how this plays. You make claims, you delude yourself into thinking you're not wasting your time and everyone elses, a few threads go by, more and more people say you're doing crap, you finally snap, admit you're Reiku, threaten everyone with "I'll mess up the forums!", throw a hissy fit, get banned and then it all repeats a few months later.

    You couldn't even get onto a university physics course, never mind grasp it's finer points. When are you going to do something constructive with your time?
     
  23. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Actually, it's not that at all. My gravity drive idea will utilize a Tektronix waveform generator, oscilloscope and a spectrum analyzer. I've had engineers, technicians and managers call my idea interesting, fun and worthwhile. At the very least, maybe we'll make a better product for our customers.

    No actually my attack has more to do with religious ferocity. For some reason, this feeling of fervor has moved over me and I just want to pound non-believers into the ground. It's weird, but it feels good.
    lol I hope so. I'm not a physicist, you are.
    I'm glad. I know someone who is getting a divorce. It's very sad. I think they will probably die alone. That's probably where it came from. I feel so grateful that I have a wonderful women to spend my life with. Being with someone really makes a difference.
    Oh, I have viable things to say. I have experiments that are so obvious it blows my mind that you don't see it.

    But I think it's some kind of religious fervor that makes me want to sling mud. It just feels so good!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page