# A Small Universal Radius may imply a Maximum Production of Fluctuations

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by SimonsCat, Jan 22, 2017.

1. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
In my speculative thread, I drew on prof. Crowell's conjecture that observing fluctuations was a matter of an experimental issue rather than it being intrinsically impossible. I stated that such fluctuations can be observable at the Planck area scale:

And it was noted by another poster that such an advance in technology could falsify many theories in interpretations of physics, ie. string theory. It would also validate our reasoning that quantum mechanics and more specifically field theory is more or less an accurate description of the fundamental vacuum.

What is not too speculative in my work, is a simple modification of Einsteins equations in terms of commutative algebra, which is a type of quantization of the equations. When this is done, all we did to find the creation of fluctuations from was take the operator value of the gravitational potential and looks like this:

$\frac{N}{\delta L^2_P} \geq k <\frac{Gm}{\delta L}> \mathbf{n}m$

I took note that the equation predicts that the more you probe a space with certainty in $\frac{1}{L^2_P}$ the larger the fluctuations in $<\frac{Gm}{\delta L}>$.

I started to wonder what the implications then would be for a universe at a radius of a Planck length, and it would seem, fluctuations are produced, very aggressively during the initial conditions of the universe, for pretty much the same reason. The larger a universe get's then, the less energetic fluctuations in spacetime are being produced.

What does the audience make of this claim? Yey, or nay, discuss.

Messages:
21,803
Except at the Planck scale, time and space do not have any meaning and the known laws of physics and GR, are unable to be applied. This is a point where infinite quantities are approached and we are unable to do the maths. So GR can't tell us what happened at the BB. I would though expect [ as I did say in your other thread] that at some distant future date, when we do have the technology to measure and observe at Planck/quantum scales, that perhaps some current String/Membrane theory may be able to be applied.

5. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
Beyond Planck scales is really were physics no longer has meaning.

7. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,830

danshawen likes this.
8. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
Planck scale is the minimum distance which the laws of physics as we know them work. Go beyond this, the physics as we know it becomes meaningless.

so what is your post supposed to imply? What is meaningless ''twaddle?''

Messages:
7,830
Pffft.

10. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
Just what I figured.

11. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,729
Really now, are you reiku?

12. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,830
Aha! Now that's an idea.

He certainly talks out of his arse in a similar way.

13. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213

You are very aggressive from our encounter the other day. You don't like being corrected either, judging your reply to my comment above.

Its ok though, if you type fast enough and hard enough people might believe you.

14. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,569
This makes no sense - why do you say that "commutative algebra is a type of quantization"? Moreover, how many "types of quantization" might there be?
Where in this mess is the gravitational potential? How can a constant quotiented by anything be an operator? What is the vector space that this operator acts upon? What is its codomain? What is $L$? Or $L^2_p$. Specifically what is $\delta L$?

None of this makes any sense, unless you are using a private notation that you refuse to share - which is, in general, bad practice

You may have "noticed" this, I doubt that anyone here will have

A resounding NAY!! from me

15. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213

Do you know the dimensions of a gravitational potential, its pretty bleeding obvious to be honest here, what is playing that role. A potential scalar looks like this:

$\phi = \frac{Gm}{R}$

So clearly the potential is being played by $\frac{Gm}{\delta L}$ and indeed, we have the operator form of this

$<\phi> = [a_kf_k + a^{\dagger}_kf_k]$

Messages:
213
17. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,569
No thanks. Can you add the creation and annihilation operators? What are the $f_k$? What is their domain/codomain? What is a "scalar operator" - how does it differ from a scalar?

Messages:
213
19. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,569
No, I won't - this a discussion forum, not a web-link exchange

20. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
I think its completely within the forums standards to provide referenced work to provide clarity. If you don't have any interest following my references, you won't get a clear picture of what I am saying and will give you every excuse under the sun to no doubt, attack me, no less, for your own ignorance.

I won't be baited in such a way.

21. ### karenmanskerHSIRIBanned

Messages:
638
SimonsCat . . . . . that's the way it seems to work here. A few egomaniacal members think they can show their 'smarts' by trolling/baiting well-meaning contributors. Hang-in-there!!

22. ### SimonsCatRegistered Member

Messages:
213
Nothing was exposed wrong in my work, but it still found its way to a pseudoscience by a disgruntled mod?

23. ### karenmanskerHSIRIBanned

Messages:
638
Perhaps 'at the Planck scale' the reason time and space 'have no meaning' is because at such scale they do not (measureably) exist - only the 'potential' for such. I'd guess that at less (than the Planck scale) some sort of subquantum (subplanckian) processes are happening, but as you say and I agree, such processes are not detectible or measureable because they do not directly 'interact' with with currently-designed (mass) detectors. I'd suspect that future subplanckian 'detections' may incorporate virtual (base-frequency harmonics) type detectors.