A Small Universal Radius may imply a Maximum Production of Fluctuations

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

  1. SimonsCat Registered 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:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/can-we-observe-fluctuations.158704/#post-3431680

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    Beyond Planck scales is really were physics no longer has meaning.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    Meaningless twaddle.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. SimonsCat Registered 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?''
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    Pffft.
     
  10. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
    Just what I figured.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Really now, are you reiku?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    Aha! Now that's an idea.

    He certainly talks out of his arse in a similar way.
     
  13. SimonsCat Registered 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. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,506
    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. SimonsCat Registered 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

    \(<\phi> = [a_kf_k + a^{\dagger}_kf_k]\)
     
  16. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
  17. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,506
    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?
     
  18. SimonsCat Registered Member

    Messages:
    213
  19. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,506
    No, I won't - this a discussion forum, not a web-link exchange
     
  20. SimonsCat Registered 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. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    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. SimonsCat Registered Member

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

    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.
     

Share This Page