Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jason Wolfe: on 10/9/09 at 0:10am UTC, wrote I've been concerned about the idea of placing a 100K ton starship inside of...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/8/09 at 21:14pm UTC, wrote Hi Ray, I've been thinking about positive and 'negative' energy. Physics...

Ray Munroe: on 10/8/09 at 20:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason, In my model, lattice points are fermions. These points are...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/8/09 at 4:41am UTC, wrote Anyone, I've been trying to boil down the hyperdrive physics to its bare...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/3/09 at 0:10am UTC, wrote Ray, Wave functions are solutions to the Schrodinger equation,...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/2/09 at 21:30pm UTC, wrote Ray, The advantage of trying to represent quantum particles as kinks in...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/2/09 at 21:07pm UTC, wrote Hi Ray, I'm become rather fond of the idea that quantum particles may just...

Ray Munroe: on 10/2/09 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason, I have been looking more closely at Leshan's paper. He...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "The speed of light isn't a theoretical limit. Neither are the 19 or so..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Anonymous: "The Fact? The only 'fact' of the Big Bang is the math behind the measures,..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Jason Wolfe: "Dear Lorraine, Consciousness in its simplest form will only seek out..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Jason Wolfe: "Mystical religious beliefs are completely justified. it is the scientific..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Foundational Questions Institute Members, Y’all made your initial..." in Our Place in the...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Eugene Lim and Richard Easther, “Undaunted by the lack of tools to..." in Our Place in the...

agaric backlink: "Obat Liver Paling Ampuh Cara Mengobati Bronkitis Paling Ampuh Cara..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

anil sharma: "Sometimes it is not possible to take care of infant babies especially while..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.


FQXi BLOGS
September 26, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Speed of Spookiness, by Vlatko Vedral [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Oct. 31, 2008 @ 11:54 GMT
While William Orem has been celebrating Halloween by quantum ghost hunting, quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral is fearlessly tackling the controversy over the speed of Einstein’s spooky-action-at-a-distance. Just how speedy is spookiness?



From Vlatko Vedral:



Entanglement, as Schrödinger famously said, was the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics. One of its...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Quantum of Solace wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 14:24 GMT
"Zeilinger, by the way, when faced with the Bell dilemma, would rather keep the locality assumption and admit that the world is in some sense unreal. I know this from our numerous conversations."

Vlatko, are you sure that your numerous conversations with Zielinger were "real"? Would Zeilinger agree?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 3, 2009 @ 01:12 GMT
Vlatko Vedral said " the choice is either that the world is not real or special relativity is wrong (or both.)"

According to the Prime Quaternion model it is not merely a choice between one reality being real or not but recognition that there are two distinct realities separated by the Prime Reality Interface across which information is transferred.

Subjective reality is formed from the input of information and its processing. This is the everyday reality that we observe, measure, classify and consider to be reality.It is the reality of experience.It is in this reality that the mathematics of relativity applies. It is in this subjective reality that time is experienced.

However on the other side of the prime reality interface is the objective material reality that can not be observed or measured because in doing so information has to be transferred across the Prime Reality Interface and a subjective reality is formed.In this reality there is no time only a quaternion continuum of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions. No time, no relativity.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 01:55 GMT
If the 4th dimension is spatio-energetic rather than time, any change in position or action directly along the 4th dimension will appear instantaneous. Gravity acts along the 4th dimension (confirmed by Maxwell's quaternion mathematics of electrodynamics) so is observed to be an instantaneous force. This does not disagree with Einstein and the constant speed of light because it is a force along the 4th dimension not directly through 3D space, although the effects of the force are observable in 3D space. Instantaneous communication is therefore possible along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. It can therefore be speculated that the speed of spookiness is 0 from the 3D space perspective, that is instantaneous. Speed does not apply to change of position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Time taken can only be measured for a change occurring within 3D vector space.

By the way, as it is so quiet here, returning to the ultraviolet catastrophe... Rather than suggesting that energy comes in discreet packages or photon particles it could be regarded as an artefact of the harmonic nature of the medium of space that effects the energy transmitted. Just as a Bose-Einstein condensate will only spin at certain rates when energy is supplied, so the unknown medium of space may only transmit certain frequencies of light. The photon being equivalent to the minimum amount of disturbance that can be transmitted. The medium of space may not have an atomic structure and will therefore not behave as known matter but perhaps more like the Bose-Einstein condensate, which has been described as a super atom, the whole behaving as a singular entity with regard to the rotation energy.

When the photon particle idea was adopted it was thought that there was experimental proof that there could be no medium of transmission in space, which may have been an error.It is certainly possible for something to exist without it being detectable.

Light can be explained is as a wave within the unknown medium of empty space propagating along the 4th dimension whilst also spreading out through 3D space. The spreading out across 3D space is limited by the change in position along the 4th dimension as these are both aspects of the same propagation of the wave but considered with respect to the different dimensions. The propagation along the 4th dimension is the same as that of the matter of the universe, (which is the maximum possible energetic change along this dimension.)This allows light to remain visible.If the change in position along the 4th dimension was not the same as that of the material universe it would cease to be visible, being afore or aft along the 4th dimension. This all goes to explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is observed to be constant.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi Georgina,

If gravity acts along the fourth dimension, then how do gravitationally significant amounts of mass-energy affect the 4th Dim in a way that causes gravitational attraction?

I like your quaternion approach and I have my own ideas about this, but I'm trying to refine them.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 22:06 GMT
Jason ,

I'm sure I've already explained how that works in my opinion, though I am grateful for the opportunity to attempt a re-explanation that any reader might find more comprehensible.

For clarity then a few definitions and assumptions of the model are necessary. Afore space is ahead of the material universe along the 4th dimension towards the centre of the hypersphere. Aft space...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Georgina,

I'm not going to ask you to prove your model because you are just looking GR in a different way with different definitions. I assume that your system of definitions is consistent; I'm still trying to understand it.

It sounds like afore space is a 4D vector towards the center of an attracting mass-energy. It also seems to imply that as an ball falls, it really takes a course through 4D space (many call it space-time).

When you say that the material universe is continually moving towards the center of the hypersphere, do you mean that an object of mass m attracts everything else in the universe to its center? At this point, I can tell that thinking in 4D geometry requires more careful definitions of what is the hypersphere and what is the material universe. I think you mean that a mass m is the hypersphere and everyting else is the material universe.

By universal potential energy, I think you mean the sum of all potential energies at a given point in space? The potential energy resulting from movement along the 4th dimension I guess can be described by the gravitational potential energy of some object of mass m; I couldn't tell you if it's sign is + or -.

By the way, from your description of the 4th dimension, I'm tempted to think of it as an inward pointing radial vector for every mass m. I have no idea if that can be said to be perpendicular to x,y and z coordinates. I'll go along with it.

When you mentioned that all we see is the EM image (of stars and galaxies, etc) and the continuous redshift (interpretated as an expanding universe), it made me think of the effect of the curvature of the earth. Did you mean to suggest that the increasing redshift is a consequence of a geodesic effect of a 4D universe? In a slight excursion, do you think that an instantaneous gravity and an E&M image might create the effect of dark matter? Just curious.

In this model, space-time is replaced with a 3D+1D where the 1D is universally radial. I guess gravity occurs because every unit of mass has an inwardly moving unit of space as it moves along the 4th dimension; thus 2 times that mass should have twice the inwardly moving space that one unit of mass has.

It's a good model. Probably the biggest problem with it is that explaining hypersphere geometry becomes immediately unintuitive to all of us who can't visualize 4D geometry. I do wonder though: it all makes our movement through time equivalent to gravity...

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
Jason,

All mass is attractive as two objects can reduce their potential energy difference by becoming closer together. They only ever do this by moving afore because a mass will loose potential energy at every opportunity, not gain it unless extra energy is input. The change of position, towards another object with a 4th dimensional position that is afore, will take the attracted object...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 09:06 GMT
Georgina,

I do appreciate the time that you take to answer some of my questions. I think we are both looking at gravity in similar ways. I still like the idea that our universe has inflated and continues to remain inflated. I think your theory is much cleaner and better organized than what I've been coming up with. I want to encourage you to keep at it. I think that your approach can be a very useful way to look at gravity and space-time; that is, after one gets accustomed to 4D thinking.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 12:07 GMT
Thank you Jason,

I've just begun the process of tidying it up. It has been helpful to try to find new ways of explaining the concepts clearly.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
Jason,

You said "I still like the idea that our universe has inflated and continues to remain inflated."

Inflation is not contradictory to the proposed model although an alternative of continuous recycling is also suggested.

According to the model I have proposed, the universe is not contracting directly through 3D space but contraction results from 4th dimesional change in position. Spiral contraction of 3D matter resulting from the combination of change in 4th diemsional spatial position combined with motion through 3D vector space, giving curved path or orbit. This is predicted by the quaternion mathematics and observed in galaxies.This is also in keeping with einstein's origional prediction that the universe must either be expanding or contracting.

There is growing evidence that expansion may not be the correct interpretation.

More astronomers questioning that expansion may be incorrect interpretation

Although the propogation of light along the 4th dimesion and change of position for matter along this dimension will be the same, Speed of light measured in 3D vector space just does not apply to 4th dimensional change. The speed of light in 3D vector space is limited by the propogation rate of the wave through quaternion space not just 3D space and so also change along the 4th dimension. The continuous sequential change in position of matter and light along the 4th dimension in the absence of other forces is fixed by the physical properties of the unknown medium of space.It may be a super fluid "aether state" of matter, so unlike normal states of matter that we encounter and therefore difficult to detect. Giving Einstein's constant speed of light rule. Which only applies within 3D vector space.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
That last post was me, as if you hadn't guessed. I sent it before I intended.(Sorry Einstein.)I have just discovered that my tab key works like submit new post.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
Georgina,

I didn't know that the spiralling of galaxies could be attributed to the movement of the galaxy through a four dimensional path. Not all galaxies are spiral. This particular tidbit is interesting and will require some thought.

I'm glad that you noticed the appearance of movement through some kind of a fluid; I was afraid to focus too much on it. I've also been thinking about this 'superfluid' in terms of FTL travel. Yes, an Alcubierre style of low fluid pressure in front and high fluid pressure in the back will produce a hyper drive. If we can do it off of the brane (without getting lost), then maybe the energy requirements might be more acceptable. It's a lot to think about.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 04:59 GMT
The particular path through quaternion space and appearance of the galaxy will depend upon the particular material and energetic interactions occurring with in that galaxy and therefore the paths of the matter through 3D space. It is a dynamic situation which will give variable appearances. Thus some galaxies will be rotating in 3D space and some will not. If there is rotation of the galaxy in 3D space and descent into the 4th dimensional "gravity well" that is movement afore along the 4th dimension will tend to give a spiral vortex. The center of the galaxy having the greatest gravitational mass will be most afore. Even if a black hole appears to be present. According to this model this is just the huge mass or collection of mass at the center of the galaxy causing the gravity well to extend beyond visible 3D space. It appears that from the mathematics that has just come my attention that the spiralling is something apparent in the mathematics itself and perhaps is the situation that eventually evolves unless other particular dynamic interactions prevent it.

There is still a lot of resistance to the idea that there must be some kind of medium within space. Despite the lack of experimental evidence for such a medium, it is logical that something must exist to give the energetic variation that is observed. The dimensions of empty space are not physically real and nothing can not itself be curved. I have tended to resist calling it aether because of the hostile attitude towards the name. However since the discovery of Bose-Einstein condensates it seems more reasonable to suggest that perhaps they are examples of the 5th state of matter, the quintessence or aether. The other states of matter having been, since antiquity, identified as solid (earth), liquid(water), gas(air) and energy(fire). The unknown medium has been undetectable because it is not really matter as we have known and expected it to be but sub atomic particles without the normal atomic structure of matter. This also fits with the idea of quantum fluctuations and because we have 4 dimensions of space in this model not 3 there is no problem with particles appearing and disappearing from that 3D space. It is just them enjoying the extra freedom that quaternion space gives to sub atomic particles, having so little garvitational mass. Where as matter must proceed afore unless extra energy is input to counteract that afore-ward change of position.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 06:40 GMT
Georgina,

I think I have enough to suggest a hyperdrive system. I want to mull it over some more; of course, I do a lot of mulling on this blog.

If the Cosmological constant really is a kind of gaseous of fluid pressure, I want to suggest that the pressure is higher inside of a p-brane sphere than the outside. If so, then what happens if we put two p-brane spheres, one inside the other. Is it possible to create a precariously balanced hypersphere condition? If so, could a slight nudge of one of the spheres result in the expansion of space on one side and the contraction of space on the other?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
Georgina,

Do you believe that the speed of light is a property of the p3-brane or, alternatively, a property of the hypothetical Cosmological Aether that flows through the brane and causes it to inflate?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 23:50 GMT
Jason,

it is my opinion that it is the properties of the unknown medium, that limits the ratio of (3D to 4th) dimensional change in position of EM through quaternion space. Thus giving an observed constant speed of light. It has to progress with the same ratio of change in position as the material universe or it would not be visible in 3D space. It is spreading out through 3D space but...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 21:41 GMT
I said "The "wake" caused by the 4th dimensional change in position of the gravitational mass effecting the density of the medium. I should have said -possibly-." As this is just speculation. The unknown medium may be incapable of having different densities. It is the dynamic distortion of the medium by the gravitational mass that must be taken into account. This may actually be the only relevant change to the medium, causing alteration in path. This would be in keeping with general relativity and so speculation of alteration of density is unnecessary.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
Back to spookiness. Spooky action at at distance is only spooky if it is assumed that 3D space is a closed system and there is no other space. If however there are other layers of 3D space on either side of the material objects along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension, then there is extra freedom and opportunity for interaction. Maybe sympathetic harmonic oscillation.

Separation in 3D space is not necessarily relevant. Altering the vertical distance between two objects does not alter their horizontal separation (unless they are acted upon by mutually attractive or repulsive forces). Altering the width of separation of 2 objects (at 90 degrees to length)does not alter the spatial length of the separation between them . Altering vertical distance (related to potential energy) will alter 4th dimensional position but altering a horizontal distance will not. Therefore however large the horizontal separation of 2 objects that does not effect the 4th dimensional co-ordinates that the objects will occupy.

When interaction is occurring outside of visible 3D vector space it is not possible to assign a speed value. Speed is a change along at least one of the 3D vector spatial dimension divided by change along the 4th dimension (measured as time). If no change in (3D vector) spatial position can be measured in which the interaction occurs then no speed can be given. From the 3D vector space perspective it will appear instantaneous.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 21:23 GMT
Forgive me this isn't really about spookiness, but is going back to my nursery school style demo of change in position of gravity well, giving rise to gravity.

The shape of the gravity well (and thus the cut out) will depend upon the density of the substances within the mass and their distribution within 3D space and along the 4th dimension. A mass such as the earth has a dense core and becomes less dense towards the exterior. The denser the mass the greater its afore-ward position. So in this case the gravity well may be more like a tornado shape. The exterior of the mass being least dense has a wide shape when cut out showing wide distribution in 3D space. The width will get less as one moves further into the mass (and so further afore along the 4th dimension), as the 3D spatial distribution is less. However as density increases 4th dimensional position will increase even more than if density was the same throughout giving an elongated shape.

It could be assumed that the most dense material collect at the centre of the mass because of their ability to move further afore along the 4th dimension than less dense materials, rather than collecting at the outside of the mass due to centrifugal force. The centre of the mass in 3D space having the most afore-ward ( towards that space ahead of observable 3D space) 4th dimensional position.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 07:14 GMT
According to the model I am proposing .....

If all matter is loosing the maximum possible potential energy along the 4th dimension at every opportunity then in the absence of any other mass in proximity it could be assumed that it will have a particular size of loss dependent on the resistance of the medium within space. Loss of potential energy of matter along the 4th dimension will...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 07:40 GMT
The location of the 4th dimension is very important. But having a compactified extra spatial dimension, as suggested by Kaluza Klein, doesn't seem that useful. However a sub atomic particle oscillating along the 4th spatial dimension could be considered to be tracing out a very small section of the dimension, which would have some similarity in regard to small size. Although to remain within observable space it would have to change position afore along the 4th dimension to remain within the "energetic boundaries" of the space occupied by the matter of the universe, that is continuously moving afore. So the particle would not return to the same space that it left. Rather than tracing a circular path like a Kaluza Klein compactified dimension, its oscillation is more like a pendulum loosing potential energy on each swing so it does not return to the same high energy level that it left but returns to a lower 4th dimensional potential energy level which is further afore along the 4th dimension.

With regard to matter. The 4th dimension is external to the object everywhere around it not occupying a single direction of 3D space. Though it does not make sense from the 3D space perceptive that "non direction" is the orientation of the 3D space that the mass has already passed through as it moves along the 4th spatial dimension. The 4th dimension runs through the object to the centre of gravity and beyond the singularity into afore space.

The singularity only being the end of 3D space for one particular 4th dimensional position. As the mass is continuously changing 4th dimensional position there will be a continuous succession of singularities for each new quaternion spatial position of the object. So it is only possible to describe the object in a fixed position along the 4th dimension (which is unreal) if a single euclidean space or single space-time manifold is used. Instead it is passing through a succession of 3D spaces rather than something called time passing within a single 3D euclidean space.

Gravity itself and the way it functions is evidence for this suggested dimensional arrangement. Evidence for the hypothesised space external to observable 3D space is the evidence of gravitation from unseen matter. Matter that is afore along the 4th dimension will not be observable because light does not travel back from afore space but the disturbance of the medium of space caused by that matter (it's wake) will cause an observable gravitational effect within observable 3D space.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 18:37 GMT
Georgina,

I've been looking at the Einstein equations and the severe energy cost for curvature when it struck me: what if the expansion of space is caused by the universe trying to relieve pressure caused by curvature? The higher the speed of light, the more energy is tied into curvature, which makes it want to expand even faster. If you had a universe with a speed of light of 10-30m/s, maybe you could squeeze it with a vice grip to get it to curve. Obviously, 3x108m/s is incredibly hard to curve, so a Big Bang occurs.

This would mean that Scharzchild spheres are bound together by infinitely strong forces at really small distances. For spheres with a reasonably high speed of light, the energy content of them is enormous. A Scharzchild sphere is the Ultimate bomb. The higher the speed of light is, the more energy content it contains. If this infinitely strong force is overcome, BIG BANG!!!!

A Schartzchild hypersphere (4+ dimensions) can distribute its energy over additional dimensions with more available kT to moderate the expansion.

Our universe will probably expand forever like all of the other universes with higher speeds of light and few dimensions. For all we know, there was another Big Bang that followed ours, but it's speed of light is just slightly less then ours, and will never (fortunately) overtake us. The multiverse is an ongoing fireworks show...perhaps.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 07:12 GMT
Jason,

you said..."what if the expansion of space is caused by the universe trying to relieve pressure caused by curvature?" Here is the assumption that there is real expansion again. We will not agree on this. I am aware of the evidence for expansion. I have seen the empty magicians hat and verify that it really is empty. You can not produce a rabbit from an empty hat that continues to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear Georgina,

In the Einstein equations, if you put the curvature terms on the left, and the energy requirement on the right, it tells you that energy is scaled by G/c^4. If you multiply both sides by c^4, then, for the curvature you want, you have to use more energy by a factor of c^4. Likewise, for the curvature that you have at the speed of light you have, that energy is like a tidal wave and will find ways to relieve the enormous pressure. If expanding space itself is not quick enough, it will force energy into higher dimensions, enough to create a quantum universe for a very small scale. Gravity helps to force contraction and to give the expansion pressure somewhere to go. If the gravitational constant is increased (significantly) then more curvature is tolerated for the same amount of energy. A higher gravitational constant makes it harder for the universe to expand. As for self assembly, universes are created as energetically violent events of enormous energy; in this way, the laws of physics themselves are determined.

The idea I have for a hyperdrive still needs a lot of work. But here is the basic idea. I want to two universes with nearly identical c and h. I want to couple them in such a way that the energy of curvature of one of them is equal and opposite to the energy of curvature of the other. You should hate that idea because I just said that the curvature of one of the spheres is R and the other sphere is -R. That should be impossible. Anyway, I want to make these two spheres delicately balance each other. The sphere is radius R has the typical c and h. The sphere of -R will vary just slightly; it will have corresponding negative energy and will prevent the other sphere of radius R from Big Banging. Each side appears to have near infinite energy, but it's virtual energy. If you break it, positive near infinite energy + negative near infinite energy = about half a kiloton explosion. By displacing the spheres ever so slightly, it should create a region of near infinite negative energy and a near infinite region of positive energy. That should allow for a hyperdrive.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 21:09 GMT
To clarify. That is relative to the luminous matter that is observable on the image.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 23:34 GMT
Jason,

Jason you said "If expanding space itself is not quick enough, it will force energy into higher dimensions, enough to create a quantum universe for a very small scale." If you say so, I do not know and I have not conducted nor seen mathematical analysis of this hypothetical situation.

You don't ask for much do you? Some might think asking for the moon was a lot but you want...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 00:11 GMT
Particle creation/anhillation in a 3D quantum universe causes the particle/antiparticle to fly apart. For a universe with a significantly higher c, and consequently, a significantly higher h Planck constant, such a hpespace should have universe-anti-universe creation/annhilation in, I'm guessing, a 4D space.

I read about someone trying to explain quantum mechanics in terms of lots and lots of dimensions. I'll have to find that article.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 02:29 GMT
I expect the energy tied up in curvature of space, at the instant of the Big Bang, to have been incomprehensibly large. At those high temperatures and pressures, before expansion and before the Hadrons and leptons were created, higher dimensions were literally carved into the space itself. I have to find the article I read; ...

After a certain amount of pressure is relieved through the carving of quantum the Planck constant into space itself, the next easiest ways to release pressure is to create hadron/leptons. Then, expansion of space time predominates. From this point of view, universes with higher speeds of light carve a larger Planck constant into space itself, and become flat alot faster.

From this idea, I expect that our universe exists within a set of previously created universes with larger speeds of light and larger Planck constants. For this reason, it should be possible to find a hyperspace whose particle-antiparticles are very large.

I think it might be possible to find/wait for/cause a particle-antiparticle creation event for a pair of universes with a speed of light identical to ours. But here is what you do. Imagine a four dimensional Euclidean space with axes x,y,z,and w. You know about x,y and z; think of w as the time direction, where time travel, changing the past, and all that romantic stuff is only possible in movies. When the particle/antiparticle creation event occurs, the two particles will fly away from each other in the w direction, but will expand in the x,y,z direction. If you can catch the particle-antiparticle quickly enough (before that begin to dump matter into their space), you can get the curvature of one space to "tug of war" with the other curvature (your -R). They will prevent each other from expanding in a delicate balance. I don't know all of the details, but the failsafe for this is the effect of huge amounts of virtual energy: Large Energy + Large Negative energy = 0. The way you do it, they will collapse in on each other if they fail. They won't fly apart and start new universes. The more you use their Alcubierre hyperdrive capability, the more the stress is releaved between the two hyperspheres. Eventually, your hyperdrive runs out of energy.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 00:28 GMT
Jason,

I think I understand the principle you are outlining. It is based on the speculation that there are antiparticles and therefore there is the possibility of an anti pocket universe. I am not convinced that an antiparticle is really a different particle from the normal version. It may be just that it is one changing position along the 4th dimension in the opposite direction from that usually observed. All matter is travelling afore so all observed particles would tend to have net afore-ward change in position also, to remain within our material universe. Possibly carried along by the flow of everything else moving afore. A particle changing position in the opposite 4th dimensional direction would not remain within observable 3D space (it just passes through) and might therefore be assumed to have been annihilated, though it has just disappeared from that observable space.

It is another big jump to assume that the desired creation event could be happened upon or engineered. How that anti pocket universe could be captured and controlled before it is annihilated by interaction with the full size universe is another consideration. I'm sorry Jason ,there I go again looking for all the problems rather than the possibilities. It is an interesting idea.

More interesting for me has been the seed of an idea of expansion and gravity working in opposite 4th dimensional directions. This would give an up-welling of spatial medium, lets call it the aether spring between galaxies. It would be observed as an anti-gravity force in inter galactic 3D vector space pushing all matter away. Though like gravity, being a force operating along the 4th dimension, it would not be observable except by its effect. That effect causing galaxies to move apart in 3D space. Though gravity within galaxies is holding matter together in 3D space and bringing it towards the centre of the hypersphere. So the up-welling aether spring ( perhaps that should be aft-welling to remain consistent) gives the observation of dark energy and erroneous interpretation of expansion while the material universe contracts via gravity and change of position along the 4th dimension.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
Georgina,

When I looked at the Einstein equations, it looked like the universe wanted to be flat. The gravitational constant indirectly tries to make the universe smaller. I have this nagging feeling that gravity is trying to pull the universe back together into the singularity it began as. As it turns out, my model doesn't require an aether; which is not to say that there isn't one anyway, I don't know.

Pairs of pocket sized universes is a wild and drastic idea. In my opinion, the universes that have expanded before ours had larger speeds of light, and etched a larger Planck constant into their space. A particle in such a space would seem to us like a wide open volume of space because our Planck constant is so small. Hence, we could possibly fit a spaceship inside of this hyper-quantum particle. More realistically, particle-antiparticle creation-annhilation would provide opportunities for capture and control of these particle-pairs. To us, it would be like holding an electron-positron pair in an electric field. Yes, I agree, the technical challenge of this is well beyond our means. Realistically, the first step is finding a way to look around, off of our brane. I've given some ideas.

I just want to check with you. Other than being completely wacko, do you see any obvious physics violations?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 20:34 GMT
Georgina,

The more I think about a 4th dimensional universe, it kind of bothers me. If I didn't know any better, I would suspect that it's nonlinear in a scaling sort of way. But that can't be right. Pocket universes could very easily be like particle-antiparticle reactions. But if the two universes are trying to expand and to fly away from each other, it would require a mere hiccup in space time to slow one of them down for just an instant. In doing so, one would be expanding against the apparent collapse of the other. From observers in either sphere, they would be in the expanding universe, but the other universe would be collapsing into a singularity. It give me a strange feeling that the 4th dimension is flat. I am afraid to even suggest it, but it almost looks like gravity is the expansion of the other pocket universe.

Forgive me, it is still a jumble of thoughts and ideas right now. I haven't brought clarity to them yet. It just seems as if, by you model the force of attraction is drawn into the center of each quantity of mass, oddly, as if we were preventing the other pocket universe from expanding.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 20:48 GMT
Georgina,

Have you ever sat in the back seat of a car that was driving away from a house; it gets smaller an smaller, like it's becoming a singularity? Eventually, it's too small to be seen. Your quaternion model of gravity seems similar to that. I don't know what it means that the gravitational constant is a constant. But your view about gravity, and other stuff I've heard, gives me a nagging feeling that graviationally, we are still being drawn back to the 4D location of the Big Bang. My guess would be that there is a sister universe, an negative energy universe that might be trying to expand against ours. To us, this universe looks like a gravitational singularity back to the point of the Big Bang. They have the same perspective of ours. I couldn't tell you if this negative energy universe is 14 billion light years away, or all around us. Unfortunately, if our universes ever collided, we would annhilate each other into net zero energy puff. It's just conjecture.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
Jason,

yes, the model does say that the material universe is travelling back to the centre of the hypersphere. Which is the same as the hypothesised origin of the big bang. (Not the same as the event horizon that is observed, which is post inflation and thus the outer region of the hypersphere.) However this model also suggested that there could be continuous recycling back to the outer...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
Georgina,

I agree that matter/energy/entropy are all recyled. I disagree with you on the process. Just for a moment, consider this idea. Our universe will expand forever to lay down another layer upon the 5D space-time. The Big Bang occurred in a boiling ocean of super-hot energy. Eventually, all matter and entropy make it back to the "superfurnace". From there, new universes are born. Probably most fall back. Ocasionally, one may have enough energy to expand to completion. It's just an idea I'm throwing out there. One more thing, I want to try to describe our universe/brane as a very large wave amplitude within this superfurnace hyperspace.

What do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 05:50 GMT
If the big bang occurred from that initial state, then there was very rapid inflation to form the universe. There is a gap in scientific comprehension between bang and universe. One can assume that it spread out super-luminally from the origin through 3D space, therefore breaking the known laws of physics or assuming that those laws do not apply in this situation. Or it can be hypothesised that the inflation occurred in another way. If there was 4th dimensional change in position of the medium of space, this would be at 90 degrees to 3D vector space from interior to outer region of the hypersphere Megauniverse. This is the reverse 4th dimensional direction of the force of gravity.

I can not see how your 2 statements fit together. You said "Our universe will expand forever to lay down another layer upon the 5D space-time." and you said "Eventually, all matter and entropy make it back to the "superfurnace". How does that work? By the way there is no need, in my opinion, for a separate time dimension the 4th and 5th dimension are the same. The relationship of dimensions 1 to 3 with the 4th dimension does give the experience of time but 4 is also a spatio-energetic dimension as are dimensions 1 ,2 and 3. It is only by change in position towards the centre of the hypersphere (gravity) that matter can return to the actual big bang origin.

Jason you said "Ocasionally, one may have enough energy to expand to completion." What does that mean to you? Are you hypothesising a state of spherical perfection, as is Steve or is this a prelude to collapse? In a state of continuous recycling why should maximum expansion be considered completion?

You said "One more thing, I want to try to describe our universe/brane as a very large wave amplitude within this superfurnace hyperspace. What do you think? I think that if the idea appeals to you why not try it and see where it takes you? It may take you somewhere interesting. It is not my place to tell you where your explorations should be directed. About 5 years ago I began thinking about the possibility of a time wave, formed at the big bang, carrying everything outward, giving the experience of time, fitting with universal expansion and matter being carried outward through 3D space. I didn't really understand what the 4th dimension was. I think of that as the beginning of a journey. I am still on that journey and still at the beginning but a long way further on from where I began. I would not have got to here without having explored that possibility first. I look back at it as a developmental process.

One never knows what new information or insight might present itself and alter perception of the problem or perception of a prior solution. If certainty and proof beyond reasonable doubt is a prior requisite then one should never present ones ideas for consideration.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 07:11 GMT
The energetic limits of the megauniverse = The centre and exterior boundary. The moving energetic boundaries of the universe, within the Megauniverse, closest to and furthest from the centre of the hypersphere. The moving energetic boundaries of each mass = Its exterior limit and centre of gravity.

These have been considered within a medium with dynamics in 3D space but no 4th dimensional flow but allowing movement of matter through it and propagation of waves within it. If however 4th dimensional "flow" of the medium is also to be incorporated into the model, the energetic changes of the medium corresponding to its changes in quaternion spatial position also need consideration.

Flow of medium changing position and energy level within Megauniverse hypersphere. Universe changing position and energy level within Megauniverse hypersphere. Matter changing position and energy level within universe. Particles changing position and energy.. Its much more complicated than just a static field that can be represented by a single manifold.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 18:13 GMT
Georgina,

Some universes expand forever; others collapse back in upon themselves. Entropy has to be recycled; what better way can their be to recyle entropy and all of the mass that cannot escape the gravitational clutches of black holes? I suspect that material that falls into a black hole is superluminally heaped onto a stack of very hot material in some 5D space-time, off the brane. ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 01:30 GMT
Jason,

thanks for explaining. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 01:55 GMT
Just to finish my ramble about modelling reality, in which particle interactions occur...

So the Hypersphere Megauniverse contains matter that could be regarded as existing as nesting hollow "Verses" all moving afore. From that set of "Verses", 1 Hollow hypersphere material Universe, “our 1”, can be considered. It occupies some 4 D “thickness” of the Megaunivere hypersphere. Exterior (towards exterior of hypersphere Megauniverse) and interior (towards centre of hypersphere) together giving the 4th dimensional potential energetic boundaries of the material Universe. If an object were to exceed one of those limits it would cease to be visible in our Universe, being now in aft or afore space.

Within that 4D thickness wells, within wells, within wells, within wells, within wells. Galaxy well, solar system well, planet well. An object with its own 4th dimensional energetic boundaries, exterior and centre of gravity along the 4th dimension also with its own gravity well is within gravity well produced by the planet. Wells of atoms existing within the well, within the object. The paths of particles are within the well of the atom. The wells will be able to move in quaternion space within the boundaries of the next well up. All moving afore along the 4th dimension, towards the centre of the Megauniverse hypersphere. Dynamic flow of a medium in quaternion space and therefore the associated energetic changes also, both in 3D space and along the 4th dimension would have to be mapped onto of the dynamic movements of the masses and all of the gravitational structure outlined above within quaternion space. The movements of the masses and the flows and disturbances are connected. This is no longer a simple static gravity well in a single static plane representation. And that's enough for me to think about for now.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 00:41 GMT
Currently a 3 dimensional spatial structure is accepted and observation within that 3 dimensional structure is conducted to find answers to foundational questions and comprehension of the universe at all scales. However underlying that structure is further structure imposed by the 4th dimension. That structure can not be directly observed but it gives rise to phenomena experienced in 3D space that are not explicable using the 3D spatial structure and time alone.

4 spatio-energetic dimensions are required to more accurately model the environment. 3 moving relative to the 4th in the only absolute orientation that can be given. That is the "axis" that runs from the entire exterior surface of the universe (and also Megauniverse hypersphere) to the centre point of the hypersphere. It is necessary to have the 3 vector spatial dimensions moving because the space that we occupy is always considered to be the same space. As the matter of the universe is moving along the 4th dimension through space so its dimensions must be regarded as moving with it.

All changes in quaternion spatial position are energy changes and vice-versa. 4th dimensional potential energy is lost by matter continuously, and further loss achieved at every opportunity. This is the same as change in 4th dimensional spatial position. This structure and function allows gravity to be explained as well as answering numerous other questions.It is the same structure within which sub atomic particles exist and interact.They are not restricted to 3 spatial dimensions of freedom but 4 and all matter, including experimental apparatus, is continuously moving along the 4th dimension.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 17:28 GMT
I was considering the idea of hyperspaces (larger c and h), and how the Einstein equations tell us that a universe with a higher speed of light has greater capacity to become flat compared with a universe with a lower speed of light. If this is true, then for a situation in which two universe are both competing to get flat, the hyperspace (a space with a higher speed of light) will overpower the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT
Jason hihihi you say " what happens if two universes interact with different speeds of light? "

I know ...BOOM .

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 18:06 GMT
OOOPS SORRY ,it's me the crazzy spheric man .

Thus I repeat BOOM .HIHIHI

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 18:07 GMT
Steve,

In a particle-space model, they will collide either elastically or in-elastically.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 19:56 GMT
I think I got the Planck constant and its relationship to the speed of light, backwards. At the Big Bang birth of the universe, the speed of light is fixed, but the Planck constant has not been established. In the first few femtoseconds, curvature is maximum and the potential energy associated with curvature, from the Einstein equations, is maximum. Tesselation theory seems to suggest that some geometries are energetically more favorable than others. Let's imagine that at earliest possible time, for the available potential energy, a number of dimensions and lattices (spatial and momentum) were possible; furthermore, let's say that at the earliest instant, it was a single superstring or brane. Chemical reactions are driven by both endothermic/exothermic considerations as well as entropy. Now, increasing entropy is possible way to deal with a high energy density situation. If the universe is one whole brane/superstring, then it's Planck constant is E= the totality of energy-time. The Planck constant just tells you how many pieces of energy-time, the universe is devided into. If the Planck constant is divided by two, then the totality of Energy-time is cut into two, and you have two pieces. With two pieces, some of the energy is turned into entropy. If these divisions occur continuously, then a significant amount of energy can be broken up into chunks of energy-time, which relieves some of the pressure by converting into entropy.

Next, the number of dimensions and overall tesselated geometry will lower the preesure as well. Whether first the Planck constant was driven small, creating lots of chuncks of energy-time first, and then second, the geometry and number of dimensions was decided second, or visa versa, I don't know. But both of these strategies will help relieve pressure.

The unfoldment of the curvature of a universe should be restrained by it's speed of light. If it can't expand fast enough, then that energy density will want to find the best available energy pathway by breaking up the total energy-time into smaller chunks, to create more entropy, as well as manifesting higher dimensional geometries down to lower dimensional geometries until one of them solidifies into place, allowing inflation to occur, next. It may be the case that some tesselations relieve the pressure of energy density better than others.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 00:43 GMT
Jason,

You have things pretty much right here, though there are a few points of departure, but I won't quibble now. What is absolutely constant in physics, or at least at this time appears to be constant, is the planch unit of action and the speed of light. The Planck length is

L = sqrt{Għ/c^3}.

You can show this very easily by equating the de Broglie wave length of a wave standing on the surface of a black hole. In other words the Schwarzschild radius or circumference is equal to its own quantum wave length. As an exercise everyone should look up de Broglie wave length ħ/2π = pλ, set the wave length equal to the Schwarzschild radius r = 2GM/c^2, substitute the rest mass = Mc for the momentum do some work to get rid of M and you get L.

If you adjust the speed of light or the Planck action you adjust everything accordingly, such as the Bohr radius of atoms and the like so that nothing would be observable. So there appears to be no effective way to vary these numbers conveneintly. What does renormalize at extremely high energy would be the gravitational constant G. That is a complicated matter involving string parameters and the like.

These Planck units of volume to sphere pack into minimal configurations, where these are known for dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4,and 8, where dimension 1 and 2 are trival and dimension 3 tough --- the Kepler problem of whether the stacking of fruit in the market shelf is the most efficient packing. The four dimensional problem was solved 7 years ago and very close bounds are known with 8 making it proven FAPP --- at least for physicists.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 14:50 GMT
Lawrence,

Thank you for your feedback.

Fellow physics bloggers,

I've gotten a lot of ideas from you all, Lawrence, Georgina, Ray, Steve and others. I'm trying to write down and clarify a lot of my ideas for the purposes of creating a hyperdrive physics website. Whether it's rampant speculation on my part, or slow and painstaking effort on the physics community's part, I don't know; however, I'll probably be spending more time developing my ideas and website. If I don't respond right away to chat, that's why. I'm not going away, just getting more focused.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 19:28 GMT
While looking at the Einstein equation, I began to think about the definition of Ricci curvature. It talks about the deviation of a volume element for a geodesic ball on a curved Reimann manifold from a regular ball in Euclidean space. It's like they're talking about a stress ball, something that you squeeze and crush when you're nervous. A squeezable could be described as a spherical shaped spring or system of springs. When you compress it, you store potential energy into it. When you release it from the tiny little singularity it used to be,... BIG BANG!!! But it almost seems as if the effective spring constant is related to 1/c^4, or the speed of light. I just thought that was an interesting thing to observe. I don't think the "inflation" idea, as if the universe was inflatabled with an air hose makes as much sense now. However, complete relaxation of the compression should cause the universe to reach a full size equilibrium with gravity. Why do we think that the acceleration is speeding up?

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Jason,

Background information on why we think the Universe is expanding at an acceleration rate is given here: Dark Energy. I would say that I'm on the fence as to whether this is a real phenomenon or a misinterpretation of data (see Section 6.2 of my book), but Lawrence's ideas require a Cosmological Constant.

Have you read the contest papers? Leshan has some ideas that might tie into your hyperdrive ideas. I'm just not sure he has anything to add to the discussions you and others have had here.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Hello! Cool article! The velocity of spookiness is instantaneous, as demonstrated by both theory and experiment! This is because the fourth expanding dimension is nonlocal!

And quantum entanglement and relativity derive from the same source--the same fundamental universal invariant? dx4/dt=ic.

That would be MDT's simple postulate and equation: the fourth dimension is expanding...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 23:00 GMT
Hi Ray,

I glanced at Leshan's paper. At just a glance, I didn't see anything that made my heart pound; if there was something unusual there, I didn't catch it.

Dr. McGucken,

In the search for the hyperdrive, I have changed physics constants, dimensions, added universes, divided universes, reduced universes to the status of quantum fluctuations, tried to fake out the universe...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 21:05 GMT
Relativity and quantum mechanics are different systems of relationships. For one thing they involve different notions of time. Relativity has proper time as the invariant interval of the theory. Quantum mechanics uses coordinate time in wave equations, which in relativity theory is frame dependent. Relativity by the interval defines distances in spacetime and further constructs relationships between particles on that basis, Quantum mechanics is really blind to space and time, only referencing them with respect to the representation of state variables. Quantum mechanical relationships involve nonlocality and entanglements which properly should be seen as having no reference to space, time or the geometry of spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 02:30 GMT
Lawrence,

I recognise that the physics community has nothing to gain by ripping the "guts" out of physics, trying to make a hyper-drive possible; that's my pursuit. Our universe looks to me like a 3D wavefront in a 4D space; the thickness is the present. I admit, I thought it was a goofy idea at first when I thought of our universe as giant photon. I can't help but think about ripples on a pond; why do they prefer to expand outward? Initially, the Einstein equations seem to fight the very idea of a wormhole because curvature seems to store energy. The faster the speed of light in a space, the more energy is stored for a given curvature. In fact, the Big Bang almost seems like proof that universes like to be flat. Expanding wavefronts of Big Bang universes have a certain strange similarity to photon waves. I've looked at stars that are probably light years a way. I am amazed that the spherical wavefront that emitted that photon, found its way into my iris.

Does time exist in a 4D space as a 5D space-time? You may have no incentive to believe that it does, but for a hyperdrive to be possible, then that hyperspace has to be a 5D space-time with a much larger c'>>c. If that is so, then our universe has to expand like a spherical wavefront as a very slow velocity, a mere 3x10^8 m/s within hyperspace. But only quantum particles are supposed to expand as wavefronts, right?

You said yourself that the Planck and speed of light constants will scale. It takes energy to make out finer details because you need higher frequencies with shorter wavelengths to make out those details. If the 4th dimension is a hyperspace with c'=1000c, and an h = 10^+34J-s, then the whole scaling system would be incredibly huge. For such a hugh hyperspace, maybe a universe is just a mere quantum particle. It's not a very normal idea, so feel free not to think about it.

The idea of a particle-antiparticle creation event can be extended to an entire universe-anti-universe. While electron-positron pairs are not entirely stable, that is the very concept I am reaching for. The curvature of a very small universe contains huge amounts of postive energy that pushes for expansion. By inverting the anti-universe and causing it to expand in a way that keeps the +E universe from expanding, they balance to some radius, R. The negative unvierse has a negative energy (to be used later). The universe pair releives curvature by transmitting energy through a dielectric of some kind, or a circuit. If you don't mind treating energy as a charge, then +E and -E can serve to relieve each other's curvature and energy through an appropriate circuit. I believe that the potential energy difference between them, if they are set up like a dipole, they will cause space itself to flow. As a particle-space relationship, this will also manifest within the 4th dimension as the equivalent of a charge flow between two voltages, a current.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 04:39 GMT
Just for the fun of it, let's ask what happens on the wavefront of a photon as it expands in space. It's wavefront expands outwards in all directions at the speed of light. On the surface, there are oscillating electric and magnetic fields that obey some Aexp(ik*r-wt). To us, it looks like a particle or a wave-particle. From the surface of the photon, there are oscillating electric and magnetic fields. This is just one photon that could be absorbed by a stray electron that absorbs all of its energy. I don't see any reason to assume that our universe could even by "detected" back to a singularity. It's just too energetic and complex.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 06:39 GMT
If the particle-space idea works, it might be possible to describe our universe as a particle in a hyperspace with a c'>>c and h'>>h. There may be a way to take the Einstein equation and set it equal to the energy of a photon, E=hf; the idea is to try to compare the energy of the curvature of space to the energy of a photon in hyperspace. I'm hoping to calculate 1) c' for hyperspace, 2) some relationship between the Planck constant of hyperspace, and our Plank constant. I'm quite sure that the gravitational constant might be some unique relationship as well.

I hope I'm not disturbing anyone with my ideas; I can stop if you want me to.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT
Hi Jason ,

Have you seen the contests ,I am persuaded what you will find many interesting ideas for your creatives extrapolations.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
Steve,

I have ideas. I wish I had more time to explore other people's ideas.

Lawrence,

I'm curious about what you mean by two different systems of relationships. General Relativity, from what I've read, is really only valid for two points at the same location in space and time. Things like gravity, which is the same as curvature of space, which is also the same as a background potential energy, should fit together, right?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 02:59 GMT
With quantum mechanics nonlocal relatioships are between quantum states in Hilbert space. In general relativity you have a relationship between particles based on nonEuclidean geometric properties of the embedding space.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 04:41 GMT
Lawrence,

Isn't Hilbert space n dimensional and Euclidean (flat)? After looking at the Einstein equations, I can see how stress-energy distorts/curves space. If gravity is strong enough to curve space down to the quantum level, has anybody invented, "Hilbert-Minkowski space"? I guess the big question becomes: which dimensions are physically real, and which dimensions are for quantum n-dimensional space. Is that close to a summation of the problem?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 18:45 GMT
For a finite dimensional Hilbert space, say dimension n, the projective Hilbert space CP^n is not Euclidean, and the holonomy or phase determines a fibration between C^n and CP^n. I can't say whether anyone has worked out ideas about curved Hilbert space. This would be a rather nonstandard idea at best.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 02:27 GMT
In General Relativity, we assign an energy density to a region of space and ask what is the gravitational field at some point.

In Quantum Mechancis, we assign an energy density to a region of space and ask what is the probability that the one particle I'm modelling is here.

Maybe they can't be unified because they're asking two completely different questions. As a metaphor, QM is asking about the likelihood there is an elephant on a grid location in Africa; GR asks what causes elephant herd migration.

If a gravity wave is strong enough to curve the space in a quantum mechanics problem, either you have to (a) change the gravity wave into a wave amplitude, or (b) change the quantum particle into a curvature of space. Is it possible that particles are just tiny little kinks in space-time? Is it possible to use the Einstein equation to describe not the energy of a curvature, but just a tiny kink?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 02:58 GMT
A Schild's ladder construction of spacetime is isomorphic to a Galois field construction GF(4). Interestingly the entangled spin-1/2 system displays the same abstract algebraic structure. So in some sense general relativity and quantum mechanics are partially equivalent to each other! They just happen to be represented in very different ways that we perceive. General relativity is about clocks and rods, such as the Schild's ladder. Quantum mechanics is about nonlocality, probability amplitudes. Yet in the case of an entangled spin 1/2 system this is a hexacode structure with the same Galois system and general relativity. So in some sense the two are equivalent on some overlap under what might be called a partial functor.

So while GR and QM are different relationship systems between particles, and they have radically different formal and empirical structures, in some sense the two have aspects to them which are identical.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 06:40 GMT
I looked up some of what you wrote. It is good that there are similarities between GR and QM. But do we know what it really means?

I have a nagging suspicion that space itself has gone mostly unnoticed, but is probably key. I can't really explain it in the 30 seconds I have left. Whatever space actually is, it's probably something we need to look at more closely.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Jason,

I have been looking more closely at Leshan's paper. He describes a "hole in spacetime" that would have GR type properties.

I suspect that his "hole" must be a quantum phenomenon (if it even exists!). After all, how could we remove the infinitely large number of infinitesimally low-energy photons (the infra-red divergence that we expect from blackbody radiation) with a classical vacuum?

If his hole is a quanta, then it plays a similar role as the Higgs boson and/ or the graviton (although I see no reason why it should have intrinsic spin like the graviton). And it should be relevant to an understanding of mass and/ or gravity.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Ray,

I'm become rather fond of the idea that quantum particles may just be kinks in space-time. I'm trying to find a connection between the energy stored in space-time curvature, and the energy stored in a quantum particle. I took another look at his paper; I'm not sold on the particle-hole theory. I'm not saying he's wrong; I'm just saying it doesn't feel right.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 21:30 GMT
Ray,

The advantage of trying to represent quantum particles as kinks in space-time is that (1) it might be a way to unify GR and QM, (2) it supports the idea of a particle-space relationship.

A particle-space relationship allows a particle to be described as "space". The particle-space relationship emerged naturally if we ask: what are the implications of finding a second universe with a different speed of light? The answer to such a question is that two universes with different speeds of light raises the issue of how do we handle the laws of motion for one universe that is contained inside of another universe?

At this point, infinite dimensional Hilbert space implies that space itself can be many more dimensions than what we directly observe. I just don't know if Hilbert space really has physical dimensions. They look more like vectors. These vectors seem to suggest combinations of psi_1, psi_2...psi_i, etc. I think it is the individual psi_i that have their roots in 3D space, not merely the vectors of Hilbert space.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
Ray,

Wave functions are solutions to the Schrodinger equation, E*PSI=DEL^2*PSI + V*PSI. If V=0, then PSI = e^(kx+ky+kz-wt). If V is not 0, it's a massive headache to solve for PSI. By the way, V is usually associated with charges; what if gravity is so strong that V has a gravitational component? Anyway, I don't solve a lot of QM problems, but I'm guessing that you have to break it down into aPSI(1) + bPSI(2) + ... , which leads to components in a vector. It's these vectors that occuupy Hilbert space. My point is that it's not surprising that QM and GR can't be unified.

If QM and GR can't be unified, maybe it's because the mathematics gets so difficult that there is no precise mathematical relationship anymore. Maybe the relationship is forced to be heuristic.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 04:41 GMT
Anyone,

I've been trying to boil down the hyperdrive physics to its bare essence. Simply, the standard Laws of Motion say I can't travel faster than the speed of light. So, I invent a hyperspace with a high c. But then, how do get into hyperspace where my particles will disintegrate? So I invent a dual-space where the inside obeys standard laws and the outer shell transitions between standard space and hyperspace. But then, for KE=1/2mv2, my 100,00 metric ton starship weights too much. The amount of energy needed to travel v = 100c is insanely high. So, I invent the smuggler theorem. It says that I can smuggle my starship inside of a very lightweight hyperspace particle if I make the Planck constant really big. If it's really large, then hyperspace can't tell what's inside. But then, how do I steer it? I have to interface a little bit with hyperpace so I can steer, propel and see. Somehow, I need a very minimal interface between my standard space, and the hyperspace particle's hyperspace. I need to convert quantum waves/information between the two universes. I'm still thinking about that one. Also, I'm trying to figure out how a particle's mass is determined, so I can hijack it and smuggle my starship aboard.

Very simple stuff.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 20:06 GMT
Dear Jason,

In my model, lattice points are fermions. These points are connected by boson "vectors" (I say "vectors" because these are not necessarily 3 or 4-D vectors, and not necessarily rank-1 vector/ gauge bosons, but they connect one multi-dimensional lattice point with another, and thus properly define a reciprocal lattice).

Regarding Leshan's holes, my scalar fermion tachyons probably behave like quantum lattice defects in 4-D spacetime, which may in turn produce a quantum hole, which must have zero intrinsic spin (like a Higgs boson) and would attract an "anti-hole cloud" = "matter cloud", and thus have similar effects as gravitation.

I think the concept of resolution is closely related to Planck's constant. Think in terms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty relations

[equation]\Delta x \Delta p \approx h,

\Delta t \Delta E \approx h[/equation]

If h goes to zero (energy scales above the Planck scale), then our resolution becomes perfect. As h increases (energy scales below the Planck scale), our resolution worsens.

If Snell's law is relevant to a hyperdrive, then we need to properly identify the boundary between spacetime and hyperspace. We also might not know the speed of light in these media. Should we hit the surface at a grazing angle and hope that we aren't internally reflected?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 21:14 GMT
Hi Ray,

I've been thinking about positive and 'negative' energy. Physics defines energetics with positive energy down to the ZPE. Negative energy is speculative. However, if + and - energy both exist, then they behave a little bit like charges. Obviously, in this case, like attracts like and opposites repel. The Einstein equations says that energy density produces curvature, compression of space produces positive energy. Hypothetically, - energy might produce expansion of space or repulsion. Electromagnetism is implemented by photons; we detect photons. Gravity is implemented by gravitons; gravitons have never been detected. For a hyperspace with a c'>>c, what happens if we give the graviton a velocity of c'? Let the graviton be the photon of hyperspace. It's tachyonic in the sense that its velocity is faster than light. Also, if +E and -E are considered to be charges within hyperspace, does this give us anything useful? A negative charge might be able to induce the opposite of curvature which would be inwards collapse, or gravity.

I'm assuming that hyperspace exists everywhere, but is separated from standard space by 'something'. If tesselation and lattice approaches can define the force/potential energy relationships between fermions and bosons, then, I'm hoping, there will exist another way to fit into this lattice another lattice that is properly scaled with a different c and h. Since quantum mechanical waves behave so much like optice, I'm hoping to use either Snell's law (angle of incidence/reflection) or even 1/f focal points to insert our universe into hyperspace.

What is the boundary between standard space and hyperspace? The event horizon might be able to tell us.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
I've been concerned about the idea of placing a 100K ton starship inside of a hyperspace quantum particle and hoping that I won't have to supply kinetic energy for the 100K ton mass while trying to accelerate up to v = 100c. I was hoping that the mass of the starship won't be included. If the laws of motion for hyperspace won't let me do that, then this is what I propose. The weight content can be described as energy through E=mc2 where c is 3E8m/s. If I convert that energy into an equivalent hyperspace mass, I get something like

m' = m(c/c')^2. Hyperspace might treat my 100K ton starship as if it had significantly less mass. If c'=1000c, then 100K(c/c')^2 = .1 ton. So migh energy usage to reach hyper velocities might be a little bit more reasonable. Admittedly, the higher c' is, the better.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.