Expansion of Space

[AbnormallyHonest]

If there's a Planck Length, then wouldn't it stand to reason that there would also be a Planck Volume? Now, if space was composed of these Planck Volumes there would be small units of space between these tiny spheres of undefinable space. Little tetrahedrons of space. So if these volumes are actually not definable, then wouldn't the space between them also be undefinable? The difference being that the Planck Length has a maximum, but no minimum, and the space between has a minimum, but no maximum, so the space between would just continue to expand. Which part of this model do you think we exist in? The 3 dimensional, fractal expansion?

Edited August 9, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Lord Antares]

There is no evidence that space is quantized (i.e. that everything moves in increments of planck length rather than ''smoothly''). The Planck length has no proven significance, yet. In theory, it is the length which is impossible to discern. In other words, objects less planck lenght away would be in the same place. It remains to be verified or disproven.
There is such a thing as a planck volume (simply planck length cubed), but it is of no significance either.

18 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Now, if space was composed of these Planck Volumes there would be small units of space between these tiny spheres of undefinable space. Little tetrahedrons of space. So if these volumes are actually not definable, then wouldn't the space between them also be undefinable? 

I've talked about something similar to this. About vacuums in between particles. Especially in your case, you run into the problem of there not being a set size or shape of quantum particles. They're not just a round ball between which there are regularly shaped holes. You need to account for quantum behaviour of particles.

22 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The difference being that the Planck Length has a maximum, but no minimum, and the space between has a minimum, but no maximum, so the space between would just continue to expand. Which part of this model do you think we exist in? The 3 dimensional, fractal expansion?

You wot?

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

If there's a Planck Length, then wouldn't it stand to reason that there would also be a Planck Volume? Now, if space was composed of these Planck Volumes there would be small units of space between these tiny spheres of undefinable space. Little tetrahedrons of space. So if these volumes are actually not definable, then wouldn't the space between them also be undefinable? The difference being that the Planck Length has a maximum, but no minimum, and the space between has a minimum, but no maximum, so the space between would just continue to expand. Which part of this model do you think we exist in? The 3 dimensional, fractal expansion?

The Planck scale [length, time, volume[ is a mathematically derived, fundamental,  non physical scale, calculated from some basic physical constants such as the speed of light, and the gravitational constant. It also aligns with the quantum scale and where our current laws of physics and GR, fail and where quantum effects take over.

As of this time we do not have a observationally verifiable QGT that describes spacetime at this level...eg: The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from 10-43 seconds after t=0......or a BH singularity existing  at Planck/quantum level.

[swansont]

The universe is no more made up of Planck volumes than it is of cubic meters. Further, there is nothing that says these would be spherical. The notion that they would be, and that there would a be a packing problem, is completely without basis.

[AbnormallyHonest]

3 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

There is no evidence that space is quantized (i.e. that everything moves in increments of planck length rather than ''smoothly''). The Planck length has no proven significance, yet. In theory, it is the length which is impossible to discern. In other words, objects less planck lenght away would be in the same place. It remains to be verified or disproven.
There is such a thing as a planck volume (simply planck length cubed), but it is of no significance either.

I've talked about something similar to this. About vacuums in between particles. Especially in your case, you run into the problem of there not being a set size or shape of quantum particles. They're not just a round ball between which there are regularly shaped holes. You need to account for quantum behaviour of particles.

There is evidence in that things move. In order to produce a change in position, you must apply energy to an object. The amount of energy required to produce a change does have a minimum amount, and that amount of energy is equivalent to the smallest possible length achieved in space. If there's no energy, there's no displacement, and if the movement has no discernible quantizable limit, then the smallest amount of energy to produce a change would would create a displacement that was immeasureable, and therefore not a change at all.

Actually, I believe that as the length a the smallest possible measurement of space is inherently undefinable, then the shape and size of these volumes, and hence the space between them is undefinable as well, or basically not adhering to a set shape or size.

[AbnormallyHonest]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

The Planck scale [length, time, volume[ is a mathematically derived, fundamental,  non physical scale, calculated from some basic physical constants such as the speed of light, and the gravitational constant. It also aligns with the quantum scale and where our current laws of physics and GR, fail and where quantum effects take over.

As of this time we do not have a observationally verifiable QGT that describes spacetime at this level...eg: The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from 10-43 seconds after t=0......or a BH singularity existing  at Planck/quantum level.

Yes, I understand that the Planck Length is actually just a minimum value for three separate equations to remain defined, and common denominator of sorts. I only use the term "Planck Length" as a familiar term or idea that most have at least a limited knowledge of. Really, I am referring to the smallest possible length of space that has coherence to our understanding of it. The limit before the quantum scale takes precedence.

[AbnormallyHonest]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The universe is no more made up of Planck volumes than it is of cubic meters. Further, there is nothing that says these would be spherical. The notion that they would be, and that there would a be a packing problem, is completely without basis.

I'm not referring to their shape, to the theoretical existence of, or the way we label the limit of physical measurement to the quantum scale. As I said to beecee, I only referenced the Planck Length because of its familiarity. The point of the topic seems to be on the expansion of space, which could be connected to this quantum limit. If the limit has a maximum value, but no minimum, and the space between these values has a minimum, but no maximum. Wouldn't the space, if starting at the smallest possible volume, statistically only have one way to evolve, considering the undefinable portion between this space is in a constant state of quantum fluctuation?

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The amount of energy required to produce a change does have a minimum amount

Citation needed. 

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Actually, I believe that as the length a the smallest possible measurement of space is inherently undefinable, then the shape and size of these volumes, and hence the space between them is undefinable as well, or basically not adhering to a set shape or size.

Or there just isn't a minimum distance or volume and it is just a figment of your imagination. 

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Yes, I understand that the Planck Length is actually just a minimum value for three separate equations to remain defined, and common denominator of sorts.

In other words, you don't understand. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I'm not referring to their shape, to the theoretical existence of, or the way we label the limit of physical measurement to the quantum scale. As I said to beecee, I only referenced the Planck Length because of its familiarity. The point of the topic seems to be on the expansion of space, which could be connected to this quantum limit. If the limit has a maximum value, but no minimum, and the space between these values has a minimum, but no maximum. Wouldn't the space, if starting at the smallest possible volume, statistically only have one way to evolve, considering the undefinable portion between this space is in a constant state of quantum fluctuation?

But you did refer to a shape:

Quote

there would be small units of space between these tiny spheres of undefinable space.

Even if there were some quantum of volume, that does not mean that there is some undefinable space between. That's a conjecture riding on top of another conjecture.

[Lord Antares]

3 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The amount of energy required to produce a change does have a minimum amount, and that amount of energy is equivalent to the smallest possible length achieved in space.

As Strange said, citation needed. I want you to know that I fully understand what you are saying. I have thought about it too. I'm sure others have as well. It's called quantization of space. It means that everything moves in intervals which have a set value, rather than fluently. Like videos on a monitor. They can only move by 1 pixel, never less.

Although this may make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is true. You cannot base your conclusions on unproven suppositions.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:44 AM, Strange said:

In other words, you don't understand. 

Excuse me, 3 constants is more appropriate.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:41 AM, Strange said:

Citation needed. 

Ok, if something in space is static, and you do not interact with it in anyway, does it experience a change?

I guess a better way to describe it would be that on a scale small enough, quantum mechanics would mean that there is some fluctuation between where an object is actually located. that fluctuation represents a certain amount of space, so if it moves, you would have to statistically eliminate the margin of error in measurement, rendering the object must not be able to move in a linear fashion, at least from the perspective of measurement.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

But you did refer to a shape:

Even if there were some quantum of volume, that does not mean that there is some undefinable space between. That's a conjecture riding on top of another conjecture.

I would argue that this would mean the entire field of quantum physics is purely conjecture... there are some that might argue that point. I would say, that it's not the space "In-between" but rather, it exists everywhere, but we are only aware of it's potential to be larger than the quantum volume, which is really just fluctuation at the limit of measurement. Conjecture... only if you believe that the fractal expansion of space is not occurring or quantum fluctuation does not exist. I would say that the expansion of space validates quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics validates the fractal expansion of space.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 1:25 PM, Lord Antares said:

As Strange said, citation needed. I want you to know that I fully understand what you are saying. I have thought about it too. I'm sure others have as well. It's called quantization of space. It means that everything moves in intervals which have a set value, rather than fluently. Like videos on a monitor. They can only move by 1 pixel, never less.

Although this may make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is true. You cannot base your conclusions on unproven suppositions.

Could you please tell me how the conclusions of quantum physics are proven... or could it just be a model based on conjecture of the statistical analysis of data from destroying stuff we can't discretely measure?

[Lord Antares]

8 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Could you please tell me how the conclusions of quantum physics are proven... or could it just be a model based on conjecture of the statistical analysis of data from destroying stuff we can't discretely measure?

I couldn't really tell you. There is a lot of conjecture in quantum science for sure. Many things are unproven and untested. For example, string theory is said to be the most advanced physical model for the universe humanity is achieved, yet it is largely unproven. There are little pieces of evidence which could point towards it, but it is far from the level of knowledge and certainty we have about Newtonian or Einstenian physics. On first thought, I might say that it's all nonsense until proven otherwise. After all, you can't accept what has not shown to be reality. But reasonable me would guess that there must be something to it, since it is so widely praised by actual physicists around the world. 

So you would have to ask someone of repute in quantum physics, but I doubt they could give you a simple answer. Maybe you could try googling ''evidence for quantum physics/string theory''. There are such things as the double slit experiment which are substantially tested but then there are other things which aren't.

[AbnormallyHonest]

32 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

I couldn't really tell you. There is a lot of conjecture in quantum science for sure. Many things are unproven and untested. For example, string theory is said to be the most advanced physical model for the universe humanity is achieved, yet it is largely unproven. There are little pieces of evidence which could point towards it, but it is far from the level of knowledge and certainty we have about Newtonian or Einstenian physics. On first thought, I might say that it's all nonsense until proven otherwise. After all, you can't accept what has not shown to be reality. But reasonable me would guess that there must be something to it, since it is so widely praised by actual physicists around the world. 

So you would have to ask someone of repute in quantum physics, but I doubt they could give you a simple answer. Maybe you could try googling ''evidence for quantum physics/string theory''. There are such things as the double slit experiment which are substantially tested but then there are other things which aren't.

Thank you, this is similar to my understanding of it. Our entire reality is just a concept of our input mechanisms. Colors don't exist, they are just a conceptual model our mind creates to differentiate differing frequencies of light. Furthermore, the range of visible light is such a small portion of the entire spectrum and yet people still subscribe to the notion that "seeing is believing" as if vision or the ability to see creates a comprehensive model of the entire Universe. Any concept can be proven, if that concept is based on the data, the math is just a way to demonstrate that a concept is logical. The truth being that the data is a concept as well, an analogy created for an experience of the Universe that we are incapable of ourselves.

The topic of this discussion is the Expansion of Space, and I have yet to hear anything addressing that topic. The differing opinions on quantum fluctuation are a metaphor for its existence.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I would argue that this would mean the entire field of quantum physics is purely conjecture... there are some that might argue that point. I would say, that it's not the space "In-between" but rather, it exists everywhere, but we are only aware of it's potential to be larger than the quantum volume, which is really just fluctuation at the limit of measurement. Conjecture... only if you believe that the fractal expansion of space is not occurring or quantum fluctuation does not exist. I would say that the expansion of space validates quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics validates the fractal expansion of space.

Quantum physics makes predictions and experiment matches up with the theory, so it's hardly fair to call it conjecture, much less pure conjecture.

What experiment shows that space volume or expansion is quantized?

[Lord Antares]

13 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Colors don't exist, they are just a conceptual model our mind creates to differentiate differing frequencies of light.

I can get behind this. I would have phrased it like this as well.

14 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Any concept can be proven, if that concept is based on the data, the math is just a way to demonstrate that a concept is logical.

Well, no. Math demonstrates that it's true. If we have a mathematical model of how objects will freefall under different circumstances and it's shown to be correct every single time, it proves that it's true, or at least applicable, not just ''logical''.

16 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The truth being that the data is a concept as well, an analogy created for an experience of the Universe that we are incapable of ourselves.

What is the point in this? Data is a concept by definition, however a much more useful and straightforward one than what you were saying here. If you're suggesting that data which can be universally agreed upon is as valid as your speculative ideas, then you are dead wrong.

18 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The topic of this discussion is the Expansion of Space, and I have yet to hear anything addressing that topic.

What? What are you on about now? Expansion of space is well established by data and observations. It has been addressed for years. Seeing how you said nothing concrete with no evidence, there is nothing to address.

[interested]

11 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

I can get behind this. I would have phrased it like this as well.

Well, no. Math demonstrates that it's true. If we have a mathematical model of how objects will freefall under different circumstances and it's shown to be correct every single time, it proves that it's true, or at least applicable, not just ''logical''.

What is the point in this? Data is a concept by definition, however a much more useful and straightforward one than what you were saying here. If you're suggesting that data which can be universally agreed upon is as valid as your speculative ideas, then you are dead wrong.

What? What are you on about now? Expansion of space is well established by data and observations. It has been addressed for years. Seeing how you said nothing concrete with no evidence, there is nothing to address.

Can I disagree? Math demonstrates the effect, it does not demonstrate a truism. Given a certain set of circumstances a mathematical theory can predict an outcome. If the theory is reasonably accurate, it gives a correct or close approximation to the outcome. The theory need not take into account the actual cause. God created everything is a theory, it is likely not based on the truth, but many argue it to be the case.

All math demonstrates is a theory that can explain a certain outcome, it does not definitely take into account all the effects. Probability is used where all the variables cant be taken into account or are not fully understood. Quantum mechanics is assumed to give accurate predictions, but does not describe the underlying cause.

Quantum Mechanics assumes an absolute time, it does not allow for time dilation in relativity. Which concept of time is correct. Work on unifying quantum theory and relativity is underway, the theories can't be assumed to be complete until they are either unified or one is shown to be an approximation and replace the other.

Quantum Entanglement transmits information instantly between points A and B, giving the appearance of exceeding light speed. The route taken for the information may not be via normal space, ie the space may not exist between points A and B in another dimension. Likewise in the Quantum world particles or information moves from A to B instantly, does this mean the space the particles or information existed in moved or the distance between where they started and finished suddenly disappeared. "Very generally" current understanding puts forward models based on mathematical probability. The mathematical probability explains the outcome not the effect.

Space is grainy at the quantum level, and may not operate exactly according to current mathematical models, included in the standard model today. 

I disagree with your statement ref mathematical truth, am I correct?

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, interested said:

God created everything is a theory

No, it's not. It's an assertion.

Quote

Quantum Mechanics assumes an absolute time, it does not allow for time dilation in relativity.

Relativistic QM exists.

Quote

 Quantum Entanglement transmits information instantly between points A and B 

No, it doesn't.

[Lord Antares]

1 hour ago, interested said:

/cut

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your main point, it's just that out posts are at cross purposes. You're talking along the lines of philosophy. Does truth exist? Are things which are shown to be functional true or a re they approximations? Is math the truth or a model etc etc.

This is not what I am talking about. I am saying that math is essential for science and only with math are you able to ''prove'' your theories and experiments. Math is how we can replicate and standardize how we handle the theory and how we apply it. Whether it is ''the truth'' or not is irrelevant to me as long as it serves its exact intended purpose.

I bring this up only because I have a feeling he's saying that his speculative models are as plausible as the ones supported by math. If you read through what he says, he states that (I paraphrase) quantum mechanics is largely unsupported by evidence and it's just an abstract model rather than something functional. He then states that math is not a proof of anything, it's just a concept which is secondary to a theory (that's wrong). Then he exclaims how no one has refuted his philosophical thoughts. That leads me to conclude that he thinks that his ramblings are as legitimate as some other theories which are actually supported by math. This could not be farther from the truth. Math is THE ultimate way to a theory's success.

[interested]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it's not. It's an assertion.

Relativistic QM exists.

No, it doesn't.

Previously you stated under the Quantum entanglement ? thread I started information was transmitted instantly Qoute "There is no evidence of information being transferred. Whatever effect is happening, it is instantaneous (as far as we can tell), but there is no way to exploit this to communicate with anyone. Think of this example: you flip a coin. As soon as you see what one side it (heads) you instantly know what the other side is (tails). Does that require the transfer of information? Now imagine the coin is 1 light-second wide.  

Entanglement lasts until some interaction removes it, called decoherence. Anything that measures the state that's entangled removes it. "

Can you explain the discrepancy in your answer ref the speed information is transmitted or are you just making it up as you go along.

[interested]

2 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your main point, it's just that out posts are at cross purposes. You're talking along the lines of philosophy. Does truth exist? Are things which are shown to be functional true or a re they approximations? Is math the truth or a model etc etc.

This is not what I am talking about. I am saying that math is essential for science and only with math are you able to ''prove'' your theories and experiments. Math is how we can replicate and standardize how we handle the theory and how we apply it. Whether it is ''the truth'' or not is irrelevant to me as long as it serves its exact intended purpose.

I bring this up only because I have a feeling he's saying that his speculative models are as plausible as the ones supported by math. If you read through what he says, he states that (I paraphrase) quantum mechanics is largely unsupported by evidence and it's just an abstract model rather than something functional. He then states that math is not a proof of anything, it's just a concept which is secondary to a theory (that's wrong). Then he exclaims how no one has refuted his philosophical thoughts. That leads me to conclude that he thinks that his ramblings are as legitimate as some other theories which are actually supported by math. This could not be farther from the truth. Math is THE ultimate way to a theory's success.

OK simplifying a model is only as good as the information that goes into it. Had Einstein observed dark matter he would have included it in his model. Dark matter has been inferred to exist, but not actually detected. This suggests the model is so good it predicts something that we cant detect, that exists or that the model is wrong in that it predicts something that does not exist.  Quantum mechanics gives extremely reliable results, and is undeniably very accurate, it is however based on probability. Einstein himself I think stated "god does not play dice with the universe", again he may well have been mathematically wrong.