Alternative Interpretation (split from What is Space made of?)

[swansont]

There is a difference between saying something is a wave function, or something is described by (or has) a wave function.

Quantum particles are not wave functions, they have wave functions. A wave function is a mathematical expression. They do not have a volume. But they might describe a volume.

!

Moderator Note

(note that this conversation can and must proceed without introducing any new particles, or new physics; such discussions should take place in their own threads)

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Correct.

[irony] Thank you teacher for marking my homework correct [/irony]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Correct.  Quantum waves have volumes.  I've already defined gravitons as the objects that have quantum states built into them; that is to say, gravitons are wave functions.  Therefore, when gravitons expand from a point, they collide with particles and become part of the quantum system.  So, an expanding graviton is a wave function; it belongs in the standard model, even if it doesn't remain a point particle.

 

I didn't say any of that. That is all your conjecture.

Further I have no idea whether you understood what I said.

In particular note the examples you have provided in the other threads are 2 dimensional, in which case the physical dimension reduces to the reciprocal of length.
This is a far cry from volume, and is usually called wave number when dealing with waves.

By the way this jumping about between threads discussing essentially the same subject is very wearing.

If you wish to communicate (your ideas) with physicists it would be a good idea to learn some of the basics of the subject and language.

It has taken a lot of great minds over many thousands of year to reach the stage of technology we now enjoy.
During that process many ideas have been proposed and worried over doglike with a bone. quite a few of these, at firts promising, were finally rejected as unworkable or not in conformity with observation.
So it is pointless and futile to try to invent all your own Physics by yourself.
Start with what is already known, tried and tested, and move outwards and onwards from there.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There is a difference between saying something is a wave function, or something is described by (or has) a wave function.

   A simple observation, but so true in this case and such a good example of what I mean by my advice.

It also provides a reminder to me to be more specific and accurate. Thanks, swansont. +1

Edited November 30, 2020 by studiot

[joigus]

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

I don't know if you looked at the pictures of the double slit experiment waves.

It rings a bell, yes. It's been ringing a bell for about 39 years now. I've also produced them in a laboratory, guided by people who knew the stuff backwards.

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

Why do we have to write 1 for the physics constants?  That's exactly the same as sweeping them under the rug.  Are physicists afraid of the physics constants?  I hope not.  Because I really want humanity to get past these obstacles so that we can contemplate interstellar travel and also meet other races from other worlds that have overcome these challenges.

<picture>

You've set the standards too high. I'm no Mr Spock. Nor are you. You'd have to be a character from a sci-fi script.

Your goal is laudable, your means are misled.

If you set all units to the proper values, fundamental constants become one and no fundamental equation of physics changes. That must mean something. Think about it. 10^-45 in the equations must be explained; 1 doesn't have to be explained. When a number is reduced to 1 by setting the scale, and nothing substantial is affected, something has been explained.

[Markus Hanke]

22 hours ago, POVphysics said:

It is appropriate to set string theory aside because it is not empirically based. 

Neither are gravitons.

22 hours ago, POVphysics said:

When you say that particles don't have volume, what do you call this? 

An interference pattern, made up of many point-like hits on the detection screen.

22 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Markus, I have to ask you:  do wave functions have volume?

Wave functions (in QM) are probability density distributions, not physical objects - asking whether they ‘have volume’ is meaningless. It’s rather the other way around - you start with the wave function, then integrate its squared norm over a given volume in order to obtain an expectation value.

[joigus]

On 11/30/2020 at 1:51 PM, studiot said:

It has taken a lot of great minds over many thousands of year to reach the stage of technology we now enjoy.
During that process many ideas have been proposed and worried over doglike with a bone. quite a few of these, at firts promising, were finally rejected as unworkable or not in conformity with observation.
So it is pointless and futile to try to invent all your own Physics by yourself.
Start with what is already known, tried and tested, and move outwards and onwards from there.

Good advice.

[Phi for All]

On 11/30/2020 at 5:51 AM, studiot said:

Start with what is already known, tried and tested, and move outwards and onwards from there.

QFT. Three cheers for accumulated human knowledge!

[POVphysics]

On 11/30/2020 at 3:48 AM, swansont said:

There is a difference between saying something is a wave function, or something is described by (or has) a wave function.

Quantum particles are not wave functions, they have wave functions. A wave function is a mathematical expression. They do not have a volume. But they might describe a volume.

!

Moderator Note

(note that this conversation can and must proceed without introducing any new particles, or new physics; such discussions should take place in their own threads)

 

The topic is about WHAT IS SPACETIME MADE OF.  I have answered the problem by proposing a model for a quanta of spacetime.  I am calling it an expanding graviton.  I am happy to oblige your concerns that spacetime is not made of particles; spacetime is made of things that behave like spacetime geometry, behave like the mathematical objects called wavefunctions, and things that are carriers of the physics constants.  Wave functions describe the interaction between gravitons and particles.  When I say that wave functions are gravitons, please permit me the linguistic freedom to make the shorthand statement: gravitons = wavefunctions, so that I can express a thought or an idea freely without getting into an argument over semantics.  Wave functions are the mathematical solution to Schrodinger equation; but the universe behaves this way because gravitons are the fundamental quanta of spacetime that make physics work (according to the model).  

I will not introduce any other particles; you have my word.

When you say, don't introduce new physics, I assume you mean that any more discussion about a quantum entanglement field should be in another thread.  I understand. 

Expanding gravitons are the proposed model to describe what spacetime is made of and are the objects that wave-functions are describing.  In this sense, expanding gravitons are also a proposed model to describe a theory of quantum gravity.

[Markus Hanke]

6 minutes ago, POVphysics said:

I have answered the problem by proposing a model for a quanta of spacetime.

There are already several such models - most notably Loop Quantum Gravity and Causal Dynamical Triangulations, among some others. The idea to quantise spacetime itself is not new, it is one of the main approaches in the search for a model of quantum gravity.

On the other hand though, the approach of trying to apply the usual machinery of QFT to gravity (which is where the idea of a ‘graviton’ comes from) can effectively be ruled out at this point, since we know that it is mathematically inconsistent and doesn’t work. And if it did, for some reason, work, then gravitons would need to obey all the usual rules of particle physics.

[POVphysics]

23 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

There are already several such models - most notably Loop Quantum Gravity and Causal Dynamical Triangulations, among some others. The idea to quantise spacetime itself is not new, it is one of the main approaches in the search for a model of quantum gravity.

On the other hand though, the approach of trying to apply the usual machinery of QFT to gravity (which is where the idea of a ‘graviton’ comes from) can effectively be ruled out at this point, since we know that it is mathematically inconsistent and doesn’t work. And if it did, for some reason, work, then gravitons would need to obey all the usual rules of particle physics.

I am restricted from telling you why those theories have holes in them, other than what I've already said.  If you want to start a new thread, you can.

On 11/30/2020 at 5:01 AM, joigus said:

If you set all units to the proper values, fundamental constants become one and no fundamental equation of physics changes. That must mean something. Think about it. 10^-45 in the equations must be explained; 1 doesn't have to be explained. When a number is reduced to 1 by setting the scale, and nothing substantial is affected, something has been explained.

It is your free will and it is the physics community's free will to focus on things like 1) how long does it take for a proton to decay 2) how long does it take for a black hole to evaporate 3) how long will the universe last 4) we don't have to think about physics constants 5) spacetime exists, but we don't know what it's made of, and don't care.  You folks can decide what you think is important.  But just don't ask me to care what your views about reality are. 

[joigus]

2 hours ago, POVphysics said:

5) spacetime exists, but we don't know what it's made of, and don't care.

(My emphasis)

This is simply ignorance of ongoing physics. There are many attempts at explaining space-time as an emergent phenomenon:

Google search for "emergent spacetime"

Markus has told you about a couple of them.

There is another current of thought in theoretical physics summarised by the sentence "space-time is doomed" (at Planckian scales, ST must be substituted by another concept):

Google search for "spacetime is doomed"

Etc., etc.

2 hours ago, POVphysics said:

You folks can decide what you think is important.  But just don't ask me to care what your views about reality are. 

As far as I'm aware, nobody's asking you to care about anything, except facts. It's you who's come here claiming a view, and demanding attention to --or, shall I say, demanding belief in--, it. We're telling you some of the problems you will encounter, or calling upon you to explain your points more clearly, circumvent the difficulties. We know some of these ideas have been tried and failed. And you say you don't care? Ok.

I even took the time to consult with some of my friends who regularly publish in PRA on non-linear optics (ultrashort laser beams), because I couldn't believe that a high-powered ultra-short laser beam can produce entangled coherent photons. I wanted to make sure whether your method to obtain entangled photons (different from parametric down conversion) does or does not make sense. And it doesn't. Those are multi-photon pulses. You need one photon to split coherently into two photons of lower energy. And you need the crystal to conserve angular momentum. You would have total angular momentum zero, as entanglement requires the spin state,

\[\left|\downarrow\uparrow\right\rangle -\left|\uparrow\downarrow\right\rangle\]

Reproducing spin 2 would require,

\[\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right\rangle\]

or,

\[\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right\rangle\]

which is not entangled.

--> no graviton

A couple of photons would have a mass (centre of energy) --> no graviton

A couple of photons would have EM coupling 10⁴⁵ stronger than required --> no graviton

A couple of photons would not comply with the equivalence principle (couples to charge, not to energy) --> no graviton

You've also said that the graviton is in the Standard Model, which simply isn't true.

Etc., etc.

Edited December 3, 2020 by joigus
Removed links

[swansont]

3 hours ago, POVphysics said:

The topic is about WHAT IS SPACETIME MADE OF. 

!

Moderator Note

No, it was split from that topic because you hijacked it with discussion of fundamental constants and wave functions.

 

 

3 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I have answered the problem by proposing a model for a quanta of spacetime.  I am calling it an expanding graviton. 

!

Moderator Note

And you have been told the rules allow you to discuss that in one particular thread, and not bring it up elsewhere. This thread cannot be about your expanding graviton.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, POVphysics said:

 

When you say, don't introduce new physics, I assume you mean that any more discussion about a quantum entanglement field should be in another thread.  I understand. 

!

Moderator Note

It already is in another thread. It should only be discussed there. As with the expanding graviton. It has a thread already.

A discussion of wave functions and fundamental constants can and must proceed without mentioning either. Both already exist in mainstream physics, independent of your pet theory.

 

 

3 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Expanding gravitons are the proposed model to describe what spacetime is made of and are the objects that wave-functions are describing. 

!

Moderator Note

Wave functions exist in physics literature already, describing other things, so this is incorrect and also moot, as we will NOT be discussing expanding gravitons here.

 

[POVphysics]

I'm done.  You're deliberately trying to prevent innovation.  We could literally develop the interstellar drive if it wasn't for all the effort being put into stalling. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I'm done.  You're deliberately trying to prevent innovation.  We could literally develop the interstellar drive if it wasn't for all the effort being put into stalling. 

!

Moderator Note

Blaming your failures on others isn't productive. We have rules to help us focus on what can be supported, so our members limited time isn't wasted on Wild West guesswork. Thanks for your understanding.