universe creation (Split from The energy of the Universe)

[Glancer]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:23 PM, MigL said:

usually, what one does is set gravitational potential energy as negative, and since it somewhat matches the magnitude of the intrinsic energy of the universe, we can say the universe is net zero energy.
This is the 'universe from nothing' pitched by L Krauss.

See here      Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

Whether a property can be positive or negative, or simply an 'accounting' trick, or whether it even makes sense to consider energy on a global scale, is for people with better minds than mine to consider.

It sounds like something that wouldn't happen naturally or by accident.  Sounds like something that would take some preparation to set up. 

Yet regardless of how you feel about deities creating universes, it would seem that the more important thing to figure out is:  what is spacetime made of? ...and can I test a small piece of it in the lab?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

It sounds like something that wouldn't happen naturally or by accident.

It?

 

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

Sounds like something that would take some preparation to set up.

Something? "Set up?"

[Glancer]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Something? "Set up?"

Whatever the energy of the universe is, and whatever negative gravitational potential adds to zero, it doesn't look something that could have happened by accident or without planning.

[SergUpstart]

15 minutes ago, Glancer said:

it doesn't look something that could have happened by accident or without planning.

A particle-antiparticle pair is born out of nothing absolutely by chance.

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, Glancer said:

Whatever the energy of the universe is, and whatever negative gravitational potential adds to zero, it doesn't look something that could have happened by accident or without planning.

O. K. Just wanted to make sure you were talking about G.O.D.

another one... sigh

[Glancer]

11 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

A particle-antiparticle pair is born out of nothing absolutely by chance.

How are the physics constants selected?

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

O. K. Just wanted to make sure you were talking about G.O.D.

What does G.O.D. stand for?

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, Glancer said:

What does G.O.D. stand for?

Nothing.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

It sounds like something that wouldn't happen naturally or by accident.  Sounds like something that would take some preparation to set up. 

Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy. Zero seems to me like something that requires no preparation at all.

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

Yet regardless of how you feel about deities creating universes, it would seem that the more important thing to figure out is:  what is spacetime made of? ...and can I test a small piece of it in the lab?

Spacetime is a geometry, not a substance. It’s not “made of” anything, any more than a shape (triangle, cylinder) is made of anything.

[Glancer]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Spacetime is a geometry, not a substance. It’s not “made of” anything, any more than a shape (triangle, cylinder) is made of anything.

It looks to me like spacetime is the union of physics constants and geometry.  While such a union might not be a familiar physical thing, it certainty has existence enough to be a place where Standard Model particles may exist.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Glancer said:

How are the physics constants selected?

They aren't.

5 hours ago, Glancer said:

It sounds like something that wouldn't happen naturally or by accident. 

Can you please go into some detail of the physics involved that indicate to you this would not happen naturally?

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Glancer said:

It looks to me like spacetime is the union of physics constants and geometry. 

It’s a geometry and the speed of light is involved.

3 hours ago, Glancer said:

While such a union might not be a familiar physical thing, it certainty has existence enough to be a place where Standard Model particles may exist.

Yeah, this makes little sense.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Glancer said:

It looks to me like spacetime is the union of physics constants and geometry.  While such a union might not be a familiar physical thing, it certainty has existence enough to be a place where Standard Model particles may exist.

You asked a working physicist what spacetime is "made of", they give you a mainstream definition, and you reply with "what it looks like to me", in direct opposition? No offense, but I have to ask if you came here to learn like the rest of us, or if you're here to push some form of woo that seems intuitive only to you?

[Glancer]

Just so that you know where I am getting my ideas about physics…

1.        Physics for scientists & engineers with Modern Physics, Serway, second addition.

2.       Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics, Anderson, 1971.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s a geometry and the speed of light is involved.

 

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Yeah, this makes little sense.

My hypothesis is that spacetime is made of units that look like Modern physics. 

unit

yoo͞′nĭt

noun

1. An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.

I got the idea from matter which is made of units of matter called atoms.  I figured that spacetime is made either of a single thing or it’s made of units too.  I used to think that spacetime was one object.  But two things changed my mind. 

First, Loop Quantum Gravity argues that spacetime is made of a large number of loops, like a box of Cheerios.  But then I remembered that the big bang began as a point and expanding rapidly, faster than the speed of light.  I tried to figure out how a box of Cheerios could expand like the big bang, but couldn’t see it.  So, I figured that Loop Quantum Gravity is wrong because it doesn’t take “expansion” into account.

Second, I thought about the two slit interference patterns.  The wave function in the two slit interference looks like a water ripple.  Since I have spent time outside near ponds, I do know that water ripples expand at the velocity of a wave in water.   So, if spacetime has to be made of something, something that looks like physics, and something that expands, well why not a wave function ripple?

If it’s not obvious, the expanding ripple has to be upgraded to a 4D spacetime sphere.  Since spacetime is 4D, then what it’s made of should be 4D as well.   The idea is that these 4D spheres are generated continually. 

How do I know that they exist?  Well, the physics constants exist, but the physics community doesn’t know or care where they come from.  They are assumed to be universal in some metaphysical (don’t talk about it) way.  Solving two problems with one definition, I defined these 4D expanding wave function spheres to be the carriers of the physics constants, including the speed of light. 

I am sure you are wondering why such a model doesn’t lead to a pile of spheres like gumballs in a gumball machine?  The answer is that I assume these 4D expanding wave function spheres are bosons. 

boson

bō′sŏn

noun

1. Any of a class of particles, including photons, mesons, or alpha particles, that have integral spins and do not obey the exclusion principle, so that any number of identical particles may occupy the same quantum state.

As bosons, these expanding 4D spheres can expand at the speed of light.  They can occupy the same space because they do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. 

Since “4D expanding wave function boson sphere” is a long name, and they are really just building blocks of spacetime, I decided to call the Expanding Gravitons.  Feel free to propose a better name if you think of one. 

Expanding gravitons expand at the speed of light.  That means that their radius is r = speed of light * time; r = ct.  The center of the sphere is the center of an inertial reference frame.  It’s the same center as described in the derivation of time dilation which assumes a thought experiment of a train car with a source of light on the floor being emitted and reflected of the ceiling.  The same experiment can assume the existence of two Expanding Gravitons traveling with relative velocity between their center of masses.  Serway pg. 906 figure 39.6.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

Just so that you know where I am getting my ideas about physics…

 

1.        Physics for scientists & engineers with Modern Physics, Serway, second addition.

 

2.       Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics, Anderson, 1971.

 

 

My hypothesis is that spacetime is made of units that look like Modern physics. 

 

unit

yoo͞′nĭt

 

noun

 

1. An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.

    

I got the idea from matter which is made of units of matter called atoms.  I figured that spacetime is made either of a single thing or it’s made of units too.  I used to think that spacetime was one object.  But two things changed my mind. 

 

First, Loop Quantum Gravity argues that spacetime is made of a large number of loops, like a box of Cheerios.  But then I remembered that the big bang began as a point and expanding rapidly, faster than the speed of light.  I tried to figure out how a box of Cheerios could expand like the big bang, but couldn’t see it.  So, I figured that Loop Quantum Gravity is wrong because it doesn’t take “expansion” into account.

What chapter of Serway talks about loop quantum gravity?

The big bang, based on general relativity, doesn't cover the beginning as a point, since it breaks down when you approach a singularity. It goes back to ~10^-43 seconds, but before that you need a quantum theory. So no t=0, no point.

 

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

Second, I thought about the two slit interference patterns.  The wave function in the two slit interference looks like a water ripple.  Since I have spent time outside near ponds, I do know that water ripples expand at the velocity of a wave in water.   So, if spacetime has to be made of something, something that looks like physics, and something that expands, well why not a wave function ripple?

A wave function isn't made of anything. Light does not require a medium. You're focusing on the analogy as if it were the actual science, which is a common mistake.

 

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

How do I know that they exist?  Well, the physics constants exist, but the physics community doesn’t know or care where they come from.  They are assumed to be universal in some metaphysical (don’t talk about it) way.  Solving two problems with one definition, I defined these 4D expanding wave function spheres to be the carriers of the physics constants, including the speed of light. 

Some physicists care, and work on foundations of physics. Others test to see if they are actually constant. But physics is a pretty big tent, so many of us go on about our jobs without having to worry about these questions, as there is no real impact on the work we do.

 

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

I am sure you are wondering why such a model doesn’t lead to a pile of spheres like gumballs in a gumball machine?  The answer is that I assume these 4D expanding wave function spheres are bosons. 

Models require more than this. Wave functions are not bosons, and the dictionary is not a technical resource.

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

 

 

Since “4D expanding wave function boson sphere” is a long name, and they are really just building blocks of spacetime, I decided to call the Expanding Gravitons.  Feel free to propose a better name if you think of one. 

"Graviton" is already taken.

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

Expanding gravitons expand at the speed of light.  That means that their radius is r = speed of light * time; r = ct.  The center of the sphere is the center of an inertial reference frame.  It’s the same center as described in the derivation of time dilation which assumes a thought experiment of a train car with a source of light on the floor being emitted and reflected of the ceiling.  The same experiment can assume the existence of two Expanding Gravitons traveling with relative velocity between their center of masses.  Serway pg. 906 figure 39.6.

 

The universe is expanding faster than c, which would be impossible if spacetime were a substance.

[Glancer]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What chapter of Serway talks about loop quantum gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

"As a theory LQG postulates that the structure of space and time is composed of finite loops woven into an extremely fine fabric or network. These networks of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam, has a scale above the order of a Planck length, approximately 10⁻³⁵ meters, and smaller scales are meaningless. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure. "

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The big bang, based on general relativity, doesn't cover the beginning as a point, since it breaks down when you approach a singularity. It goes back to ~10^-43 seconds, but before that you need a quantum theory. So no t=0, no point.

If the big bang goes back to t = 10^-43 seconds, then Expanding Gravitons can begin with a radius r = ct =3x10^8 m/s*10^-43 sec = 3x10^-35 meters.  In what way is a sphere of radius r = 3x10^-35 meters not a point?

point

noun

a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates

2 hours ago, swansont said:

A wave function isn't made of anything. Light does not require a medium. You're focusing on the analogy as if it were the actual science, which is a common mistake.

In the Expanding Graviton Model, a wave function exists by being the carrier of the physics constants; "carrier" is intended to mean that the wave function expresses energy, position, momentum and other physics properties as if calibrated to the physics constants to include the speed of light c and the Planck constant h.

Light would not exist if it were not for the existence of physics constants.

In some way not necessarily understood by some, the physics constants are the medium.  The Expanding Graviton is the union between geometry (an expanding sphere boson) and physics constants.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Some physicists care, and work on foundations of physics. Others test to see if they are actually constant. But physics is a pretty big tent, so many of us go on about our jobs without having to worry about these questions, as there is no real impact on the work we do.

If the Expanding Graviton Model is the carrier of physics constants, then it is also the fundamental building block of our spacetime universe.  Since an Expanding Graviton is a wave function, and quantum entangled photons can be described with a wave function, then one is led to the conclusion that entangled photons are a piece of spacetime that could be studied in the lab.  For example, since the curvature of spacetime is related to gravity and gravitational potential energy, then one might ask if an Expanding Graviton in the form of a pair of quantum entangled photons may be able to store gravitational potential energy.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Models require more than this. Wave functions are not bosons, and the dictionary is not a technical resource.

How can you be sure that any of your assumptions about physics are correct?   The assumption that a mathematical description is not describing the mechanism that makes physics exist could be the obstruction that has hindered the physics community for the last 40 years.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"Graviton" is already taken.

Or misunderstood.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The universe is expanding faster than c, which would be impossible if spacetime were a substance.

The expansion of individual Expanding Gravitons is the speed of light.  The centers of mass between many Expanding Gravitons is, at the very least, subject to Hubble's Law.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

Hubble's Law is proof that two points, if separated far enough, can move away from each other faster than the speed of light. 

The Inflationary epoch is an extreme example of points (the center of Expanding Gravitons) moving away from each other.  It is probable that two Expanding Gravitons in close proximity (distances shorter than a light second) can be separated faster than the speed of light if enough energy is applied in the right way. 

A substance is anything that has mass.  Expanding Gravitons are the union between geometry and physics constants, neither of which are required to have mass.

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You asked a working physicist what spacetime is "made of", they give you a mainstream definition, and you reply with "what it looks like to me", in direct opposition? No offense, but I have to ask if you came here to learn like the rest of us, or if you're here to push some form of woo that seems intuitive only to you?

 

If the geometry of a sphere, physics constants and the basics of Modern Physics are not intuitive to you, then something is seriously wrong.  You shouldn't be referring to established physics and mathematics as woo.

 

 

See synonyms for: point / pointed / pointing / points on Thesaurus.com

 

 

---

noun

Edited August 4, 2022 by Glancer

[MigL]

So, a bunch of definitions strung together with an overactive imagination, and no model to speak of.
Woo and WAG come to mind.

To quote the Simpsons
"You can't make friends with ( word ) salad"

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Glancer said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

"As a theory LQG postulates that the structure of space and time is composed of finite loops woven into an extremely fine fabric or network. These networks of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam, has a scale above the order of a Planck length, approximately 10⁻³⁵ meters, and smaller scales are meaningless. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure. "

If the big bang goes back to t = 10^-43 seconds, then Expanding Gravitons can begin with a radius r = ct =3x10^8 m/s*10^-43 sec = 3x10^-35 meters.  In what way is a sphere of radius r = 3x10^-35 meters not a point?

That would be in the way that 10^-35, while small, is still not zero

 

Quote

In the Expanding Graviton Model, a wave function exists by being the carrier of the physics constants; "carrier" is intended to mean that the wave function expresses energy, position, momentum and other physics properties as if calibrated to the physics constants to include the speed of light c and the Planck constant h.

It's not graviton; that name is reserved for the spin-2 boson that mediates gravity, or will, once a quantum theory of gravity is developed.

 

Quote

 

In some way not necessarily understood by some, the physics constants are the medium.  The Expanding Graviton is the union between geometry (an expanding sphere boson) and physics constants.

 

You'll get a lot of traction telling the physics community that they don't understand physics, but not to worry, because you're coming to the rescue.

 

Quote

How can you be sure that any of your assumptions about physics are correct?   The assumption that a mathematical description is not describing the mechanism that makes physics exist could be the obstruction that has hindered the physics community for the last 40 years.

Because physics works, and it's based on the mathematical descriptions. It would be quite the phenomenon to do high-precision experiments and have them be successful all while being a happy accident because the physics was wrong. This would include diagnosing the experiments when they weren't working, and being able to correct problems, all based on having the physics be correct.

 

Quote

You shouldn't be referring to established physics and mathematics as woo.

I'm pretty sure the reference was to your musings, rather than established physics. There is only some superficial overlap between the two.

 

 

 

 

[Glancer]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That would be in the way that 10^-35, while small, is still not zero

There is no experiment that would be able to tell the difference between a sphere of radius 10^-35 meters across, and a geometric point.  It is not even clear that geometry has any meaning at this scale.  There is every justification to treat an expanding graviton at time t=0 as a point of radius 10^-35 meters.  Over a very short period of time, it will be a sphere, until it overlaps with a charge of potential energy U(x,y,z,t), at which time it will become the solution to the Schrodinger equation.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's not graviton; that name is reserved for the spin-2 boson that mediates gravity, or will, once a quantum theory of gravity is developed.

Spin-2 refers to the second order stress energy tensor that is part of the Einstein equations.  I admit that it would take many PhD candidates to eventually show that the Expanding Graviton is the carrier of all forms of energy.  So in the mean time, if we have to call it the Expanding Spherical boson wave function and carrier of all of the physics constants, then ...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Because physics works, and it's based on the mathematical descriptions. It would be quite the phenomenon to do high-precision experiments and have them be successful all while being a happy accident because the physics was wrong. This would include diagnosing the experiments when they weren't working, and being able to correct problems, all based on having the physics be correct.

Nobody is saying that mathematics doesn't help with experimental results.  Nobody is saying that the physics is wrong.  What is being argued is that more information comes from a better, physics based interpretation. 

The real goal is to get to warp fields. 

If Expanding Gravitons exist, also known as wave functions that expand spherically at the speed of light (to accommodate the invariance of the speed of light), are bosons, are the carriers of the physics constants and have a surface area that is defined to be a virtual photon...

The traditional definition of a virtual photon is that it can only come into existence if it obeys the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, Delta E Delta t < h-bar/2.  But the Expanding Graviton Model redefines virtual photons to be the surface area of an Expanding Graviton.  The surface area is the medium for electromagnetic energy to exist on.  If there is energy E = hf, it will exist somewhere on the surface of the expanding graviton.

In the case of two entangled photons, there is energy E = hf on opposite sides of the Expanding Graviton. 

If we had the technology to frequency shift a difference in frequency between the entangled photons, it would be equivalent to Planck constant h*Delta f + Delta U = 0.  Delta U is gravitational potential energy. 

A beam or field of entangled photons with a gravitational potential energy between each entanglement of Delta U is equivalent to a warp field.

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Glancer said:

There is no experiment that would be able to tell the difference between a sphere of radius 10^-35 meters across, and a geometric point.  It is not even clear that geometry has any meaning at this scale.  There is every justification to treat an expanding graviton at time t=0 as a point of radius 10^-35 meters.  Over a very short period of time, it will be a sphere, until it overlaps with a charge of potential energy U(x,y,z,t), at which time it will become the solution to the Schrodinger equation.

It's not a question of experiment discerning this distance, it's the theory. An equation with 10^-35 in the denominator (even raised to some power) can have a finite solution. One with a 0 in the denominator cannot.

"a point of radius 10^-35 meters" is an inconsistent statement. A point has no size to it. Its radius is zero.

 

35 minutes ago, Glancer said:

 

Spin-2 refers to the second order stress energy tensor that is part of the Einstein equations.  I admit that it would take many PhD candidates to eventually show that the Expanding Graviton is the carrier of all forms of energy.  So in the mean time, if we have to call it the Expanding Spherical boson wave function and carrier of all of the physics constants, then ...

Nobody is saying that mathematics doesn't help with experimental results.  Nobody is saying that the physics is wrong.  What is being argued is that more information comes from a better, physics based interpretation. 

In some way not necessarily understood by some, the physics constants are the medium
...
How can you be sure that any of your assumptions about physics are correct?
... 
Or misunderstood.

These all sound like you're saying the physics is wrong

 

As for the rest: no math = no model

You can't make specific predictions without math. Thus you can't test the idea, and potentially falsify it.