Lorentz transformation, special relativity and quantum fluctuations

[MJ kihara]

This thread intend to get input about the connection between the three issues outlined in the topic...mainstream argument is highly welcomed and wild suggestions is appreciated.

My take is this,you have two events in space-time  with common origin such that  t=t'=0 they are freefalling in the same space axis then you lorentz trasforms one event(t') towards to past the null line of the other(t)...the worldline of event(t') will be becoming closer to the null line from the upper part(increasing angle from time axis) while the space axis of event (t') will becoming closer to the null line from lower part(increasing angle from space axis),as the world line approaches the null line trying to go past it,it causes instabilities in the space-time,this instabilities show up as quantum fluctuations in a vacuum...what's your take?

Typo on the topic ...it's quantum fluctuation...pliz correction.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

This thread intend to get input about the connection between the three issues outlined in the topic...mainstream argument is highly welcomed and wild suggestions is appreciated.

My take is this,you have two events in space-time  with common origin such that  t=t'=0 they are freefalling in the same space axis then you lorentz trasforms one event(t') towards to past the null line of the other(t)...the worldline of event(t') will be becoming closer to the null line from the upper part(increasing angle from time axis) while the space axis of event (t') will becoming closer to the null line from lower part(increasing angle from space axis),as the world line approaches the null line trying to go past it,it causes instabilities in the space-time,this instabilities show up as quantum fluctuations in a vacuum...what's your take?

Typo on the topic ...it's quantum fluctuation...pliz correction.

Makes no sense. Vacuum fluctuations arise due to the uncertainty principle. Nothing to do with relativity.

[joigus]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

My take is this,you have two events in space-time  with common origin such that  t=t'=0 they are freefalling in the same space axis then you lorentz trasforms one event(t') towards to past the null line of the other(t)...the worldline of event(t') will be becoming closer to the null line from the upper part(increasing angle from time axis) while the space axis of event (t') will becoming closer to the null line from lower part(increasing angle from space axis),as the world line approaches the null line trying to go past it,it causes instabilities in the space-time,this instabilities show up as quantum fluctuations in a vacuum...what's your take?

How can an event be free-falling?

You do not Lorentz transform an event, but its coordinates. And you do not Lorentz transform them "towards" anything. You use the language in a way that makes it very difficult to understand what you mean.

It is totally wrong though, to assume that Lorentz transformations give rise to vacuum fluctuations, as Lorentz transformations simply represent changes in the point of view.

There are subtle questions related to whether the physical vacuum --which has to do with quantum fluctuations-- is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but that's a completely different matter, and doesn't sound it's what you have in mind.

[MJ kihara]

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Makes no sense. Vacuum fluctuations arise due to the uncertainty principle. Nothing to do with relativity.

If you make a null line in space-time diagram,it's at 45 degrees,the lower half,its dormain is space while the upper half its dormain is time...when time tries to pass the null line to enter space dormain it's dilated while when space tries to pass the null line to enter time dormain it's dilated(length dilation)..therefore null line represent an equilibrium of time dormain and space dormain..making time and space to be conjugate variables.under a static and uniform gravitational field the equilibrium is perfectly maintained.

Under normal gravitational field(in the universe) the field is not static  which induces instabilities of the equilibrium...this shifts causes uncertainty in the null line dormain... whereby it's either space dominating it or time.

Under such situations doesn't special relativity...through uncertainty of time and space at null line.. lead to vacuum fluctuations?

This make null line to be the hypothetical true vacuum where neither space nor time is found.

 

[MJ kihara]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:53 AM, joigus said:

There are subtle questions related to whether the physical vacuum --which has to do with quantum fluctuations-- is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but that's a completely different matter, and doesn't sound it's what you have in mind.

It's closer to what am thinking about.what are some of the questions related to physical vacuum being invariant under lorentz transformation?

[joigus]

12 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

It's closer to what am thinking about.what are some of the questions related to physical vacuum being invariant under lorentz transformation?

It's a subtle matter. There's a lot of discussion on the web. When we introduce the so-called bare vacuum in QFT --which is the vacuum state before it's 'dressed' with virtual particles--, we declare it to be invariant under Lorentz transformations. This is more of a formal requisite than an observable, clearly-established operational verification. It plays a big role, if I remember correctly, in axiomatic quantum field theory --Wightman et al.

Funny things happen to the 'dressed' vacuum or 'physical' vacuum when you change the frame of reference. On an accelerating frame, eg, a temperature appears. Is that supposed to mean something measurable? I simply don't know. Somewhere else on these forums @Markus Hanke --one of the local experts-- has expressed concerns about what all of this means, with which I very much concur. My personal opinion is that we should have an appretiation of aspects like these, not necessarily in the sense that they mean something about the world, but in the sense that they mean something about limitations, clues, etc, concerning the status of the theory concerning the world.

How do you measure anything about the vacuum in a laboratory?

[MJ kihara]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

we declare it to be invariant under Lorentz transformations. This is more of a formal requisite than an observable, clearly-established operational verification. It plays a big role, if I remember correctly, in axiomatic quantum field theory --Wightman et al.

Funny things happen to the 'dressed' vacuum or 'physical' vacuum when you change the frame of reference. On an accelerating frame, eg, a temperature appears. @Markus Hanke

..More of formal requisite than an observable....the foundation of science rest on observable regardless of arguments...observation is the arbiter.

...a temperature appear... when does that temperature become measurable...is there a threshold for measurement....( ..mmm..Don't fight me for this, some sort of primordial quanta...) We know that alot of temperature can lead to particles creation due to E=MC^2

 

 

[MJ kihara]

    

9 hours ago, joigus said:

I simply don't know. Somewhere else on these forums @Markus Hanke --one of the local experts-- has expressed concerns about what all of this means, with which I very much concur.

How do you measure anything about the vacuum in a laboratory?

I think if we have an experiment arranged in manner that we make a vacuum chamber with very thin walls,as thin as possible,that is as perfect as possible to the best of how technological know how...sorrounded by particle detector then have it in a Rocket(spaceship) we take the ship to space and have it undergo the following scenarios;
1) To move away from  any source of strong gravitational field then move at a constant acceleration in a straight trajectory afterward flip at 90 degrees...making a sudden L shaped trajectory,at such a point particle detector to make measurements.

2)The spaceship carrying the instruments to  dive in and out of a region of strong gravitational field as particle detector makes a measurement.

3)The spaceship to move in a region of constant gravitational fields then have a sequence of sudden accelerations and deceleration while the particle detector is making measurement.

I think if it's a perfectly produced vacuum we should expect to detect particles such as low energy photons being created/produced from the boundary of the vacuum.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

    

I think if we have an experiment arranged in manner that we make a vacuum chamber with very thin walls,as thin as possible,that is as perfect as possible to the best of how technological know how...sorrounded by particle detector

Why not have the detectors in the vacuum?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

then have it in a Rocket(spaceship) we take the ship to space and have it undergo the following scenarios;
1) To move away from  any source of strong gravitational field then move at a constant acceleration in a straight trajectory afterward flip at 90 degrees...making a sudden L shaped trajectory,at such a point particle detector to make measurements.

2)The spaceship carrying the instruments to  dive in and out of a region of strong gravitational field as particle detector makes a measurement.

3)The spaceship to move in a region of constant gravitational fields then have a sequence of sudden accelerations and deceleration while the particle detector is making measurement.

I think if it's a perfectly produced vacuum we should expect to detect particles such as low energy photons being created/produced from the boundary of the vacuum.

This sounds vaguely similar to the dynamical casimir effect experiments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Dynamical_Casimir_effect

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why not have the detectors in the vacuum?

The intention is to get detectable results of quantum fluctuations from the vacuum itself without external influences caused by the detector...since gravity permeate everything we can then claim any result is solely because of gravity.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

This sounds vaguely similar to the dynamical casimir effect experiments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Dynamical_Casimir_effect

It's funny...but not really funny?...how at fundamental level there is alot of similarities...maybe it's looking for similar objectives using different methods.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

The intention is to get detectable results of quantum fluctuations from the vacuum itself without external influences caused by the detector

What if your signal can’t penetrate the vacuum chamber?

Proposals such as this generally have to mathematically describe what signal they expect, and why

 

[MJ kihara]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

What if your signal can’t penetrate the vacuum chamber?

 

The vacuum wall has to be very thin maybe made up of  something like graphene sheets...if the experiment is repeatedly done and there is accumulation of particles that can't escape the vacuum chamber to the detector,then it has to be destroyed to tear it so that they can escape to the detector.

[joigus]

On 4/21/2023 at 7:42 AM, MJ kihara said:

..More of formal requisite than an observable....the foundation of science rest on observable regardless of arguments...observation is the arbiter.

True. But every theory does need to introduce non-observable elements. Examples are the wave function, the gauge, and perhaps the vacuum too.

It seems like we're forced to use these 'precursor' concepts that take part in the logical scaffolding of the observable level, but are not exactly on the observable level.

[Genady]

I have difficulty to find any example of observable concept / element of a theory. All examples that come to mind seem to be rather non-observable. Help.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

I have difficulty to find any example of observable concept / element of a theory. All examples that come to mind seem to be rather non-observable. Help.

Whatever you can measure - momentum, position, energy, time…

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Whatever you can measure - momentum, position, energy, time…

Thanks. I understand now what the conversation is about.