The birefringent vacuum

[Zephir]

..new topic = new thread ..

I don't think, such approach violates the forum topic - on the contrary. In the high energy conditions (i.e. the presence of strong gravitational or even electromagnetic fields) the vacuum is becoming birefringent. Which basically means, single space-time event can establish two or more consequences depending on the polarization of light, which is mediating such event at distance. This can be interpreted as manifestation of quantum fluctuations in time arrow on cosmological scale back and forth or even the existence of multiple time dimensions . In the presence of extremely strong gravitational field, such plurality can even lead into formation of multiple event horizons of black holes, which is common for so called Kerr solution of rotating black holes.

 

My explanation is just related to mechanism of such phenomena, which follows from the way, by which the energy is spreading through quantum foam forming the vacuum. If such foam gets more dense, the path of energy spreading becomes more and more fragmented. Note that the axion hypothesis of vacuum birefringence was excluded. Therefore we can interpret the presence of multiple event horizons of black holes as a manifestation of new generation of quantum foam, which gets more dense toward the black hole interior, where it's forming a new generation of vacuum (you can consider the foam model of black hole interior of Kip Thorne).

 

 

In general, I'm not using any speculations, which never appeared in mainstream physics before many years - but the problem is, you simply don't know all the theories, which directed me to such conclusions. My intention is to reconcile these theories, not to introduce a new ones. The problem is, if you know the physics just from introductory math courses of relativity and quantum mechanics in textbooks, you don't know about experimental or conceptual background of these models. Therefore your stance is similar to stance of Holy Church toward Galileo, because the Holy Church didn't know, what the Galileo knew - so that every idea of his was considered as a pure speculation by Holy Church.

 

Therefore, if you would be more experienced with contemporary mainstream theories and ideas, you would consider my explanations a much more smoothly, because you would be able to realize some peer reviewed reference of each such "speculation". This is the analogy of surface tension of different concepts in causal space-time. Two mercury droplets will bounce on the air during collision, but under water they've a much lower surface tension, so they can connect more smoothly. Therefore many seemingly incompatible concepts will be reconciled by society just after the society will become more knowledgeable, too.

 

The question is, whether somebody, who knows all motivations of his explanations should be considered as a troll instead of people, who don't know about them, so they're calling such explanations "the ridiculous speculations"? Where is the exact boundary between scientifically supported skepticism and the pathological one, following from ignorance? If nothing else, before you'll start to troll here about my trolling again, try to ask me, from where/whom such idea follows. You may be surprised at times.

[swansont]

It takes either a special kind of hubris or stupidity to be told by a moderator that off-topic and speculative material be put in the proper place, and then to go ahead and post in the same thread, telling the mod he's wrong. Since you're obviously not stupid, it's gotta be the hubris.

 

Moved to speculations, until such time you can dig up a peer-reviewed paper that outlines all of what you've been discussing. Or we see some math and data that allow for prediction and falsifiability.

[Zephir]

.....until such time you can dig up a peer-reviewed paper that outlines all of what you've been discussing....

This is just an alibi of yours. All concepts, I mentioned above (the birefringence of vacuum, the quantum foam and BH structure, birefringence of vacuum, Kerr solution of BH, etc.) were supported by links and they're well established in mainstream science.

 

If we'll discuss the black holes, for example, will we required to link all articles, from which the concept of black holes was composed originally?

[swansont]

This is just an alibi of yours. All concepts, I mentioned above (the birefringence of vacuum, the quantum foam and BH structure, birefringence of vacuum, Kerr solution of BH, etc.) were supported by links and they're well established in mainstream science.

 

If we'll discuss the black holes, for example, will we required to link all articles, from which the concept of black holes was composed originally?

 

Not at all. If you want to e.g. discuss some structure of a black hole and claim that it is all due to the strangeness of the particles inside, that would be speculative even though black holes and strangeness are well-established.

 

If positing birefringence and multidimensional time is not new, then there should be some literature already peer-reviewed that we can discuss — and you need to cite that literature. If it is new, though, then the complete absence of supporting calculations or ways the effects could be measured makes this speculation.

[ajb]

The ideas of space-time being birefringent is definitely not a new idea. It has been discussed in the context of QED on curved space-times by Shore and Hollowood recently, but the idea is older than that. There may well be other theories (LQG?) that also exhibit this phenomena. (I know Shore and Hollowood, they are to be trusted.)

 

Multidimensional time has also been discussed in the literature. I am much less familiar with this I believe string theory "suggests" 2T physics (?)

 

So Zephir, if you want to discuss any thing specific in a context of a theory we know (or a slight generalisation) then as swansont has said point us in the right direction with a reference or two.

 

Also it is usually bad practice to compare yourself with a famous physicist/mathematician unless you really do have something in common with them. A sure fire way to spot a crack-pot is via him saying "like Einstein I... " or similar.

[Klaynos]

Multidimensional time has also been discussed in the literature. I am much less familiar with this I believe string theory "suggests" 2T physics (?)

 

There was a newscientist article about this a few months ago, but it wasn't really in depth, at all.

[swansont]

It's more "time is two-dimensional because the vacuum is birefringent, which is my take on what Zephir was claiming. But it's all part of the same overall — if it's out there in the literature, provide a link and let's discuss it. If it's you own home-brewed concoction, it's probably going to go in speculations, but that isn't (by itself) an impediment to discussing it.

[Nanook]

It takes either a special kind of hubris or stupidity to be told by a moderator that off-topic and speculative material be put in the proper place, and then to go ahead and post in the same thread, telling the mod he's wrong. Since you're obviously not stupid, it's gotta be the hubris.

 

Moved to speculations, until such time you can dig up a peer-reviewed paper that outlines all of what you've been discussing. Or we see some math and data that allow for prediction and falsifiability.

 

I'm new here, so do string theories go here too?

[ajb]

I'm new here, so do string theories go here too?

 

You mean in the "pseudoscience and speculations section" or as a class of theories that predict gravitational birefringence?

 

To the first one, no they solidly belong in the modern physics section.

 

To the second part, I guess they do as QED on a curved space-time is a low energy limit of string theory.

[swansont]

I'm new here, so do string theories go here too?

 

As above, if there are papers in peer-reviewed literature on it, it should go in the physics section.