Theory of Quantum Gravity & Photon Production

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Eureka ! I have it ! .................."Quantum Gravity and the implication for photons" .........................................

Mike Smith Cosmos, on 28 Nov 2014 - 06:39 AM, said

 

The photon is a bubble of sufficiently small radius , that the curvature of space time at that radius has completely curved in on itself to make a gravitational bubble. Looking like a three dimensional vortex in space time . Such that it looks like a particle , but is not physical ( nothing inside the bubble ) , but is real . Because space-time is real ( invariant )

These bubbles then stream out at the speed of light , like kiddies bubbles when they blow through a loop.

Real , but not physical , because they are empty bubbles made in the fabric of space time . The ultimate micro-miniature curvature of space time . Linking quantum with gravity ( quantum-gravity ). Fixed ! . Linking the very large with the very small (comparatively) .

How's that for a mornings work ! I knew I should not have woken so early this morning. Solution to quantum Gravity.

Just theory of General Relativity working at Quantum levels of radius .Space time curved into Micro Miniature Bubbles ... - Photons -

 

Link to Bubbles produced in numbers :- http://www.doctorzig...m/cp2u/image2ql

.....very small...quantum bubbles .............-------..... very large galaxy superclusters

. Now comes the application and test .

 

It is so easy to do . 1. ...... We turn on a light . 2 ..... We fire up a coil ,capacitor , antenna combination

We produce quantum bubbles of space time , and out they shoot , like streams of kiddies bubbles at the speed of light. It is so easy .

Tying this in with general relativity at the quantum radius , might prove a little more tricky . However we can have a bit of fun blowing quantum bubbles ( oops ! Photons ) , in the mean time .

There , did it , trillions upon trillions of quantum bubbles - photons



Mike

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, Today, 09:20 AM.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[billiards]

 

The light bulb might have come on in your head, in my cranium though the quantum bubbles are failing to form.

 

I guess what it makes up for in sheer niceness of idea, it lacks in scientific rigour.

Edited November 28, 2014 by billiards

[swansont]

The photon is a bubble of sufficiently small radius , that the curvature of space time at that radius has completely curved in on itself to make a gravitational bubble.

 

Now show mathematically that this is possible.

 

The energy of a photon — which would dictate the ability to curve in on itself, is inversely related to its wavelength. A 1eV photon has a wavelength of around 1.24 micron. Now, what is the Schwarzschild radius for "curving in on itself" for 1 eV?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Now show mathematically that this is possible.

 

The energy of a photon — which would dictate the ability to curve in on itself, is inversely related to its wavelength. A 1eV photon has a wavelength of around 1.24 micron. Now, what is the Schwarzschild radius for "curving in on itself" for 1 eV?

 

This is the Radius of the event horizon of a Black hole . Are you sure this is the formula i need. A black hole has immense mass at its centre. I am working with something that has Zero mass at its center.

If Rs = 2GM/Csquared if M=0 Then Rs=0

 

Surely a black hole and an event horizon are keeping light in , I want light going out . Maybe I need to convert the energy of the photon into an Equivalent mass. ? Then Rs would be very small .

 

Mike

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

This is the Radius of the event horizon of a Black hole . Are you sure this is the formula i need. A black hole has immense mass at its centre. I am working with something that has Zero mass at its center.

If Rs = 2GM/Csquared if M=0 Then Rs=0

 

Surely a black hole and an event horizon are keeping light in , I want light going out . Maybe I need to convert the energy of the photon into an Equivalent mass. ? Then Rs would be very small .

 

Mike

 

 

Well then, what did you mean by "the curvature of space time at that radius has completely curved in on itself"? Because that sounds like a black hole to me. And that a black hole has immense mass at its center is precisely my point.

 

You can't have light going out of something you are describing as light itself.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well then, what did you mean by "the curvature of space time at that radius has completely curved in on itself"? Because that sounds like a black hole to me. And that a black hole has immense mass at its center is precisely my point.

 

You can't have light going out of something you are describing as light itself.

I am talking about general relativity with the distortion of space time, working at opposite ends of the size, mass and energy scale.

 

Illustrated below is a non accurate scale sketch of the principle of this proposed theory. On the right a sun sized distortion requiring a lot of mass /energy. On the left a photon requiring only quanta sized energy to produce a bubble ,quanta,photon .

 

I am not sure of the formula relating to distortion to energy ratio. In gravity formulae often there is an inverse radius squared term. This can have a large influence on the ratio of energy requirements. ( sun mass-energy and size , to photon mass-energy and size )

 

 

Mike

 

Ps sun is never likely to reach energy level to produce its bubble and disappear , unless that is what happens at black hole formation . Here however the scale of energy would be massive . Whereas for the photon the energy requirement is easily achieved . By heat black body radiation or electro magnetic radio waves . Both these are within man generated small energy supply.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[elfmotat]

What, precisely, do you mean by a "gravitational bubble?" You haven't explained this.

 

Also, why, if photons are part of the gravitational field, do they interact so strongly compared with gravitons? This doesn't seem possible to reconcile.

[swansont]

I am talking about general relativity with the distortion of space time, working at opposite ends of the size, mass and energy scale.

 

As am I. I'm asking you to apply some rigor and not just wave your hands at this. It's easy to draw a diagram that violates the laws of physics, as can be seen with many visualizations of perpetual motion. Escher did it all the time, too. So a picture is not enough.

[Mordred]

How could your spacetime bubbles show the wave particle duality is the other question. It could certainly be pointlike. How would it show the wave function. Particularly since the photon is defined as having only electromagnetic interactions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What, precisely, do you mean by a "gravitational bubble?" You haven't explained this.

 

Also, why, if photons are part of the gravitational field, do they interact so strongly compared with gravitons? This doesn't seem possible to reconcile.

I think " gravitational bubble " is a misleading expression. I was trying to explain the General relativity derivation of the distortion caused by massive bodies like sun etc at the large scale. This then I was saying was also true at the quantum size level. So I was proposing it would only take a small amount of energy ( this time not gravity) that we give to produce the photon . (say by an electron) or heat . What I am proposing is that this interaction with spacetime produces a " bubble" which closes over and becomes free standing within the structure of space time. This in the same way that a sun distorts at a much larger scale, and does not close over ( unless we reach black hole mode ).

 

So I am saying this brings unity to quantum gravity at either end of the energy , mass, and size scale.

 

I would dare to suggest the comparison of scales is similar to trying to push a needle through a thick straw mat (easy) and pushing a football through a thick straw mat (nigh on impossible ).

 

mike

How could your spacetime bubbles show the wave particle duality is the other question. It could certainly be pointlike. How would it show the wave function. Particularly since the photon is defined as having only electromagnetic interactions.

I would like to sleep on these questions.

 

However it was the wave particle duality , that led me to think there was something not quite ' real ' here. Namely if reality lays well within super symmetry and invariance then something of our view of wave particle differentiation , ie one minute it works as a wave , the next moment it works as a particle , then it points to we have not got to the REAL picture of a photon . That is , it is invariant by being constant, say as a wavicle or whatever. Hence I was proposing a bubble . As that has invariance and symmetry . That could make it reality if it were true.

 

Let me sleep on things , it's been a busy day . The dog has led me a merry dance!

 

Mike

As am I. I'm asking you to apply some rigor and not just wave your hands at this. It's easy to draw a diagram that violates the laws of physics, as can be seen with many visualizations of perpetual motion. Escher did it all the time, too. So a picture is not enough.

My method of progress in these matters , is to observe , observe , observe , the natural order of things. . I look for patterns, I think a lot . I postulate , many times dismiss my postulations , occasionally get the feeling , I have a good one. Then I test it out a bit , then I speak about it. This may be where the waving about of arms comes . Quite a long way down the line.

 

A BBC horizon program last night reviewed all of science from Newton to Einstein , to Hubble to Hubble telescope . To the universe.

What progress in thinking over 400 years . The big driving factor across those four centuries among two other factors was IMAGINATION

 

Mike

Edited November 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[davidivad]

mike you are awesome.

 

im wondering if these photons lose any momenum through traveling a curved path as do the particles in the LHC where they emitt radiation due to the turn of the tunnel.

my guess is no as this is the easiest path due to the field of gravitons (gravity well).

[swansont]

I think " gravitational bubble " is a misleading expression.

It's your expression!

 

My method of progress in these matters , is to observe , observe , observe , the natural order of things. . I look for patterns, I think a lot . I postulate , many times dismiss my postulations , occasionally get the feeling , I have a good one. Then I test it out a bit , then I speak about it. This may be where the waving about of arms comes . Quite a long way down the line.

How have you tested this out? How can anyone else test this out?

 

A BBC horizon program last night reviewed all of science from Newton to Einstein , to Hubble to Hubble telescope . To the universe.

What progress in thinking over 400 years . The big driving factor across those four centuries among two other factors was IMAGINATION

Three things: 1) You already have a thread for this discussion. 2) You are not Newton, Einstein or Hubble, and 3) Most ideas are wrong, which is why you have to test them rigorously to weed out the wrong ones (besides which, making that effort is part of the rules)

[Mordred]

Have a good sleep hopefully you can explain how your bubble model can possibly explain wave particle duality. Just a side note I found a handy animation on it.

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmq_FJd1oUQ

 

Might come in handy on the forum at some point

Granted these types of simulations are numerous

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

mike you are awesome.

 

im wondering if these photons lose any momenum through traveling a curved path as do the particles in the LHC where they emitt radiation due to the turn of the tunnel.

my guess is no as this is the easiest path due to the field of gravitons (gravity well).

Although it is early days in my fathoming the nature of the " Photon " as it enters existence at the electron / other interface, I am of a mind already that we are dealing more with the absence of a particle , rather than the presence of a particle .

 

Namely the bubble formed is in fact more a condition of the immediate space -time , rather than some independent particle.

 

 

Mike

Now show mathematically that this is possible.

 

 

Some of the maths looks a little daunting

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_mathematics_of_general_relativity

.

Link : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equation#Wave_equation_in_one_spatial_dimension

 

I am sure it's bark is worse than its bite

 

 

.

 

Mike

Edited November 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Ideas like this have been (and are being) looked at before.

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae191.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_%28physics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/413483/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/

[Robittybob1]

Although it is early days in my fathoming the nature of the " Photon " as it enters existence at the electron / other interface, I am of a mind already that we are dealing more with the absence of a particle , rather than the presence of a particle .

 

Namely the bubble formed is in fact more a condition of the immediate space -time , rather than some independent particle.

 

image.jpgimage.jpg

 

Mike

Some of the maths looks a little daunting

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_mathematics_of_general_relativity

.

Link : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_differential_equation#Wave_equation_in_one_spatial_dimension

 

I am sure it's bark is worse than its bite

 

 

.image.jpg

 

Mike

He won't bite the hand that feeds him. I like what you are doing here. I haven't understood it yet, but it looks interesting.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Have a good sleep hopefully you can explain how your bubble model can possibly explain wave particle duality. Just a side note I found a handy animation on it.

Might come in handy on the forum at some pointGranted these types of simulations are numerous

Thanks for your link.( about the experiment simulations wave particles ) I am giving this subject of the duality ( wave -particle ) some serious thought. I think if I can make sense of that , it will be a progressive step in the right direction . It is always brought up as one of quantum physics mysteries .

 

If the entity ( photon new view) can be seen as an invariant phenomenon . Even if aspects come to the fore, more ,under certain conditions , and other aspects , under different conditions .

 

That can be invariant , that will be fine . That will make it real. Therefore a major step toward , what really is going on .

 

If by taking the (hole, void, bubble approach) makes for a more plausible explanation for the wave -particle phenomenon. Then this will be a step in the right direction . If it is , then the maths needs to come in , if possible .

 

I like what you are doing here. I haven't understood it yet, but it looks interesting.

Intuitively, I think the radical view of what photons (are or do, ) are taking advantage of what is already there. Flap and slash about in a pool , with or without detergent present and perfectly formed foam, bubbles, appear on the surface or in the air. Although energy is applied to the situation, there is already a pre-disposition to form bubbles.

 

In the greater aspect of space-time and vacuum energy there exists a pre disposition to release energy suitable to form bubbles. There is latent energy in the system which by calculation have wildly different values.

 

From observation of natural systems and from experience of electronic design. there are certain constituents that are required.

 

a) a Latent supply of power or energy. In electronics this is a power source like batteries, or mains converted to DC power. In nature this can be chemical energy or sun power. Thus in our Quantum Gravity project , the vacuum energy of space- time can supply latent energy.

b) a stimulation energy , to start the process of bubble photon formation . The initial energy can come from an electron falling to a lower energy band , or excitation via an electrical radio frequency amplifier and antenna , or thermal activity of sufficient level.

c ) there needs to be a positive feedback system present to make the production of photon bubbles, reliable , quantifiable, and easy to produce. In electronic systems this is provided by using the output to stimulate the input.

d) There needs to be a stabilizing system which kicks in when the required level is reached. Anyone familiar with blowing real bubbles , and making a chain of domino's to fall ,knows there is a critical band of strength of blowing or tapping the first domino in the chain. In electronics, a design can balance positive and negative feedback, and stabilization.

 

I have illustrated this before in falling Domino's.

From 'Energy makes things happen' by definition . There must be sufficient inbuilt latent potential energy in a system for it to go on a 'roll ' by itself after being given the initial input initiative . Like the domino's , otherwise it will require an ongoing input of energy to keep the system 'rolling' .

An observation of bubble blowing through a ring, there is a set level when the bubble prefers to pinch off into a bubble , than collapse back into the ring. In radio frequency there are levels, wavelengths and distances , when the oscillations of electro - magnetism prefer to move outward than return into the antenna by induction. This is the difference between a mains transformer at 50 hz and a radio frequency coil at 1000,s hz , in a condenser antenna combination.

In Nature , there are countless examples of latent Energy , Initial input, Positive feedback, Negative feedback. Pinching off. Stabilization.

 

 

Mike

Edited November 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[elfmotat]

Mike, I still have no idea what a you mean by gravitational bubbles. You're using very vague language, which makes what you're saying hard to interpret.

 

You also didn't address my other question: why do photons interact so strongly compared with gravitons, if they are both aspects of the gravitational field? Any gravitational theory you invoke will include Newton's constant G, which should always keep interactions very very weak. You would presumably need to add additional degrees of freedom to the field to get around this, which means you aren't even using General Relativity anymore.

Edited November 29, 2014 by elfmotat

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, I still have no idea what a you mean by gravitational bubbles. You're using very vague language, which makes what you're saying hard to interpret.

 

You also didn't address my other question: why do photons interact so strongly compared with gravitons, if they are both aspects of the gravitational field? Any gravitational theory you invoke will include Newton's constant G, which should always keep interactions very very weak. You would presumably need to add additional degrees of freedom to the field to get around this, which means you aren't even using General Relativity anymore.

O.k. I have to look in to what you are saying . As I understand things . Einstein's breakthrough with general relativity produced the matrix which we understand and illustrate . As gravity. Newtons formulae contained G on the top line and r on the bottom line being very small would counter any weakness in G . True there are the other forces and fields electrical and magnetic, . Also there is the matter of spin and frequency which appear to be present .

 

I will try and address these if only in principle at this stage

 

Mike

[elfmotat]

As gravity. Newtons formulae contained G on the top line and r on the bottom line being very small would counter any weakness in G .

 

No it won't. That's not the way interactions work. You need to be able to reproduce the predictions of quantum electrodynamics with your theory if it is any good. That means that via perturbation theory the probability for interactions with charged particles to take place will depend on the fine structure constant. You need to explain where the fine structure constant dependence comes from, and why it doesn't include the gravitational constant G (where does the G-dependence of the gravitational field go?).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No it won't. That's not the way interactions work. You need to be able to reproduce the predictions of quantum electrodynamics with your theory if it is any good. That means that via perturbation theory the probability for interactions with charged particles to take place will depend on the fine structure constant. You need to explain where the fine structure constant dependence comes from, and why it doesn't include the gravitational constant G (where does the G-dependence of the gravitational field go?).

I thought this was the whole conflict between quantum approach to the very small and classical approach with general relativity to the very large . This is surely what people are trying to rationalise.

 

I am saying . In this instance , why can we not bring general relativity down to the very small to get a different perspective on photons. .?

 

I notice many of the other theories about electrons having mini mini mini black holes in there centre make a point of the very small Radius .

 

 

I appreciate classical works well with large things and quantum works well with small things .

 

Strange mentions these in post #15 on this thread .

 

But unless I have misunderstood the problem of solving the quantum gravity issue ! There is no law against asking , what could possibly happen if we bring general relativity with its gravitational issues down to the very small. Surely this is what happens with quarks , the strong nuclear force only works at such short distances , yet we do not dismiss them when we talk about gravity up around a star . Quarks and the strong force exist even though it can only be felt within the proximity of the nucleus.

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics applies a lot to atomic sizes yet classical general relativity with gravity is still present .even if weak by our standards ,. Maybe not so small with a photon

 

Classical physics and general relativity with gravity applies at the very large , yet quantum mechanics still applies at the inside of a star , very much . Even though small in size , big in number .

 

Photons . May just bridge the divide by combining quantum mechanics and general relativity /classical physics . As the reconciliation of quantum gravity .

 

Mike

Edited November 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

Mike, the supply of energy by the vacuum, is a process that's accepted and reasonably well understood. It explains the concept of virtual particles, which are necessary for many calculations.

 

Vacuum energy is constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, however. It can only be 'borrowed' from the vacuum, for minute periods of time, and must then be re-paid. Virtual particles are, therefore, elusive and short-lived. These virtual particles and the way they behave, make QM extremely useful and accurate. It wouldn't 'work' without them.

 

We can 'see' photons from 300-400 mil years after the big bang ( the CMB ). That's over 13 bil years ago.

 

So if photons are borrowed vacuum energy, how can they be soooooo long lived ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, the supply of energy by the vacuum, is a process that's accepted and reasonably well understood. It explains the concept of virtual particles, which are necessary for many calculations.

 

Vacuum energy is constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, however. It can only be 'borrowed' from the vacuum, for minute periods of time, and must then be re-paid. Virtual particles are, therefore, elusive and short-lived. These virtual particles and the way they behave, make QM extremely useful and accurate. It wouldn't 'work' without them.

 

We can 'see' photons from 300-400 mil years after the big bang ( the CMB ). That's over 13 bil years ago.

 

So if photons are borrowed vacuum energy, how can they be soooooo long lived ?

Because the energy to produce the photon is only necessary to produce the original ( say leaving an individual electron conversion to photon ) . From then on , it is the nature of space time , with all its vacuum energy , virtual particles , and whatever else is contained within the ' Grid ' that makes up space time .

 

Eg if we took a position mid way between over there a long long way and over the other way a long way . The photon bubble to your left would suddenly be created by the one before it . In turn your newly created photon would create a new photon bubble to your right . And your photon bubble ,in the middle would go back into the vacuum .

 

There would only be one photon in existence at once . It would give the effect , as if a photon itself had travelled 13 billion light years . But nothing will have gone anywhere , only the effect .

 

The vacuum will have been injected with one electron /photon conversion worth of energy . And given it up 13billion years later as it hit the back of your eye .

 

I am not sure what the interest it will have accrued in that borrowing of one photon worth of energy over 13 billion years .

 

It might make you bankrupt . You will have to look away , just as it arrives . Let some other poor sod pick up the bill.

 

Also , I think if you did the accounts , someone way over there to the left , gave the vacuum a bit of extra energy , when it went from that first electron , so when it gave it back to the guy on the right finally , the vacuum gave back the bit of energy that has been being passed across space to the guy on the right . Maybe you . So if anything the vacuum owes you 13 billion years worth of interest .

 

You are a rich man , you can retire , just by catching that one photons worth of energy in the back of your eye. Or maybe you owe it to the man on the right , seeing as how he put it in , in the first place .

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

The universe is worse than any bank , Mike.

It strictly enforces its lending rules, and will not let you borrow to cover an existing debt.

If the universe can't collect on a virtual particle pair, on the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, because one of the pair has fallen in and the other had to become real, it takes its "pound of flesh" out of the black hole's mass.

There's no free lunch or debt.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The universe is worse than any bank , Mike.

It strictly enforces its lending rules, and will not let you borrow to cover an existing debt.

If the universe can't collect on a virtual particle pair, on the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, because one of the pair has fallen in and the other had to become real, it takes its "pound of flesh" out of the black hole's mass.

There's no free lunch or debt.

Well said ! On that happy note ,I am going to retire for the night .

My I pad has just about run out of electrons ! As all the photons have been showering into my face !

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos