General Relativity Proves HV Lifters' Create Significant Space-Time Curvature

[waitedavid137]

The negative pressure is what they are calling "pressure" because it aligns with the Relativity "Vacuum" Which is fine, It's not disproven or anything, So the Negative pressure is what they are assigning to "Dark Energy" That surrounds the universe pulling upon it to accelerate its expanse. The pressure, I can only assume is the ideological effect of space-time "Gravity" The reason, I say Ideological and "Pressure" Is because in Quantum theory The whole Vacuum Idea was thrown out the window. Kind of along with the cosmological constant.

It's fine to support the relativity model, It's urged rather. I'm just not going to be ready any time to soon to chuck quantum physics completely out the window is all. I still feel relativity does nothing to explain why the dual slit experiment yields results. there is a lot of observational data out there that relativity in its current iteration simply does not explain. While Quantum Physics does at least make an attempt to explain these phenomena rather than pretending those phenomena simply don't exist. I like the Quantum model personally.

I don't know what you mean by ideological as what I am saying has precise mathematical meaning. The stress energy tensor is gravitation's source in general relativity. It has 16 elements. Three of those elements are pressure terms along the three spatial directions. If the cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations in interpreted as the result of some actual stress energy tensor producing source, then for a positive cosmological constant, the energy density is positive, but the three pressure terms are negative.

 

[waitedavid137]

Without expanding this thread into QM it's really strange how QM, which is hugely based on experimental measurements, got vacuum energy so wrong, while getting everything else right.

Actually QM doesn't get every thing else right. It gets nonsensical unrenormalizable, or in other words infinite energy for the graviton. It can not model gravitation at all. What is left is to produce theories that reduce to quantum mechanics and relativity in the scales on which each are known to be accurate and hope that testable predictions can be produced from such for scales in between.

 

[Shadowprophet]

I don't know what you mean by ideological as what I am saying has precise mathematical meaning. The stress energy tensor is gravitation's source in general relativity. It has 16 elements. Three of those elements are pressure terms along the three spatial directions. If the cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations in interpreted as the result of some actual stress energy tensor producing source, then for a positive cosmological constant, the energy density is positive, but the three pressure terms are negative.

Issac newtons Flaming laser sword, Ask me what I mean by that later.
This weekend I'll be a little scarce, The stepdaughter has brought her bf and that's a whole thing, It's gonna be family time, However. About QM, I don't want to do that here because this is a GR thread, But If you ever want too, We, I or you can open up a QM thread and Discuss some things there. Keep in mind With QM, I'm up to snuff to debate this with you, However. I just can't do that currently, too much going on in the BG.

But I would like to do that if you have an interest in a QM discussion. Later days brother.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Its not that the pressure itself is, but its impact on the spacetime geometry does result in gravitation acting that way, yes.

OK, so on one level up from the popular culture, one can say that compression / suction ( lets call it that ) of spacetime changes gravity. Does that mean that gravity works the same all the time, but it depends weather that pressure is compression or suction?

 

[waitedavid137]

OK, so on one level up from the popular culture, one can say that compression / suction ( lets call it that ) of spacetime changes gravity. Does that mean that gravity works the same all the time, but it depends weather that pressure is compression or suction?

I hate to oversimplify which is what has to be done for public relations, aka popular culture, so the truth is that gravity behaves however the 16 element with 10 independent components stress energy tensor of the matter tells it how to. Its not just a matter of a 1 element mass presence as Newtonian gravitation has it. The electric field of a simple single charge for example yields a stress energy tensor with 4 diagonal elements. One is a positive energy density element. Two are positive pressure component elements corresponding to angular directions around it. One is a negative pressure component corresponding to the radial distance from it. The end result is an attraction that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from it PLUS a gravitational repulsion(anti gravity) that is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from it.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Without expanding this thread into QM it's really strange how QM, which is hugely based on experimental measurements, got vacuum energy so wrong, while getting everything else right.

A lot of highly qualified quantum physicists regard the vacuum energy model as an easier but incorrect method of calculating short-range atomic/molecular dipole interactions. They've been able to calculate the correct Casimir force and other one-loop effects in quantum electrodynamics using this dipolar interaction model exclusively. Since both models can't be correct, and this one explains the observed phenomena based on proven physical quantities without postulating a field of vacuum energy, it appears that they're right.

I was stunned when I first ran across this idea because so many of the titans of theoretical physicists like Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg talk about vacuum fluctuations as if they're an empirical fact, rather than a convenient short-hand for a more computationally complex but physically superior model. Here are a couple of papers about this:

Jaffe, R.L. "The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum." Phys Rev D 72, 021301(R) (2005)

Nikolic, N., " Is Zero-point Energy Physical? A Toy Model for Casimir-like Effect." Ann Phys 383, 181 (2017)

So it appears that there are no vacuum fluctuations at all - that would explain the bulk of the "vacuum catastrophe." But that leaves us with the same problem - identifying the nature or the source of the dark energy effect.

Since the Standard Model offers no explanation in the particle zoo - even with extensions like supersymmetry, the solution appears to rest in the theory of gravitation. And Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity seems like a hopeful avenue for explaining the dark energy effect and the dark matter effect, while preserving the countless successful predictions of GR:

Verlinde, E., "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," SciPost Phys. 2, 016 (2017).

 

[Shadowprophet]

A lot of highly qualified quantum physicists regard the vacuum energy model as an easier but incorrect method of calculating short-range atomic/molecular dipole interactions. They've been able to calculate the correct Casimir force and other one-loop effects in quantum electrodynamics using this dipolar interaction model exclusively. Since both models can't be correct, and this one explains the observed phenomena based on proven physical quantities without postulating a field of vacuum energy, it appears that they're right.

I was stunned when I first ran across this idea because so many of the titans of theoretical physicists like Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg talk about vacuum fluctuations as if they're an empirical fact, rather than a convenient short-hand for a more computationally complex but physically superior model. Here are a couple of papers about this:

Jaffe, R.L. "The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum." Phys Rev D 72, 021301(R) (2005)

Nikolic, N., " Is Zero-point Energy Physical? A Toy Model for Casimir-like Effect." Ann Phys 383, 181 (2017)

So it appears that there are no vacuum fluctuations at all - that would explain the bulk of the "vacuum catastrophe." But that leaves us with the same problem - identifying the nature or the source of the dark energy effect.

Since the Standard Model offers no explanation in the particle zoo - even with extensions like supersymmetry, the solution appears to rest in the theory of gravitation. And Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity seems like a hopeful avenue for explaining the dark energy effect and the dark matter effect, while preserving the countless successful predictions of GR:

Verlinde, E., "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe," SciPost Phys. 2, 016 (2017).

So much is nonempirical at the moment, I almost never find myself in a situation where I can say, "This thing is empirically proven" That's my overall point with this thread, We all seem to have our preferred models, but who can really say, 100% that this model or that model is truly accurately profoundly the model that describe accurately the functions of the universe. The truth is, We are missing too many pieces of the puzzle, Before it reaches any kind of empirical form, Even relativity will need to be modified eventually.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

So it appears that there are no vacuum fluctuations at all - that would explain the bulk of the "vacuum catastrophe." But that leaves us with the same problem - identifying the nature or the source of the dark energy effect.

DON'T take my word for it , but maybe gravitation is wicked entanglement? Maybe QM guys are a little bit wrong about entanglement, in sense that entanglement is just fine on higher noise levels. Maybe all far flung atoms on the opposite side of the 'verse are still handshaking, 14 Gy since the Big Bang?

The reason I am saying this, because some of biggest researchers in QM had to swallow their pride when it was reticently discovered that during photosynthesis entanglement works in not just hot, but wet and ljucky biological conditions. That's in conditions with tons of thermal and mechanical noise to cause decoherence.

 

[waitedavid137]

DON'T take my word for it , but maybe gravitation is wicked entanglement? Maybe QM guys are a little bit wrong about entanglement, in sense that entanglement is just fine on higher noise levels. Maybe all far flung atoms on the opposite side of the 'verse are still handshaking, 14 Gy since the Big Bang?

The reason I am saying this, because some of biggest researchers in QM had to swallow their pride when it was reticently discovered that during photosynthesis entanglement works in not just hot, but wet and ljucky biological conditions. That's in conditions with tons of thermal and mechanical noise to cause decoherence.

Things remain even more entangled than that. A fundamental particle such as an electron, or an up quark is utterly indistinguishable from any other of its kind. This is more indistinguishable than what you think I mean. They aren't just identical, but can not be distinguished as separate information wave functions. Essentially every electron for example in the universe is an aspect one overall single information state. One here is unseparatably intangled in its information state from one any where else in the universe.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Things remain even more entangled than that. A fundamental particle such as an electron, or an up quark is utterly indistinguishable from any other of its kind. This is more indistinguishable than what you think I mean. They aren't just identical, but can not be distinguished as separate information wave functions. Essentially every electron for example in the universe is an aspect one overall single information state. One here is unseparatably intangled in its information state from one any where else in the universe.

Are you saying that all electrons are linked with other electrons, or that electrons and quarks are linked?

Is that a property of a complex Minkowsky space? I read something about 4 x 2 = 8 dimensional space that is described with complex numbers where there is this so called non-locality. Like all modern physics is built on that non-local Minkowsky's space, relativity and all where everything is connected. I am only guessing, but is actually the entanglement a property of that complex Minkowsky's space more than a property of the particles itself?

I guess I am piling up questions fast, but I noticed that all our methods of measuring time are actually based on measuring space. In other words time doesn't exist, it's a mathematical abstraction like energy or momentum. That would make us still be in the exact same moment that Big Bang occurred. If that's true, and time doesn't exist as a real physical entity, than it's easy to imagine universe where everything is inter-connected because there is really no time to separate things.

 

[waitedavid137]

Are you saying that all electrons are linked with other electrons, or that electrons and quarks are linked?

The fist. All electrons are all part of the same information state ass all other electrons. All up quarks as with all other up quarks, down with down, etc...

Is that a property of a complex Minkowsky space?...

No, its more of one of many axioms of quantum mechanics. Its not a relativity demanded thing.

I am only guessing, but is actually the entanglement a property of that complex Minkowsky's space more than a property of the particles itself?

Of the particles themselves except particle isn't the best way to think of them. They are quanta of radiation. An electron or a quark as examples are quanta. That quanta manifests particle characteristics under particle treatment and wave characteristics under wave treatment in experiments.

In other words time doesn't exist,...

Time exists as much as space, but mixes with space in transformations. What is time and what is space gets blurred together in a spacetime continuum. But both do exist.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Time exists as much as space, but mixes with space in transformations. What is time and what is space gets blurred together in a spacetime continuum. But both do exist.

I tend to think of time dimensionally, Time can be conceived as the 4th dimension, I assumed this was a methodology you relativity guys used as well?

Honestly, one could say, gravity is time and space, We can refer to aspects of time as the entropy or halflife, But it depends on the context of which you refer to time.

 

[waitedavid137]

I tend to think of time dimensionally, Time can be conceived as the 4th dimension, I assumed this was a methodology you relativity guys used as well?

Honestly, one could say, gravity is time and space, We can refer to aspects of time as the entropy or halflife, But it depends on the context of which you refer to time.

I order my index convention 0 through 3 rather than 1 through 4 for one dimension of time and three space, so in my lingo time would be the zeroth dimension, but yeah 1 through 4 is a pretty common convention as well.