Quantum gravity idea

[Allan Rich]

Expansion of Space Time is fundamental to its nature. It expands in quanta.

se =Space Expansion, pt =Planck's Time and ps =Planck's Space (defined as the minimum increment by which space time can expand)

Dark energy and Dark matter dont exist. The ratio de/dm  is a constant.

Mass 'moderates' se  defining the geometry of space time

 gravity is described as

g ='mass moderation' of  

Apologies if I'm an idiot.

Thoughts?

 

 

[mathematic]

For a physical theory to be taken seriously, it must be backed up with observation information.  Have you done anything like this?

[Allan Rich]

Theory is a strong word, Its an Idea.

 

But for what its worth, I think it can help explain the direction of time, an after state of space time can be modeled - an expanded universe of equivalent of the unknown inside of a black hole.

I dont have the skills to develop the math, the Quantum expansion of space being fundamental, is not really on many peoples radar.

I would like to collaborate with people to see if there is merit to my thoughts.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

the Quantum expansion of space being fundamental, is not really on many peoples radar.

There are enormous numbers of people looking at such theories including string theory, loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation and many others. 

17 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

Expansion of Space Time is fundamental to its nature. It expands in quanta.

The trouble is, there is no evidence for space or the expansion of space being quantised - and people have looked for such evidence. 

Also, in all the above theories, any quantisation is on much, much smaller scales than the Planck scale. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Strange

[Allan Rich]

Thank you.

I Thought Planck time is no longer 'divisible'. Planck space expansion will expand in quanta (when its found).

Perhaps quantum vacuum energy and fundamental expansion of Space Time is a way to 'allocate entropy' in a quantum vacuum?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Allan Rich said:

I Thought Planck time is no longer 'divisible'.

That is a common misconception. I’m not sure why; probably bad science reporting. 

[Vmedvil]

But Planck Level is still good the level of Quantum Loop and String Theory meaning it is really accurate despite the fact that I disagree with your conclusion that Dark Matter and Dark Energy do not exist. The P_s  in that model would be L_p

Edited December 24, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Allan Rich]

Suppose a starting point to test my idea is to do some analysis of the red shift of very distant galaxies. If my ideas are correct the red shit will be less in the middle of the distant galaxy compared to the outer extremities.

[Strange]

On 10/11/2017 at 4:01 PM, Allan Rich said:

se =Space Expansion, pt =Planck's Time and ps =Planck's Space (defined as the minimum increment by which space time can expand)

So se is defined as metre-seconds (assuming de/dm is dimensionless), which doesn't seem a plausible unit for space expansion. It is usually described as a scale factor (dimensionless) or Hubble's constant (seconds^-1).

On 10/11/2017 at 4:01 PM, Allan Rich said:

Dark energy and Dark matter dont exist.

So you need something to else to account for the what we observe. 

What accounts for galaxy rotation curves (and all the other evidence for dark matter)?

What accounts for the accelerating expansion?

On 10/11/2017 at 4:01 PM, Allan Rich said:

The ratio de/dm  is a constant.

What is the value of this constant ? And what are de and dm?

Quote

Mass 'moderates' se  defining the geometry of space time

So why doesn't mass appear in your equation for se?

42 minutes ago, Allan Rich said:

If my ideas are correct the red shift will be less in the middle of the distant galaxy compared to the outer extremities.

Why?

And how much less? Is it a measurable amount?

[Mordred]

Space by itself void of all forms of particles is simply a volume. One can measure that volume in units of quanta however there is no requirement that the space requires units of quanta as it expands.

Such a study has taken place in the past and scientists did test this proposal but found no evidence of space being lumpy implying units of quanta. The tests using photons and neutrinos from distant supernova events showed space is smooth and not lumpy.

Time itself is simply rate of change or duration and is a property of change not a thing unto itself.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Mordred

[Allan Rich]

Because I think that mas is a moderator of space expansion, so the middle of a red shifted galaxy will have a slightly less red shift that the edge where there is less mass. Don’t have the tools to quantify, but measuring it will allow an iterative input to the general idea.

Also empty space is a vey busy place at a quantum level.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

Because I think that mas is a moderator of space expansion, so the middle of a red shifted galaxy will have a slightly less red shift that the edge where there is less mass.

So, gravity does affect expansion. For example, there is no expansion between galaxies in clusters, because they are bound together by gravity.

But I'm not sure I understand your suggestion. The red shift is caused by the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxy. If the red shift were different at different parts of the galaxy, it would imply that there was more expansion at the edges of the galaxy than the centre. In which case, the galaxy would be quickly torn apart. 

But it would require mass between us and the other galaxy to change the rate of expansion. I don't see how the mass of the galaxy itself can do that.

 

[koti]

19 hours ago, Mordred said:

„Time is a property of change not a thing unto itself”

Oh I like that, this should be pinned onto every thread about time. 

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, koti said:

Oh I like that, this should be pinned onto every thread about time. 

Best to quote his whole sentence because he also says "duration", which does not necessitate change.

[koti]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Best to quote his whole sentence because he also says "duration", which does not necessitate change.

You’re right, I should have quoted the whole thing, its a powrful statement. I just took a couple of minutes to think about what you said that duration doesn’t necessitate change and I don’t get it. Rate of change and duration are just means of measuring, they both imply change which is inevitable whenever time isn’t at stop which as far as I know doesn’t happen. So if there’s duration there has to be intrinsic change? Or is my brain so tired after a whole night of poker that Im missing something?

Edited April 8, 2018 by koti

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

You’re right, I should have quoted the whole thing, its a powrful statement. I just took a couple of minutes to think about what you said that duration doesn’t necessitate change and I don’t get it. Rate of change and duration are just means of measuring, they both imply change which is inevitable whenever time isn’t at stop which as far as I know doesn’t happen. 

Think about an unstable  atom that may decay at any time (a spontaneous process) but nothing is happening until then... time is still progressing but no change is occurring. I'm sure one of the guys that know more can elaborate further.

20 hours ago, Mordred said:

Time itself is simply rate of change or duration and is a property of change not a thing unto itself.

But is it a property of space, at a minimum, and fluctuations/zero point energy  is the minimum of space/volume? Hope that make sense.

Edited April 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Allan Rich said:

Because I think that mas is a moderator of space expansion, so the middle of a red shifted galaxy will have a slightly less red shift that the edge where there is less mass. Don’t have the tools to quantify, but measuring it will allow an iterative input to the general idea.

!

Moderator Note

The "tools to quantify" are an essential element for this to be science, and remain a viable discussion

 

[koti]

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Think about an unstable  atom that may decay at any time (a spontaneous process) but nothing is happening until then... time is still progressing but no change is occurring. I'm sure one of the guys that know more can elaborate further.

As long as time is progressing and we can measure the duration, there is change happening. Electrons are orbitong the nucleus, aunt Irma is cooking dinner, etc. 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, koti said:

As long as time is progressing and we can measure the duration, there is change happening. Electrons are orbitong the nucleus, aunt Irma is cooking dinner, etc. 

@swansont is the best person for this.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

As long as time is progressing and we can measure the duration, there is change happening. Electrons are orbitong the nucleus, aunt Irma is cooking dinner, etc. 

Electrons don't orbit a nucleus. Trajectories are not a valid concept at the quantum scale. If you have a sample of a radioactive isotope, does time not pass for the 50% of the atoms that aren't decaying in one half-life?

[koti]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Electrons don't orbit a nucleus. Trajectories are not a valid concept at the quantum scale. Radioactive decay has been mentioned — if you have a sample of a radioactive isotope, does time not pass for the 50% of the atoms that aren't decaying in one half-life?

Okay, this is beyond my knowledge, I have no idea. I think I do understand what you mean when saying that electrons aren’t orbiting the nucleus (quantum mechanical fuzzyness happening) but does that imply lack of any change at all?

[swansont]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Okay, this is beyond my knowledge, I have no idea. I think I do understand what you mean when saying that electrons aren’t orbiting the nucleus (quantum mechanical fuzzyness happening) but does that imply lack of any change at all?

The solutions to the QM equations are time-independent, for an atom that is not interacting with anything.

[Carrock]

On 10/11/2017 at 3:01 PM, Allan Rich said:

Expansion of Space Time is fundamental to its nature. It expands in quanta.

se =Space Expansion, pt =Planck's Time and ps =Planck's Space (defined as the minimum increment by which space time can expand)

Dark energy and Dark matter dont exist. The ratio de/dm  is a constant.

pt and ps appear to be defined by you as constants.

Therefor se is also constant.

I presume this isn't what you intend. More clarity required.

[koti]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

The solutions to the QM equations are time-independent, for an atom that is not interacting with anything.

I was convinced that causality is always preserved even at the quantum level at or below planckian durations hence my conviction that if causality is preseved, change is inevitably happening. Or am I completely wrong?

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I was convinced that causality is always preserved even at the quantum level at or below planckian durations hence my conviction that if causality is preseved, change is inevitably happening. Or am I completely wrong?

Causality is a trickier thing in QM, but if you have an atom in steady-state, what cause and effect is there to consider?