Jump to content

How does space get inside of an inflating balloon?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ah but there is always other readers involved 😉  edit: besides I'm keeping it as simple and rudimentary as possible. Its far more complex than I've described thus far

They didn't just find "something" and decide to name it the Higgs Boson.   The Higgs Boson was predicted to exist as part of the theory outlining the Higgs mechanism. It was predicted to have a set

Spoken by someone with no concept of what science states about a given subject.   Sorry but your opinion means little compared to the available body of evidence

Don't pay attention to pop media videos to learn physics. They will mislead you everytime.

It seems like semantics to me but can you differentiate between expansion and space being created?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time.

 

Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future. Each line represents a different location in space. As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.

 

Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.

I am sorry strange but there is more logical errors in that post that does not explain it very well.

 

 

Error 1 -

''What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time. ''

The curvature of a coordinate system relative to a situate background of space.

Error 2- ''Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future.''

Both the lines would exist in the present,

_____________________

_____________________

Both the lines would be a virtual vector relative to situate ''background''.

''As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.''

Ok so you saying the lines are time passing an observer at relative rest?

''Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.''

No, it will cause you imaginary lines to curve, the force of gravity is linear, the object is being attracted by a linear force. The lines do not exist , the space fabric does not exist, there is nothing of space to curve.

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Dr. Nima Arkani Ahmed it is. Scroll to minute 37.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWGBYDBoGw

The substrate he is referring to is a low energy density field referred to as zero point energy based off the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It does not describe space itself "though he may even state such" it takes too long to describe something like zero point energy field in a short time for a video. Zero point energy is in essence your uncertainty principle applied. It is a sea of fluctuations in a specific map of interactions. (depending upon virtual particle make up)

 

A field is a collection of objects/events/coordinates.

 

Space itself is still the volume. Virtual particles/fluctuations is your particle soup residing in the volume of space right along with your real particles (greater than a quanta)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry strange but there is more logical errors in that post that does not explain it very well.

 

 

Error 1 -

 

''What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time. ''

 

The curvature of a coordinate system relative to a situate background of space.

 

 

Correct. Space isn't a thing. Lines don't exist. All we have are the measurements and coordinate systems. (I forgot you have an aversion to using the words space and time to mean the coordinates we use to measure space and time.)

 

But not an error because it It doesn't make any difference. It is just a change in the words.

 

 

 

Error 2- ''Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future.''

 

Both the lines would exist in the present,

 

No, the lines are in the time dimension. They are lines from the past to the future. These are known as world lines.

 

 

 

''As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.''

 

Ok so you saying the lines are time passing an observer at relative rest?

 

Yes. (Although time doesn't really "pass" in this description, but that's good enough.)

 

 

 

''Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.''

 

 

No, it will cause you imaginary lines to curve, the force of gravity is linear, the object is being attracted by a linear force. The lines do not exist , the space fabric does not exist, there is nothing of space to curve.

 

The line is your position in space in the chosen coordinate system. As the line curves, your position, relative to other things in the coordinate system, changes.

 

I'm sorry if my explanation doesn't help you get the general idea. Perhaps the only alternative is to master the mathematics (but that will probably take you several decades!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The substrate he is referring to is a low energy density field referred to as zero point energy based off the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It does not describe space itself "though he may even state such" it takes too long to describe something like zero point energy field in a short time for a video. Zero point energy is in essence your uncertainty principle applied. It is a sea of fluctuations in a specific map of interactions. (depending upon virtual particle make up)

 

A field is a collection of objects/events/coordinates.

 

Space itself is still the volume. Virtual particles/fluctuations is your particle soup residing in the volume of space right along with your real particles (greater than a quanta)

Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at:

 

E=1.6 x 10-35

 

Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible?

 

 

To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure

 

4
3
π
r
3
divided by

1.6 x 10-35

Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at:

 

E=1.6 x 10-35

 

Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible?

 

 

To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure

 

4
3
π
r
3
divided by

1.6 x 10-35

who's clicked dislike?

 

Why what is wrong with it?

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at:

 

E=1.6 x 10-35

 

Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible?

 

 

To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure

divided by

1.6 x 10-35

who's clicked dislike?

 

Why what is wrong with it?

 

 

Energy is measured in joules, not cubic metres.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Energy is measured in joules, not cubic metres.

We don's measure the volume/size of something in joules.

 

I am giving the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement?

 

 

Planck distance cubed.

 

If X = 1.6 x 10-35 m THEN

 

XYZ= 1.6 x 10-35

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

We don's measure the volume/size of something in joules.

 

I am giving the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement?

 

 

Then why talk about energy?

 

And there is no evidence that there is a smallest possible measurement. All attempts to test if space is quantised have failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Then why talk about energy?

 

And there is no evidence that there is a smallest possible measurement. All attempts to test if space is quantised have failed.

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

 

That is a common misconception. It is not.

 

Also, attempting to define the smallest possible measurable distance/volume is literally the definition of trying to quantize space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

 

 

"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

 

 

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement

 

There is no connection between these concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a common misconception. It is not.

 

Also, attempting to define the smallest possible measurable distance/volume is literally the definition of trying to quantize space.

Not really, 0 point space is without dimension . but lots and lots of 0 point spaces adjoined make up a volume, however there is probably noway any of you will understand 0²=1.

 

Better leave that one alone though, the conversation will get cut short by the mods.

 

I am trying to equate the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, planck length cubed must be more understandable than 0³.?

 

 

"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

 

There is no connection between these concepts.

What is the size of a Photon? Just because you can not relate this it does not mean I can't relate it.

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the size of a Photon?

 

 

As far as I know, there is no way of defining the size of a photon. It isn't localised, until it is detected (at which point it no longer exists).

 

 

Not really, 0 point space is without dimension .

 

That is not what "0 point" means in "0 point energy".

 

Zero point energy is the lowest possible ("zero point") energy level. It turns out that it is not zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As far as I know, there is no way of defining the size of a photon. It isn't localised, until it is detected (at which point it no longer exists).

Detecting something that are ghostly like is not an easy challenge I must admit. However they must have a size and bodily presence or they would not exert a force or pressure.

 

Could we assume a Photon is fractionally 0 small and the smallest thing that exists?

 

A 0 point energy ghostly particle?

 

 

0*0*0=0³?

 

or could we do

 

>0*>0*>0=>0³?

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we assume a Photon is fractionally 0 small and the smallest thing that exists?

 

 

I don't see why.

 

The only parameter that you could interpret as being the "size" of a photon is the wavelength. This is much, much, much bigger than the Planck length.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see why.

 

The only parameter that you could interpret as being the "size" of a photon is the wavelength. This is much, much, much bigger than the Planck length.

The wave length describes the ''flow'' not an individual Photon particle, a Photon unlike space has difficulty passing through the balloons surface if the balloon is opaque, so the photon is more than space it is something of physicality so although really really small, must have a size?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The wave length describes the ''flow'' not an individual Photon particle, a Photon unlike space has difficulty passing through the balloons surface if the balloon is opaque, so the photon is more than space it is something of physicality so although really really small, must have a size?

Yes, but the size that determines whether or not it can pass through things is... wavelength.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the size that determines whether or not it can pass through things is... wavelength.

That can't be correct, the wavelength is created by the ''obstruction'' and the result of obstruction , the ''pressure'' of resistance. A ''grouping'' of photons.

 

Not really in my opinion. The permitivity and permeability stop the photons passing through .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here is where we kill your illusion of matter. All particles are field excitations.

 

A good eite

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/

 

"There are no particles, there are only fields".

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616&ved=0ahUKEwiA5YS11NbTAhUY4mMKHZ7CC3AQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ&sig2=YJHyjM8bb7Mbm-l7RHNlEg

 

A real particle requires a quanta of energy this is also the minimal value for effective action.

 

However a proton is a tightly packed bundle of fluctuations (virtual gluons etc) the 2 up and 1 down quark being just the excess color charge.

 

The Prof Strass site has a good article covering this.

 

However under confined regions these fluctuation waveforms will cause constructive or destructive interferance patterns. When you constructively interfere the wavelength and amplitude can combine to greater than a quanta of energy becoming a real particle whose identity will depend on other quantum number waveforms. These different waveforms overlap in the same finite region.

 

So with constructive and destructive interferences having a wavefunction for uncertainty principle is only natural.

 

A quantum fluctuation is "off shell" it has insufficient energy to have all the quantum number wavefunctions of the real particle. So it can exhibit some but not all the characteristics.

 

The pointlike characteristics apply when you measure a quanta in a pointlike volume. Its fuzzy for this boundary on part due to the Heisenburg uncertainty.

 

Other boundary confinement rules are under S Matrix in QFT there are numerous boundary confinement rules.

 

Your balloon skin is nothing more than a tightly packed region of overlappping fields. Held together by primarily the electromagnetic force field. The individual particles are tightly packed excitations. (in essence field spikes in excess a quanta).

 

Now just like the electromagnetic field you can have charge, a charged field is a vector field. An uncharged field a scalar field is typically used.

 

Mass under these conditions has similarities to electromagnetic propogation delay. Indeed we are delaying all information exchange by the field charge interaction (attractive field force). The binding energy of all overlapping fields form your spacetime dynamics of kinematic action.

 

[latex]\stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higg's}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yugawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}}[/latex]

 

For further details on action

 

Particularly under GR where I have relativity apply the Poisson/Lorentz symmetry groups using Principle of least action.

 

Here is the Feyman lecture on it.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html&ved=0ahUKEwjwoq7Z3NbTAhUHx2MKHa9aB4sQFgg3MAQ&usg=AFQjCNHMXx3zfd6VtHs2XB9Tq1zL91gsXQ&sig2=QqaMDZ_iSafyK-KpFFWUNg

 

Mass is literally "resistance to inertia change" This resistance is due to the binding energies mentioned above.

 

Remember fields can and do overlap just like electromagnetic signals can ride other wavefunctions. Quite frankly under the actions formula above we have covered all sources of mass. via their respective field interactions or rather though you can readily expand the above to include any fields missing.

 

THe Dirac section covers particle/antiparticle pairs, the Yukawa couplings is your respective field coupling constants. The Higgs field and electromagnetic are self explanatory.

 

The strong force is involved but as its so short range you only need to model it in tight regions ie inside the infividual atoms.

 

Photons for example has no binding field interactions. Hence it has no rest mass. It still has the ability to perform work a quanta of energy can cause action..

 

So it has inertial mass due to its energy momentum. It isn't being restricted in its movements so travels at c.

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

The wave length describes the ''flow'' not an individual Photon particle,

 

 

Although the wavelength is a classical idea, the wavelength of individual photons can be measured (see, for example, the dual slit experiment).

 

 

 

a Photon unlike space has difficulty passing through the balloons surface if the balloon is opaque, so the photon is more than space it is something of physicality so although really really small, must have a size?

 

As the photon is able to pass through both slits, which are a macroscopic distance apart (multiple wavelengths) it cannot be "really really small".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it curious that Mordred is trying to explain Quantum Field Theory to someone who thinks a Black Hole is a 'grain of dust' that he can't see, who has no clue how GR explains gravity, and who thinks a quantum particle can have size, yet be fundamental.

 

An exercise in futility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it curious that Mordred is trying to explain Quantum Field Theory to someone who thinks a Black Hole is a 'grain of dust' that he can't see, who has no clue how GR explains gravity, and who thinks a quantum particle can have size, yet be fundamental.

 

An exercise in futility.

Ah but there is always other readers involved 😉

 

edit: besides I'm keeping it as simple and rudimentary as possible. Its far more complex than I've described thus far :P

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

 

10^-35 metres cubed is about 7 orders of magnitude larger than an atomic nucleus

 

Planck length is not the smallest conceivable measurement . I can conceive of something with a diameter of a planck length - its radius is half a planck length.

 

The planck length is around where quantum effects and gravity must be both taken into account simultaneously - we cannot do that yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The planck length is around where quantum effects and gravity must be both taken into account simultaneously - we cannot do that yet

Thank you for the insight,

 

 

What do you mean exactly by they both must be taken in to account simultaneously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.