beecee Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 https://phys.org/news/2018-11-spacetimea-creation-well-known-actors.html Spacetime—a creation of well-known actors? November 9, 2018, The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences: Most physicists believe that the structure of spacetime is formed in an unknown way at the Planck scale, i.e., at a scale close to one trillionth of a trillionth of a metre. However, careful considerations undermine this prediction. There are quite a few arguments in favour of the emergence of spacetime as a result of processes taking place at the level of quarks and their conglomerates.What is spacetime? The absolute, unchanging arena of events? Or perhaps it is a dynamic creation, emerging in some way on a certain scale of distance, time or energy. References to the absolute are not welcome in today's physics. It is widely believed that spacetime is emergent. It is not clear, however, where the process of its emergence takes place. The majority of physicists tend to suppose that spacetime is created on the Planck scale, at distances close to one trillionth of a trillionth of a metre (~10-35 m). In his article in Foundations of Science, Professor Piotr Zenczykowski from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Cracow systematizes the observations of many authors on the formation of spacetime, and argues that the hypothesis about its formation at the scale of quarks and hadrons (or quark aggregates) is quite sensible for a number of reasons.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-spacetimea-creation-well-known-actors.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10699-018-9562-2 Quarks, Hadrons, and Emergent Spacetime: Abstract: It is argued that important information on the emergence of space is hidden at the quark/hadron level. The arguments follow from the acceptance of the conception that space is an attribute of matter. They involve in particular the discussion of possibly relevant mass and distance scales, the generalization of the concept of mass as suggested by the phase-space-based explanation of the rishon model, and the phenomenological conclusions on the structure of excited baryons that are implied by baryon spectroscopy. A counterpart of the Eddington–Weinberg relation concerning Regge towers of hadronic resonances is noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Remember the 'steady state theory' of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle? It relied on 'continuous creation' for a supply of matter to keep the density up in the expanding universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, studiot said: Remember the 'steady state theory' of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle? It relied on 'continuous creation' for a supply of matter to keep the density up in the expanding universe. When I was a hairy arsed young teenage in the late fifties, there were three competing models...the BB, Steady State, and Oscillating. Are you implying this somehow aligns with SS? It actually reminds me of this GP-B Question and Answer site by Sten Odenwald and the following question.... https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? "No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation." NB: The above answer has been corrected by me after I E-Mailed Sten re the original confusing answer with regards to the highlighted part as follows...He confirmed it as a typographical error. No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. Edited November 9, 2018 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 2 hours ago, beecee said: Are you implying this somehow aligns with SS? Not aligns no. Perhaps if I had said remember the fate of the steady state theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted November 10, 2018 Author Share Posted November 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, studiot said: Not aligns no. Perhaps if I had said remember the fate of the steady state theory Gotcha! Had me worried for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts