It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is this line of thinking what leads to the Vacuum catastrophe? If so, good theories aren't usually called "catastrophe". Instead this is referred to as a naive application of quantum mechanics, and as we've seen, or should I say not seen, there was no mini black hole observed at CERN.
dragonridr
Ok look at it this way we have a box which contains a vacuum and it starts at 1 cm we check it virtual particles pop in and out. Now 2 things these particles will create a wave 1cm wide and they will randomly appear in our box. Now lets shrink it down 100 percent our wavelength becomes smaller but something else also the same amount of virtual particles still pop in and out. As we keep looking at smaller and smaller area we see more virtual particles which shortens there wavelength and increases there number by volume. this keeps going until we reach a limit or at least what we expect to be the limit. And that limit is 10-33 cm at that point our energy level is so great and are volume so small it actually creates a mini black hole. As i said before this was the fear of what was goinf to happen at CERN remember that. Because to look at these smaller and smaller boxes we need to use more and more energy.
Arbitrageur
Is this line of thinking what leads to the Vacuum catastrophe? If so, good theories aren't usually called "catastrophe". Instead this is referred to as a naive application of quantum mechanics, and as we've seen, or should I say not seen, there was no mini black hole observed at CERN.
dragonridr
Ok look at it this way we have a box which contains a vacuum and it starts at 1 cm we check it virtual particles pop in and out. Now 2 things these particles will create a wave 1cm wide and they will randomly appear in our box. Now lets shrink it down 100 percent our wavelength becomes smaller but something else also the same amount of virtual particles still pop in and out. As we keep looking at smaller and smaller area we see more virtual particles which shortens there wavelength and increases there number by volume. this keeps going until we reach a limit or at least what we expect to be the limit. And that limit is 10-33 cm at that point our energy level is so great and are volume so small it actually creates a mini black hole. As i said before this was the fear of what was goinf to happen at CERN remember that. Because to look at these smaller and smaller boxes we need to use more and more energy.
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.
dragonridr
What it tells us once again theirs something hidden from us below 10-33 we know theres something under the planck scale.Also tells us time and space itself is quantizied.But i dont think were ready to take them there until other aspects are understood do you?
Arbitrageur
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.
dragonridr
What it tells us once again theirs something hidden from us below 10-33 we know theres something under the planck scale.Also tells us time and space itself is quantizied.But i dont think were ready to take them there until other aspects are understood do you?
ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
I think you are wrong about understanding time.
And why must there be something below 10^33? Is it not possible the universe has a smallest size objects, the smallest quanta of energy, and then everything else is built up from interaction between multiples of these? Or is the vacuum and fields really so different from energy quanta that was able to create matter like quarks and electrons? Is the tiniest most fundamental fields a connection of near infinite tiny particles? And is it accurate to call them the tiny field if they exist the entire size of the universe, or its that their nature is tiny, how can an object exist in 3 dimensions and be tiny but undetectable easily, if it literally exists at every point in space? Does that mean the fields are compressed beyond imagine so there is literally a extremely solid substance at every point? If there is all that energy in the vacuum field, how much vacuum exists in your brain, between cells and atoms, and in atoms, and between quarks, does that vacuum energy affect matter, does it interact with matter, does it allow matter to do and be what matter is and does?edit on 13-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Ok cool, I didnt mean just em fields. Someone earlier replied that it is thought there are 58 fundamental fields, including Em, gravity, higgs, and all the quarks and electrons and particles. I was wondering about those. For the case of EM fields, they dont interact with each other in space do they?
Can sound waves interact with one another?
Does the higgs field interact with the EM field and gravity field and quark field?
If there is an entire quark field, but quarks are only in certain places throughout the universe, I was wondering what is the essence of the fieldness, what is the quark field where there are no quarks, quark juice?
mbkennel
That's the meaning of the vacuum state. The unusual thing about quantum field theory is that the vacuum state (lowest energy physically) is not the same thing as mathematical zero.
Arbitrageur
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.
How does it imply that? Seems Non sequitur to me.
Angelic Resurrection
Observation collapses the wave function, implies that space is quantized.
Angelic Resurrection
Arbitrageur
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.
Observation collapses the wave function, implies that space is quantized.
Further implication, is that space itself is a wave of sorts propagating, from
the big bang
Space is expanding faster than EM radiation, not to keep pace with it:
Angelic Resurrection
Space is expanding to keep pace with em radiation
While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which can suggest the objects travelled faster than light. For example there are stars which may be expanding away from us (or each other) faster than the speed of light, and this is true for any object that is more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us. We can still see such objects because the universe in the past was expanding more slowly than it is today, so the ancient light being received from these objects is still able to reach us, though if the expansion continues unabated there will come a time that we will never see the light from such objects being produced today (on a so-called "space-like slice of spacetime") because space itself is expanding between Earth and the source faster than their light can reach us.
He worked a lot harder for his 99 cents than most other artists, but I don't think I'd want the mp3. The video better because he typed out the words, or else I wouldn't have understood some of them.
dragonridr
Since we are talking heavy about quantum physics i was sent this by a student a couple of months ago figure ill post it.
Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
No I do not subscribe to alternative explanation either. Lol , like tired light
But imo similar Doppler shift should be apparent in CMBR as well.
dragonridr
As far as the part you said you were confused on looks like you understand more then you thought. Lets look at light we have something called a photon. What is a photon its mass less the only way we know its there is its interaction with the electro magnetic field. Now as i think you know this is actually 2 fields not just one so as this energy passes through this field we see the effects like light or radio waves. Now we know there are 2 fields because yes we can use a bar magnet only effecting the magnetic field for example. Im not sure what you meant by electrons in light because there isnt any. Electrons can emit light however this is thermodynamics really. So you may need to explain this last part better because you kinda lost me.