Calling any theoretical physicist’s. Atoms travelling through time and space ideas

originally posted by: Archivalist
Ah yes, I am theoretically a physicist.

Atoms are mostly empty space.

That is all.

To greatly continue your oversimplification on empty space but I would hope to add something important.
IN fact there is more empty space than anything in each atom. The electromagnetic like properties of the negative electrons and positive particles of the atom/molecule create the attraction to other atoms and molecules. I am not Physicist but I am an Analytical Chemist who uses that skill as an Environmental Scientist.

a reply to: Justoneman
Based on your own description, one could argue that your position is self-contradictory, both claiming the space is empty, and also claiming that charged particles interact. Chemistry is based on such interaction happening at a distance rather than by direct contact of the particles, and the way that happens is the space between the particles must be filled with fields.

In theoretical physics the concept of "empty space" is one of the most challenging to model, for numerous reasons, but in more advanced quantum models, there's really no "empty" space because all space in our universe is presumed to contain fields, and the "particles" we describe are considered to be excitations of the fields. Researchers now claim to have direct evidence that empty space isn't empty:

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence

Nothing, for example. In classical physics, nothing is a space devoid of stuff. But according to quantum theory, nothing is chock-full of stuff. Scientists have had weak evidence of this nothing-stuff—or quantum vacuum fluctuations, if you want to get technical—since the 1940s, but new experiments may have given us direct proof of its existence. That could mean very, very big things for quantum research.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
Hey,

So my internet is pretty bad atm as im visiting my parents but a thought came to me and you will have to watch a bit or the whole video to fully grasp it. But if you want to save time maybe try 17 mins 30 seconds…

Basically he is discussing an atom travelling through time but staying in the same space which creates a toroid.

To me it makes absolute sense, except i started wondering about plank space and the creation of space as everything is getting more distant from one another due to spaces expansion.

So in his video it shows an atom traveling through the same space in a toroid, however space expands, and i was wondering if the atom traveling through space it perhaps what creates extra space and is the cause for spacial expansion and if instead of like his image of an atom trevelling through space in the same place, if an atom traveling through space might be in a golden ratio spiral or just a spiral like our sun does through the milky way galaxy and since it is traveling through space still in a toroid form.


So an atom traveling through time still in a toroid form, but also in a golden ratio spiral or just a spiral like our sun through the galaxy, and maybe that is what creates spacial expansion.

I don’t know. Multiple thoughts and ideas.

If anyone is a theoretical physicist maybe you might know better. Im just a weirdo on a phone atm drunk and thinking of things… 😀

Its a nice thought, but personally I'm thinking that this would mean the creation of complex systems would be impossible. As it would mean that larger concentrations of Atoms would mean more 'space time' being created. Thus more expansion where atoms have congregated, this is not what is observed.

In addition space appears to be expanding at all points in space, and whilst particles do pop in and out of existence everywhere in space, atoms do not, and there are regions of space void of atoms, but presumably still experience spacial expansion.

I've often had the following thought, since everything is always moving through space time at different rates (even the atoms in your own body), what if all electrons we observe, are really all just the same electron splitting itself apart over and over as space time's tree of 'realities' branches out after every probability is realised. In a way making parallel universes integral to the existence of just one universe, and that one universe we experience is just a conglomerate of all probabilities playing themselves out.

Let's see... if a mosquito flies from right to left, and a train travels towards the mosquito from left to right, there would be a point in space in which they two will meet. The train will hit the mosquito and will force the mosquito to reverse its trajectory.

For this to be possible, the mosquito will need to be stopped, and then reverse its direction. But if the mosquito is stopped in the collision, then the train too is stopped. Actually, the system train-mosquito must be stopped, no matter for how brief in time. This is so because reversing direction cannot bedone instantaneously.

So there you are, witnessing a miracle: a train and a mosquito stopped, disconnected from reality, frozen in time...

Worst: if the Earth rotates and a small, minuscle, tiny meteorite collides with it, would also the Earth-meteorite system stop for a brief moment?

If reversing direction requires first to get to a stop, then I'm afraid Reality wouldn't be the way you perceive it. Find the answer to this dilemma, and you will understand why we never talk about space or time. We only speak about spacetime.

No toroids allowed in this bar.

originally posted by: Direne
For this to be possible, the mosquito will need to be stopped, and then reverse its direction.

ok

But if the mosquito is stopped in the collision, then the train too is stopped.

Nope. I'm shocked anybody would say such a thing, because your intuition should correctly tell you the train doesn't stop in such a collision. I've seen a video of a train colliding with an 18 wheeled tractor-trailer that stalled on the tracks, and even that barely slowed down the train. A mosquito would have even less effect. The train is so much more massive than most other objects it would collide with (except maybe another train or something), that it dominates the conservation of momentum used to analyze these types of situations/problems.

Now, if you take objects where the masses and velocities are more comparable, it's possible for both colliding objects to stop (temporarily or otherwise). You can see it happen in this video for both elastic (at 1:45) and inelastic (at 2:45) collisions:

Collisions Demo: Two Carts

Actually, the system train-mosquito must be stopped, no matter for how brief in time.

No, because the preceding premise is false.

This is so because reversing direction cannot bedone instantaneously.

The mosquito can't reverse direction instantly, but it's not necessary for the train to stop or reverse its direction.

So there you are, witnessing a miracle: a train and a mosquito stopped, disconnected from reality, frozen in time...

More like witnessing a flawed assumption taken to flawed conclusions. Or else you're joking and forgot to use some emojis to indicate that.

If you make any reasonable assumptions for the mass and velocity of the train, and mass and velocity of the mosquito, you can see that the train never stops, if you perform the calculations outlined here:

Impulse and Momentum Conservation - Inelastic & Elastic Collisions

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Close to the mark. But not completely correct. I was obviously exercising my Socratic reasoning, leading the pupil to infer by himself the absurdity of the problem.

But inelastic/inelastic is not really the answer, for even in an inelastic collision a reversal of traveling direction of necessity implies the object must stop, just before reversing direction. And if the object stops, of necessity the colliding object must also stop, for it cannot traverse the object.

In order to undersdtand what's happening we first need to understand objects never collide: the van de Waals force prevents this to happen. What happens is that the objects deflect. Instead of a straight arrow pointing to one direction, the correct representation of a collision is a parabola. Change in direction due to collision is always smooth.

The best way to visualize this is representing the train's worldline and the mosquito's worldline. A collision means both worldlines approach and tangentially touch each other. No straight lines, because spacetime is curve, always.

But yes, you are right, I should have used emojis. But that would have destroyed my Socratic exposition and would have ruined the pupil learning something about mosquitos and trains.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Justoneman
Based on your own description, one could argue that your position is self-contradictory, both claiming the space is empty, and also claiming that charged particles interact. Chemistry is based on such interaction happening at a distance rather than by direct contact of the particles, and the way that happens is the space between the particles must be filled with fields.

In theoretical physics the concept of "empty space" is one of the most challenging to model, for numerous reasons, but in more advanced quantum models, there's really no "empty" space because all space in our universe is presumed to contain fields, and the "particles" we describe are considered to be excitations of the fields. Researchers now claim to have direct evidence that empty space isn't empty:

Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence

Nothing, for example. In classical physics, nothing is a space devoid of stuff. But according to quantum theory, nothing is chock-full of stuff. Scientists have had weak evidence of this nothing-stuff—or quantum vacuum fluctuations, if you want to get technical—since the 1940s, but new experiments may have given us direct proof of its existence. That could mean very, very big things for quantum research.

Well, more correctly, the physics of nature appears to be determined by quantum field theory.

"particles" are a particular kind of solution to the field equations but are a simplification. Humans are excessively wedded to the ideas of particles, but Nature isn't.

"virtual particles" come about mostly mathematically when you try to use perturbation expansions (a generalized version of the various infinite series sums from calculus).

The true solutions are complex partial differential equations---expanded in terms of a 'particle basis' when it's not entirely appropriate, you get inappropriate 'virtual particles'.

But it's more like mathematically expanding electromagnetic near field evanescent solutions into sums of propagating far-field waves (the latter being the particles of Maxwellian electrodynamics). You get an infinite sum of weird terms when it's more correctly expressed as a different mathematical solution.

The fact that vacuum interacts physically is a real observed fact. Virtual particles are more of a human problem and lack of the right mathematics.

a reply to: mbkennel

I partially agree with you, yes. But your statement that the physics of nature appears to be determined by QFT is not totally true. QFT does a nice job, except when we approach those scales in which quantum gravity effects manifest; at those scales QFT is non-renormalizable and infinities plague the theory.

Obviously, something beyond QFT is required, namely, quantum gravity. But no QGT exists today.

I totally agree with you that the fact that vacuum interacts physically is a real observed fact; suffices to witness the Casimir effect. But virtual particles is not a problem of lack of the right maths. It is a conceptual problem, a shame in physics. Postulating the existence of virtual particles is against anything physics teaches, and the current definition that they are true particles, only that their life-times is so brief they do not interact with anything is just a way to save the day.

Obviously, the concept of 'empty space' is a human construct as limited as human brains are, not to mention the concept of 'time', for which no valid theory exists today. But yes, I agree with you in that humans are excessively wedded to the ideas of particles (and the idea of time, and life, and the beginning of, and the end of...). To be honest, even the concept of 'field' is tricky.

I have a fundamental problem with "time" it's a unit of measurement humans created it's not real or a reality . String Theory is the only thing that makes sense IMO - I have been a paranormal investigator for years and there are defiantly different dimensions or reality's - The ghost looking back through a mirror- the ghost that you only see up to his knee's because the floor is a different level now - The poltergeist that hasn't even been born but can throw stuff at your head .

Time is only our way of measuring distance not a law of physics and our physics may not be someone else's .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Time is distance x velocity.

You can't travel any distance at a speed without it taking/costing you time.

Even when you're sat in one spot. You're travelling.



www.youtube.com... If the video doesn't work.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Yes we are moving and spinning through this great vast space .. However there is no beginning or end that we can judge how long or how far . We can only do that with the environment we know so time is just a measurement we created it did not exist until we wanted to measure .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Although there is no end in sight in an infinite universe. There was a beginning.

I used to think like you too. But, i've changed my mind over time.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Beginnings are impossible .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Perhaps you'll alter your point of view in time.

Until then. We will have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Direne
Postulating the existence of virtual particles is against anything physics teaches, and the current definition that they are true particles, only that their life-times is so brief they do not interact with anything is just a way to save the day.

Matt Strassler doesn't try to claim they are "true particles", he says forget the word "particles" as in they are not particles.

Virtual Particles: Not Particles At All

...the most important thing for a layperson to understand about virtual particles is that they really are not particles at all, despite the name, and they don’t behave that much like them. They are more of a generalized disturbance in a field, while a real particle, a nice ripple in a field, is a special one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbi, I guess Mr. Strassler needs to clarify what does he mean exactly by a generalized disturbance in a field.

Actually, he also needs to explain what is a field (to be honest, all physicists need to explain what is a field).

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbi, I guess Mr. Strassler needs to clarify what does he mean exactly by a generalized disturbance in a field.

He gives more detail about virtual particles in a longer article here. But you're not going to ever get a graduate-level understanding of a physics topic by reading a single article or post.

Actually, he also needs to explain what is a field (to be honest, all physicists need to explain what is a field).

That implies you have some issue with the standard definition in the wikipedia article here, but once again you're not going to ever get a graduate-level understanding of a physics topic by reading a single article or post. Developing in-depth understanding takes years of reading numerous textbooks, solving problems, and doing lab work.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are lot of physicists and philosophers of science having an issue with the concept field, and a lot more criticizing the very existence of virtual particles.

And example is here:

Haunted by the Spectre of Virtual Particles: A Philosophical Reconsideration

As the guy states:

The secondary aim of this paper is to argue that even the philosophical considerations of virtual particles overestimate their role in that these entities are merely pictorial descriptions of a mathematical approximation method. This description, while helpful, is not necessary to understand particle interactions.

But I can find texts of reputed physicists expressing their concerns about the use and abuse of a mathematical construct such as the one of virtual particles. However, I am indulgent with physicists, for after all they haven't even agreed on what is real and what is not at quantum gravitational scales.

At least from the very beginning of quantum theory those devoted to it recognised the inherent limitation in achieving perfect knowledge of reality: Heisenberg principle is about that. Current physics is all we have, but it is clearly not enough (worse, leading theories are even fraticidal and contradict each other). I guess that's how science progresses.

Unsure If it's the same video but they managed to teleport a proton from earth to a satellite. Read that that years ago

a reply to: DaRAGE

Whilst people love to merge time and space, they are two entirely seperate fields. 15:30 last Wednesday is entirely different to the frozen lake that was around at that time.
The idea of the atom occupying the same space through time is more a problem associated with Dark Energy. Which seems to be when a twin or double momentum transferal takes place. The expanded space is the result of dark energy shed from a sustaining object and the process is as if entropy is conducting itself in two ways at the same time. Like a dead heat photo finish.