## Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.

Why? We are only talking about matter here. And we are pretty certain that matter is quantized in a few different ways.

Only one way, however, that is linked in a continuum.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.

Why? We are only talking about matter here. And we are pretty certain that matter is quantized in a few different ways.

Only one way, however, that is linked in a continuum.

Sorry, I don't follow. What is the "one way"?
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.

Why? We are only talking about matter here. And we are pretty certain that matter is quantized in a few different ways.

Only one way, however, that is linked in a continuum.

Sorry, I don't follow. What is the "one way"?

A spin network. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlig ... n_networks

If the network is not completely connected, on a 3-dimensional manifold (Joy's framework), it is not simply connected and not time-reversible. Joy's framework is superior to that of loop quantum gravity, for it describes the whole space of network dynamics, not just the network itself.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:A spin network. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlig ... n_networks

If the network is not completely connected, on a 3-dimensional manifold (Joy's framework), it is not simply connected and not time-reversible. Joy's framework is superior to that of loop quantum gravity, for it describes the whole space of network dynamics, not just the network itself.

I still don't get what that would have to do with matter being quantized? Matter is quantized by electric charge, spin angular momentum and mass-energy. Matter breaks the continuity of spacetime.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:A spin network. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlig ... n_networks

If the network is not completely connected, on a 3-dimensional manifold (Joy's framework), it is not simply connected and not time-reversible. Joy's framework is superior to that of loop quantum gravity, for it describes the whole space of network dynamics, not just the network itself.

I still don't get what that would have to do with matter being quantized? Matter is quantized by electric charge, spin angular momentum and mass-energy. Matter breaks the continuity of spacetime.

Not if time is dilated. Velocity must be accounted for.

Einstein spoke of spaces in relative motion. " ... the infinitesimal displacement field ... replaces the inertial system inasmuch as it makes it possible to compare vectors at infinitesimally close points." (Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, appendix II, p.142.)

Matter has no intrinsic properties. Charge, momentum, mass come from the dynamic interaction of spacetime at any scale. At the Planck scale, "With a large number of a quanta a vector field can be composed that differs little from the one we presume for radiation." (Development of our conception of the nature and constitution of radiation)

Einstein is consistent; "There is no space empty of field." No discontinuity.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other.

"This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought." (~ Einstein, Relativity and the Problem of Space, 1952)
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:Matter has no intrinsic properties. Charge, momentum, mass come from the dynamic interaction of spacetime at any scale.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. If matter has no intrinsic properties, then how come we can distinguish it from spacetime?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Matter has no intrinsic properties. Charge, momentum, mass come from the dynamic interaction of spacetime at any scale.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. If matter has no intrinsic properties, then how come we can distinguish it from spacetime?
.

We don't.

Instead of using the Newtonian concept (and the basis of Mach's mechanics) of "material points" Einstein formulates matter as a continuous field (" ... spaces in motion relatively to each other") and arrives at local self-similarity to a global creation event:

"The law of heat conduction is represented as a local relation (differential equation), which embraces all special cases of the conduction of heat. The temperature is here a simple example of the concept of field. This is a quantity (or a complex of quantities), which is a function of the co-ordinates and the time."
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Sure we do. There has to be some kind of properties of matter that keeps you from being sucked to the center of the earth.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Nope. Those are field properties.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

" ... a function of the co-ordinates and the time."
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:Nope. Those are field properties.

So what? Matter is quantum fields.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Nope. Those are field properties.

So what? Matter is quantum fields.

I don't know what that means.

A field is a continuum of influences, " ... a function of the coordinates and time". That's what I like about Joy's framework -- it speaks directly to the analytical nature of limit and function. It isn't matter that causes the "click" of detection; it's the limit of the function, which is always local.

You seem to be abandoning that approach in favor of interacting discrete quantities (quantum mechanics) without a function, without a limit, without a measure space, and which begs nonlocality. Einstein: " ... an attempt to breathe in empty space."

This is not directed at you, Fred -- I read or heard somewhere, of a professor who was confronted with a student's question of why, if an atom is mostly empty space, one's head doesn't just pass through a steel girder instead of bumping against it. The professor resisted the temptation to answer, "Because your head is even emptier than the steel beam" yet it's the right answer. Matter (mass) density isn't a property of matter -- what keeps you from being sucked to the center of the Earth -- it's a property of the spacetime field at the boundary of interaction. ("All physics is local.")

When you say matter is quantum fields, you obviate that the main characteristic of matter is oscillation -- that's the only way we know that matter exists. Not by a theoretically nonlocal quantum field. An oscillation that displaces spacetime locally, and does not disturb global evolution, is time-dilated in proportion to the kinetic momentum.

When we come up against Planck's constant as a limit of action, we give up time dilation (normalize it). There really isn't a good physical reason for the constant not to go to zero. I'm happy to take Einstein's view: " ... think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field".
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Hmm... I suppose you think there is something wrong with the Standard Model of Particle Physics. If so, what?

Planck's constant is needed so that matter will have an oscillatory property, $\omega = m c^2/\hbar$. That is actually something I left out as an intrinsic property of matter. Though not yet directly confirmed, it is widely believed to be true. Think of going around in a circle in a continuous fashion. Though it is probably more complicated than that.

Anyways, I doubt very much that singularities actually exist. It is just due in our minds to a lack of knowledge. If we are right that elementary particles are of size near the Planck length, then any non-locality is confined to that very small length. I don't have a problem with that.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Why don't you have a problem with that?

If non-locality is validated, quantum physics (and therefore the SM) is complete.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:Why don't you have a problem with that?

If non-locality is validated, quantum physics (and therefore the SM) is complete.

We are only talking about non-locality as far as very near Planck length. That is local enough for me. Which is good because I used to think non-locality was near the Compton wavelength of elementary particles. It is going to be a very long time before any non-locality is validated near the Planck length if ever.

Anyways, our theory does complete electrodynamics both quantum and classical. It is to be seen if it completes the entire Standard Model. And we are thinking that gravity remains classical. It may not need to be quantized.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

A little bit of non-locality? Sounds like a little bit pregnant.

If gravity remains classical, Planck's constant is zero.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

thray wrote:A little bit of non-locality? Sounds like a little bit pregnant.

If gravity remains classical, Planck's constant is zero.

Not necessarily. Let me refine that a bit. Long range gravity remains classical but the short range torsion part of gravity may not be.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09273

I suppose the big question is is spacetime quantized or not? Short range-- maybe yes. Long range-- maybe no.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:A little bit of non-locality? Sounds like a little bit pregnant.

If gravity remains classical, Planck's constant is zero.

Not necessarily. Let me refine that a bit. Long range gravity remains classical but the short range torsion part of gravity may not be.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09273

I suppose the big question is is spacetime quantized or not? Short range-- maybe yes. Long range-- maybe no.
.

An effective field theory with two kinds of curvature? Though this satisfies the topological twist (non-disappearing torsion) feature of Joy's framework it creates another problem:

It destroys the completeness of Joy's topological framework. The duality of translational with rotational curvature compels a dual source of gravity -- yet gravity is a one-way interaction of infinite field influence, the same for the EM field with two-way interaction. This squares with topological simple connectedness, and assures locality; i.e., the source of the two fields is the same point, which requires that Planck's constant be zero.

Think of the difference between Galilean transformation -- where time is the same for all observers -- and Lorentz transformation, where this is not necessarily true. Galilean transformation is an approximation of the Lorentz.

Because space is mostly Euclidean, length and time are preserved under uniform motion. This is the case with special relativity:

Relative observers imply pairwise correlation. In relative uniform motion, two observers both see each other’s clock running slower, compared to their local time. According to special relativity, each is correct. Each frame is valid. And all physics is local.

There is no place for even a little non-locality. By giving the Planck length a role in general relativity, Einstein inadvertently introduced the kind of non-locality that you're talking about -- and assured the incompleteness of any solution using the Planck term. Non-locality is an absolute -- as is locality. As is the speed of light constant.

There is a lot of power in Joy's finding; "... any free object is a boson, whereas any linked object is a fermion." Let's not destroy the beauty.
thray

Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

### Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

It is simple. Planck's constant goes to zero for spacetime but does not go to zero for matter-energy. The gravity torsion effect is equivalent to the spin density squared term in the Hehl-Datta equation which is a property of fermions. Not spacetime. Fermions are not going to exist without Planck's constant being part of it. The gravity torsion is not quite the same as the torsion in Joy's framework but may be related if in fact space has unique spinor properties.

It does not destroy Joy's topological framework at all since we are talking about different things here. Spacetime vs. matter.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

PreviousNext