When is analogy profound and worthy of extrapolation and when is it merely useful for illustration?
The universe possesses substance, that is not just in being occupied by stuff it is substantive even when not apparently filled with what we would term things. That is, it is permeated by all pervading fields, where the permeation is not through space but is part of the noun of space itself. Such mixing of nouns and verbs must lead us to some quantum entanglement! We will look at a couple of analogies in the following of our universe, from trying to get to grips with the "stuffness" of its space, through to the effects of its cooling through expansion. Analogies take us so far.
Curve space time could be modelled as sunbathed metal plate (whose inner portion is partially in shadow) in which rulers across its middle will be shorter than those on outside plainly an illustrative analogy. Is the use of geo-mechanical optics and Stationary Action Principles extended to all the fields of physics just as debatable?
Einstein's Cosmological constant (some read as dark Energy or the percolating vacuum) is to be thought of as the "substrate" (old aether) of space-time that physicists have appropriated from Biologists. It is all a bit "like", but that is the nature of the explanation game that is theoretical physics.
Growth Associated Protein
So with Michelson-Morley we used to think like Newton that stuff just sat in in a receptacle of space. Now like Leibnitz stuff resides (better word) within the stuff of space. I cannot get past the infinite regression of space having a stuffness.
To gravitational waves. That space-time can fluctuate (in time) seems too tautological to be a helpful description. Is this the limits of language or is this the essential ambiguity to be unpicked?
Related perhaps is the following ambiguity. Through the Equivalence principle Gravitationally induced acceleration can be equated to inertial acceleration (over limited space-time intervals). So just as in marketing where the "Hoover" is a generic (brand) being both a noun (a vacuum cleaner) and a verb (to vacuum) the gravitational field is both a temporally extended event and mediation stuff of exchange.
Strong and weak versions of the Equivalence principle do not distinguish between this mixed branding exercise.
The other three gauge (exchange force) fields can not be afforded such branding ambiguity unless we entertain motion in an internal space as real motion. Similarly are we not affording the vacuum a "generic" status: as a Hoover, it is both the arena and event of percolating creation and annihilation of fields of stuff.
By my reading, in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory space-time is just space in the era before inertial matter (particle era 10-3s?) appears as you require rest mass for time to tick. See E=hf=mc^2. Only when you have more than just light speed bosons knocking about defining causality, that is when stuff-laden fermions come into being does the clock really start to tock.
If the space is always stuff, its energy content needs to be all kinetic in these early moments (moment-less moments?) for the universe to start from the nascent zero Weyl (that is massless driven rather than Ricci-mass driven) Curvature that Penrose advocates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBfuAVBdcW0
Conformal, means ratios but not absolute lengths are measurable. Null light. Rays (of photons) demarcate the causal structure of space-time. They trace out timelessness.
The No hair theorem of Black Holes stylistically illustrated right:
That is Black Holes no matter how complex the processes were to make them can be quantified by the three moments (monopole and dipole of inertia-gravitation) momentum and angular momentum and (monopole) of electromagnetism. The Various routes to some convergent explanations are illustrated below, being mind map of Lee Smolin's book.
The conformal eras are the gravito-electromagnetic (massless) dominated eras. Perhaps these should be termed inertia-electromagnetic. That is given Einstein-equivalence principle we have emphasised gravitation (field) over inertia rather spuriously perhaps?
Finally then, if the universe is just freezing out its constituent forces by aligning itself along certain symmetries then when is the fifth force of modified gravity due to reveal itself?
In the above we see details of the standard epoch periods at which the decoupling occurs.
We have concrete data through CMBR of photon decoupling at 3000K (assuming spectral wave theory of atoms, redshift expansion etc of universe).
Another picture is that to the right:
We infer Cosmic neutrino Background coupling temperature (given neutrino notoriously weak interaction). Is there scope in the earliest epochs (as these are Energy regimes inaccessible to our accelerators) for further as yet unknown decoupling?
What is the post photon era that we live in now? Perhaps we could term it the gravitationally accrete fuse and excrete epoch or more catchily the "inertial matter epoch" when matter accumulated albeit transiently?
The universe possesses substance, that is not just in being occupied by stuff it is substantive even when not apparently filled with what we would term things. That is, it is permeated by all pervading fields, where the permeation is not through space but is part of the noun of space itself. Such mixing of nouns and verbs must lead us to some quantum entanglement! We will look at a couple of analogies in the following of our universe, from trying to get to grips with the "stuffness" of its space, through to the effects of its cooling through expansion. Analogies take us so far.
Curve space time could be modelled as sunbathed metal plate (whose inner portion is partially in shadow) in which rulers across its middle will be shorter than those on outside plainly an illustrative analogy. Is the use of geo-mechanical optics and Stationary Action Principles extended to all the fields of physics just as debatable?
From Aether to Percolating Vacuum to Super-fluid Substrate
Einstein's Cosmological constant (some read as dark Energy or the percolating vacuum) is to be thought of as the "substrate" (old aether) of space-time that physicists have appropriated from Biologists. It is all a bit "like", but that is the nature of the explanation game that is theoretical physics.
So with Michelson-Morley we used to think like Newton that stuff just sat in in a receptacle of space. Now like Leibnitz stuff resides (better word) within the stuff of space. I cannot get past the infinite regression of space having a stuffness.
To gravitational waves. That space-time can fluctuate (in time) seems too tautological to be a helpful description. Is this the limits of language or is this the essential ambiguity to be unpicked?
Related perhaps is the following ambiguity. Through the Equivalence principle Gravitationally induced acceleration can be equated to inertial acceleration (over limited space-time intervals). So just as in marketing where the "Hoover" is a generic (brand) being both a noun (a vacuum cleaner) and a verb (to vacuum) the gravitational field is both a temporally extended event and mediation stuff of exchange.
Strong and weak versions of the Equivalence principle do not distinguish between this mixed branding exercise.
By my reading, in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory space-time is just space in the era before inertial matter (particle era 10-3s?) appears as you require rest mass for time to tick. See E=hf=mc^2. Only when you have more than just light speed bosons knocking about defining causality, that is when stuff-laden fermions come into being does the clock really start to tock.
If the space is always stuff, its energy content needs to be all kinetic in these early moments (moment-less moments?) for the universe to start from the nascent zero Weyl (that is massless driven rather than Ricci-mass driven) Curvature that Penrose advocates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBfuAVBdcW0
Holograms and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
In Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology the universe oscillates between conformal "intervals" in which the energy of the universe is dominantly kinetic and "ratio" eras (like now) when it is dominantly inertia (rest-mass) dominated. The universe will cease once again to tick with the final Hawking pop of the last black hole radiated photon. Without matter you have no measure of time as E=hf and E=mc^2 tell us.Conformal, means ratios but not absolute lengths are measurable. Null light. Rays (of photons) demarcate the causal structure of space-time. They trace out timelessness.
The No hair theorem of Black Holes stylistically illustrated right:
That is Black Holes no matter how complex the processes were to make them can be quantified by the three moments (monopole and dipole of inertia-gravitation) momentum and angular momentum and (monopole) of electromagnetism. The Various routes to some convergent explanations are illustrated below, being mind map of Lee Smolin's book.
The conformal eras are the gravito-electromagnetic (massless) dominated eras. Perhaps these should be termed inertia-electromagnetic. That is given Einstein-equivalence principle we have emphasised gravitation (field) over inertia rather spuriously perhaps?
Finally then, if the universe is just freezing out its constituent forces by aligning itself along certain symmetries then when is the fifth force of modified gravity due to reveal itself?
In the above we see details of the standard epoch periods at which the decoupling occurs.
We have concrete data through CMBR of photon decoupling at 3000K (assuming spectral wave theory of atoms, redshift expansion etc of universe).
Another picture is that to the right:
We infer Cosmic neutrino Background coupling temperature (given neutrino notoriously weak interaction). Is there scope in the earliest epochs (as these are Energy regimes inaccessible to our accelerators) for further as yet unknown decoupling?
What is the post photon era that we live in now? Perhaps we could term it the gravitationally accrete fuse and excrete epoch or more catchily the "inertial matter epoch" when matter accumulated albeit transiently?
No comments:
Post a Comment