Sunday, April 22, 2007

Classical Unified Field Theory

This is for any folks at Cosmic Variance who might make their way here after my brief conversation with Mark:

Mark said:
As someone intimately acquainted with the Einstein static universe, I don’t see any relevance to the post at all

So I'm left with an argument from ignorance:

If I were to reply to Mark, I'd say this:
You would have to actually do what I said needs to be done, in order to see the relevance, Mark, because things work-out a bit differently when the background changes every time that you make a particle from the rarefied mass energy that IS Einstein's dark energy, but you can also get it from the first post on my blog, where you or anyone else that doesn't immediately qualify themselves as a crackpot is welcome to read and review all linked threads and comments before explaining to me why I should let this go, because nobody has ever given me any good reason to think that I should not do exactly what I do to provoke the justified look.

Somebody please take this to my blog and fix what is wrong with my observations. Course, you won't be the first physicist that will have to admit that the mechanism is already known to work in inflationary theories, so be prepared to do some *real* splainin... no handwaving allowed. Don't do what this guy did, in other words, or you have only proven that you don't have a clue what is being said and why. This guy's mistake is to assume that I haven't taken the well supported aspects quantum theory into account, so he'll never be able to realize that this, (still unchallenged physics), doesn't overturn anything that is right with quantum field theory, rather, it fills in the gap, and fixes what isn't right with gravity theory, albeit greatly simplified.



Which brings us to this:

What did Einstein do in the last thirty years of his career?

Einstein's "Wasted" Effort

When the equivalent of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism is formulated within the framework of Einstein's theory of general relativity, the electromagnetic field energy (being equivalent to mass as one would expect from Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2) contributes to the stress tensor and thus to the curvature of space-time, which is the general-relativistic representation of the gravitational field; or putting it another way, certain configurations of curved space-time incorporate effects of an electromagnetic field. This suggests that a purely geometric theory ought to treat these two fields as different aspects of the same basic phenomenon. However, ordinary Riemannian geometry is unable to describe the properties of the electromagnetic field as a purely geometric phenomenon.

Einstein tried to form a generalized theory of gravitation that would unify the gravitational and electromagnetic forces (and perhaps others), guided by a belief in a single origin for the entire set of physical laws. These attempts initially concentrated on additional geometric notions such as vierbeins and "distant parallelism", but eventually centered around treating both the metric tensor and the affine connection as fundamental fields. (Because they are not independent, the metric-affine theory was somewhat complicated.) In general relativity, these fields are symmetric (in the matrix sense), but since antisymmetry seemed essential for electromagnetism, the symmetry requirement was relaxed for one or both fields. Einstein's proposed unified-field equations (fundamental laws of physics) were generally derived from a variational principle expressed in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor for the presumed space-time manifold.

In field theories of this kind, particles appear as limited regions in space-time in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. Einstein and coworker Leopold Infeld managed to demonstrate that, in Einstein's ultimate theory of the unified field, true singularities of the field did have trajectories resembling point particles. However, singularities are places where the equations break down, and Einstein believed that in an ultimate theory the laws should apply everywhere, with particles being soliton-like solutions to the (highly nonlinear) field equations. Further, the large-scale topology of the universe should impose restrictions on the solutions, such as quantization or discrete symmetries.

Einstein became increasingly isolated in his research on a generalized theory of gravitation, and most physicists consider his attempts ultimately unsuccessful.

Eddington thought that the cosmological constant version of the general-relativistic field equation expressed the property that the universe was "self-gauging".

Eddington considered that in the Einstein field equations for general relativity the stress-energy tensor Tμν, which represents matter/energy, was merely provisional, and that in a truly unified theory the source term would automatically arise as some aspect of the free-space field equations. He also shared the hope that an improved fundamental theory would explain why the two elementary particles then known (proton and electron) have quite different masses.

See also; Gönner, 2005
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2&page=articlese6.html

Is it just a coincidence that all of the anthropic ecobalances that make-up the goldilocks enigma are also "self-regulating"... just like every other known ecosystem is?

Like the flatness of the universe, in Einstein's static model, G=0 when gravitational pressure is absolutely offset by negative vacuum pressure.

He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model because of the obvious fact that we do have matter, but in order to get rho>0 from Einstein's matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0, which causes expansion.

*Note that the mass-density of the background changes every time that you do this.

Einstein didn't introduce the counter-balancing cosmological constant with matter generation from the vacuum in mind, so he didn't like it, because without this knowledge he naturally concluded that it added an undesirable extra entity, so the logic that was used to reject the cosmological constant when it was discovered that the universe is expanding was sound in context with the knowledge of the time, but this is not the case given knowledge that the vacuum has real, massive, particle potential.

It is plainly evident from this that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein's model, ("the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity"), also holds it flat and stable, (it is "self-guaging"), so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review!

This does not conflict with quantum field theory. As with QFT, the normal distribution of energy does not contribute to particle creation. You have to condense or compress the energy down over a finite enough region of space to attain the matter density in before the virtual pair can be made real.

So where does it go from here?... if we are unable to disprove Einstein's finite closed spherical universe, given this "new-light" on the subject?... which no honest physicists has ever even tried to do, because they also recognize this as the same mechanism that gets used in modern inflationary models to generate mass at a great expense to negative pressure.

This physics predicts a higgs mechanism, but no higgs boson, which isn't to say that the playing field hasn't already been narrowed significantly in recent tests done by the smaller particle accelerators as the confidence level for this result climbs.

23 comments:

Rae Ann said...

The white font on black background really messes up my eyes, so I didn't read that entire post. Sorry, but here's a question anyway. Are you saying that the universe is still constantly generating matter? If so, how/where do you see that? It's an interesting thought and might seem compatible with some "intuitive" stuff, but I need some convincing and more thought.

island said...

Hi Rae Ann, and yes, that's what we do when we make particles in accelerators, and that's what happens when black holes generate "hawking radiation" and that's also what happens when stars blow up. The interesting difference, (physics-wise), is that we are, "pound-for-pound", a lot more energy-efficient at it.

The true cosmological model that is actually in effect makes all the difference in the world as to what this means.

I didn't realize that the font was a problem as nobody has ever said anything, and it isn't exactly white. I'm sorry that it bothers you and this makes me want to look into other options.

Rae Ann said...

Thanks for your answer. You don't have to change the font for my old eyes. Sorry, middle-age is creeping in. ;-) Some people need that high contrast (actually, probably a lot of people because that black background seems pretty popular), but I find it a little more painful than less contrast.

Anyway, are we actually 'creating' matter in the colliders or just changing energy into matter?

island said...

Hello again, Rae Ann, and that is a very good way of putting it!

But if vacuum energy is less dense than matter, then it has negative pressure and produces and antigravitational *effect*. This is the effect that one would normally expect from an antimatter particle, but that is not what is observed, and this makes for a fun puzzle to figure out why that would be, from what I've said, above... ;)

Go ahead, it's easy.

island said...

Okay, here's a hint:

If antimatter has negative pressure when it is less dense than matter, then what kind of gravitational effect does it produce when you "squish" a large enough amount of this rarefied energy down to the point that it has positive matter density over a given volume of space?

Positive or negative?

Rae Ann said...

Sorry, I've been real busy this week. Are you saying "antimatter" and vacuum energy are the same thing?

island said...

Yes, but I was trying to say it in a way that would enable you easily visualize how its creation causes the vacuum to expand.

Quantum mechanics predicts that virtual particle/antiparticle pairs can be created out of the vacuum. They can become real massive particles if they get enough energy. The prediction of their existence falls out of the Dirac Equation, but Einstein's model accounts for the negative energy states differently than modern quantum field theory does:

Once Upon a Spacetime

Rae Ann said...

You're going to tire of my ignorance. Wouldn't a particle and antiparticle 'cancel' each other out? Where does the energy come from that would allow them to become real massive particles?

island said...

No, I won't tire of your questions, as they are honest, and in the past I've said to you that I think that the questions that you ask are the best kind.

Now, when you say "cancel", yes, they would, but this occurs via particle annihlation. Annihilation occurs when a particle meets up with an antiparticle, and the "final state" of these interactions releases energy in the form of gamma ray photons.

That's where the energy comes from, (it requires a minimum of 1.22 MeV to make a real particle pair), and in the model that we are disscussing in this thread, this can only occur after enough "thinned-out" vaccum energy has been "compressed" down to the point that it achieves the matter density.

"Thinned-out" is a technical term for "rarefied"... ;)

The trick is to isolate enough energy to compress vacuum energy into virtual particles that can be made real, and black holes are predicted to do this on their event horizon. We do it in colliders, and Supernovae do this when they blow up.

Remember the model that we are discussing isn't "mainstream", even though it once was. My contention is that this makes it valid because the process resolves the problems that caused it to be abandoned.

Rae Ann said...

Thanks, I'll need to think on this some more. Probably will have other questions later... ;-)

island said...

I'm sure that there are many points thatI could be more clear on, and you are always welcome.

Look-up some of the stuff that we talked about if you really want to get a feel. The links at the bottom of the page that I previously recommended are highly reputable and excellent sources for easily understood explanations.

"Easily understood" can be misleading, so bear in mind that your level of "interest' makes perfect" Of course, Bee is also an excellent resource for information about this stuff, tho her theoretical approach is quite different.

Links are at bottom

Chris said...

This is fascinating stuff to me, although I find my astrophysical knowledge is full of gaps... I'm intrigued to hear you say 'no Higgs boson', simply because this is a prediction I made in my brief tenure as astrophysist! :) Although I lack your voluminous understanding of this field, I am grateful for your outpouring of perspective on it!

Best wishes!

island said...

Hi, and thank you very much, Chris, but I wouldn't call it "voluminous". More like, "specialized" toward the relevant point at hand.

I should have said, "maybe" no higgs boson, as there are interpretations of relativity that place it at about 170 GeV, so we'll see, but my understanding from this model is that particles get their mass directly from the vacuum. The high-energy interaction is only necessary to make the condensed mass-energy into a real particle pair, so there is no need for a higgs boson.

Thanks again for your comment.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong is that your favourite 'theory' in fact doesn't take into account many developments that occurred while Einstein was working on his theory - ergo, it's not exactly cutting edge.

Einstein's unified field theory was wrong. Get over it.

island said...

No, actually, the "developments" that you refer to didn't resolve a damned thing, and you still have no theory of quantum gravity 30 years after rationalizing the negative energy states into something that they are not.

You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing.

Sometimes physicists argue like young-earth creationists... ;)

The Gadfly said...

island,

You found your way into my blog on myspace.com a while back, and I am grateful that you did.

I am starting my own blog site under the domain bornagainatheist.com and I would love to have you as a contributing author.

island said...

Well, thank you, I'd like to help if I can, and I'll look for your site to open-up.

psybertron said...

Hi Island ... this may interest you.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261

Ian Glendinning

island said...

Hi Ian, and thanks, I have the book that came out in England first under the title, "The Goldilocks Enigma", which I've written about and highly recommend that you scroll down to.

Davies most recently has published an article in the New York Times that has everyone up in arms because he doen't know how to tell people that there is a most natural expectation for what the universe should look like that multiverses don't answer until we have a complete theory to justify this unprovable *belief*. Until then, your just practicing religion IF you believe in multiverses.

Davies can't seem to manage to leave the verbiage of the Templeton out of his writing... and that worries me.

Roger said...

You know, Island01, your ideas are interesting. But I think there's one lingering problem for you - not for your science, but for where you think the conclusions lead.

On your website you talk about how many scientists get up in arms over 'anthropic' coincidences, as they see it as providing concessions to creationists (I assume you place any theist under that label) and they simply can't abide that. This leads to their not considering explanations that include anthropic biases, even if there's good evidence for those explanations, and in spite of the fact that the evidence doesn't point at any designer.

Well, the last declaration is your problem. I'd argue that there can be no scientific question for or against design on the level we're discussing (the universe, all of existence) regardless of what model we're working with. If evidence pointed to the universe popping into existence entirely thousands of years ago, that itself wouldn't be enough to establish design or God. Maybe the universe just works that way. Even if you establish the universe was designed, it no more establishes God than the creation of a computer simulated world would. The fundamental grounding can always be some kind of brute force chance.

On the other hand, scientific evidence is only one kind. Philosophy and theology are their own spheres - and if the evidence pointed to a guiding anthropic principle in the universe, theists and deists and the rest would and could take that as evidence to rely on philosophically and theologically for their views. And atheists may well take it as evidence against their views, because even if there were other natural results to the universe under such a given scenario aside from carbon-based and intelligent life.

I guess what I'm saying is, you chide other scientists for ignoring (in your view) strong possibilities because they have cultural and personal distaste for what those possibilities lend credence to. But then you turn around and say, but wait, they DON'T lend credence to those views after all. Isn't the best response to say that not only are those possibilities strong, but they may well give credence to a view they and you dislike - not decisively, not without argument, but still some - but that shouldn't matter anyway?

island said...

If my physics is the reality, then the universe is like a ball that rolls forever downhill trying to make itself perfectly round.

The goal of this is absolute balanced symmetry between gravity and the vacuum, but this can never be attained due to an inherent imbalance that drives the process in the direction of reconciliation.

Consequently, there is no beginning nor end to this process, and the anthropic principle is just the thermodynamic mechanism that enables the universe to "evolve" to higher orders of entropic efficiency, so how do you find god in that?

Rossmcp said...

'What did Einstein do in the last thirty years of his life?"

I don't quite know what he did but I can tell you what he didn't do - he didn't wear socks. That's a bit of biographical information I picked up somewhere. If he had worn socks, he would have been in some other universe, and maybe there he finally managed to find a unified theory.

My own feeling about gravity and quantum theory is this - they are two sides of the same coin. But I don't know if this means both sides are really heads, or both sides are really tails, or if each side must remain forever separate. If the meaning of Life is the search for meaning then maybe we are never meant to find out.

I wear socks, I just discovered your Blog and I've added it to my list. I'll probably restrict myself hereafter to silent reading.

island said...

Hi, and thanks for the comment.

I think that you're right if the creation of matter/antimatter pairs changes the gravity of the universe, as it does in Einstein's model.

It has to do with Dirac's failure to unify QM and GR as he had done with SR and QM, which can be done in this model, since the negative energy solutions carry real meaning in this finite model, except that mass isn't negative, it's just less dense than matter, and has negative pressure, so the vacuum mimics the negative mass solutions that fall out of his famous equation.

In other words, the vacuum is itself comprised of the same mass-energy that makes ordinary matter, except that it is rarefied or stretched-thin to less than the matter density, so it has negative pressure.

There are no super-symmetrical particles because of this, since you have to compress or condense the energy to attain the matter density before a particle becomes real, which further rarefies the mass energy that is the vacuum. This stretches the vacuum disproportionately.

The vacuum is the other side of the coin.

Please feel free to comment on anything that you find here, but the blog has been stagnate for a while, since I'm not sure what else to do except wait on the Large Hadron Collider.