Is space-time smooth or chunky?

Mar 5, 2020
418
75
760
This is just a story.

Think small, real small. The spatial volume of a proton. A proton is rock stable sitting there in space all by itself. Take a slightly larger neutron and it is not so stable, half life of a few minutes. The proton appears to be self-contained, in its own little world. What if that were exactly true? What if the proton existed in a one-unit volume of space-time?

I am going to call this one unit volume of space a QUT (quantum unit volume of time).

All particles with mass must generate a gravitational field (equivalent to displaced time). The quantum gravitational field is complicated to describe since it affects only the QUT that it is in direct contact with.

If the temporal gradient around a particle represents gravity then both gravity and time are very lumpy at the level of atomic nuclei. The temporal gradient around a particle might be a pattern rather than a gradient. One of the nuclear forces might actually be gravity at this level.

At some distance from a single particle or nucleus the r-squared law for gravitation will appear even if it is just an average of QUT at this radius/distance. It appears that energy has a distinct structure so that the idea of smooth atoms and particles hides more than it illuminates.

The QUT might be the reason that certain energy steps are allowed while other ones are not allowed under very specific conditions. Quties do not allow contradictions.

One of the problems for motion is the lumpiness of time or pixelated speed of gravity at this level. As a particle moves it’s inertial field might be limited to certain energies since the space around it only allows specific patterns to exist without causing some contradiction.

A single orbiting particle might encounter its own wake.

Some motions might have precedence over others like atomic shells. Atomic shells have electron pairs.

So we have the space around a nucleus where the flow of time (and speed of gravity) is irregular and probably has a pattern (not a gradient) representing the energy present. Since electrons have a specific inertial field pattern the space around the nucleus may not allow it to head straight for the proton. The electron literally cannot go there.
 
Apr 29, 2020
2
1
15
This article needed some better editing: First, the word NOT, was left out of this sentence: "But both of these views of space-time can be correct at the same time." Second, if someone is looking back 18 BILLION light years, we just found our next nobel prize winner. Ummm...NO, no one is looking back over 4 billion years before the big bang. And this isn't just a trite error, if the distance is 1.8 billion light years, then maybe looking back deeper would allow us to see the proposed frothiness. But if they are looking back 8 billion, probably are going to have to come up with another way to test this hypothesis. But in any event, NO ONE has looked back 18 billion light years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,197
839
2,560
Robby, I had to read this carefully. You are correct about the article comment and 18 billion LY. The abstract cited in the report says this, "In this paper, we use science verification observations obtained with ESPRESSO at the Very Large Telescope to place a novel bound on the growth of spacetime fluctuations. To achieve this, we directly measure the width of a narrow Fe II absorption line produced by a quiescent gas cloud at redshift z=2.34, corresponding to a comoving distance of ~5.8 Gpc. ", redshift z=2.34 can be calculated here, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html Using the first one, default settings, and flat, light time is some 10.886 billion LY, comoving distance is 18.723 billion LY (thus about 5.8 Gpc), that is where the object could be today vs. the look back light time distance for z=2.34 from Earth.

I get confused too on some of these reports so go back to the cosmology calculators to check and see what may be going on with different distances reported---Rod
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,197
839
2,560
FYI, the big lesson I learned here, some observations looking for quantum gravity did not confirm quantum gravity. This has been kicked around for a long time in efforts to reconcile QM with GR.--Rod
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Apr 29, 2020
2
1
15
Interesting Rod. I thought that was possibly the basis for the 18 billion. IMHO using the current position is bogus. How the galaxy is today is irrelevant to what they are trying to prove. What matters is how it was when the light left that galaxy. For one thing since the galaxy is impacting the light as it was less than 1 billion years post big bang, we are not going to be able to test using very much older galaxies. I assume, but do not know, that means seeing frothing space/time may be beyond our current limits.
 
Jan 2, 2020
12
5
515
...
What if the proton existed in a one-unit volume of space-time?
...
I don't think it does. There is a simple answer - not just at the scale of neutrons and protons but starting at the quantum limit. Above the quantum limit space time decoheres into two regions, the real which is space, and the non-real which is time. Below the quantum limit the metric of space (space-time) is different and allows totally curved geometries at much lower energy. (either through the geometry of a physical four-space or a reduced speed of light.) This quantum geometry allows all massed particles to be described directly as points of totally curved space time.

This idea has been partly described before under the name Newtonian Singularities, I came across the basic idea in Roger Penrose's book The Emperors New Mind..
The key to understanding why this is not already far better known is that it defines nuclear particles as point infinities.. and current mathematics does not allow infinities.
Or more precisely current mathematics does not work with infinities so it is commonly assumed that they do not exist. The more simple answer of course is that the current maths is wrong.
There is no direct proof of my idea at the present but it does allow the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics and offers basic tentative solutions to dark matter and to the Anthropic Question problem. If it was proved to would disprove the Relativity of Simultaneity and the idea of a General Time Dimension.
 
Last edited:
Apr 29, 2020
2
0
10
Since electrons have a specific inertial field pattern the space around the nucleus may not allow it to head straight for the proton. The electron literally cannot go there.
Ignoring all the nonsense math, I'll just point out that electrons can and do appear within the proton radius. This is measurable and well-established.
 
Apr 29, 2020
2
0
10
Above the quantum limit space time decoheres into two regions, the real which is space, and the non-real which is time. Below the quantum limit the metric of space (space-time) is different and allows totally curved geometries at much lower energy. (either through the geometry of a physical four-space or a reduced speed of light.) This quantum geometry allows all massed particles to be described directly as points of totally curved space time.
Spacetime does not "decohere" into space and time at any limit, either in GR or quantum physics, and particles are not accurately described as "points" in any sense of the word, much less "points of totally curved spacetime", whatever that means.

It's always frustrating to read comment sections on news articles for quantum physics. People who have no idea how any of this works think they can just invent terminology and math and be right. It's Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
 
Mar 5, 2020
418
75
760
Ignoring all the nonsense math, I'll just point out that electrons can and do appear within the proton radius. This is measurable and well-established. Trick Question

Can I change my answer to chunky with peanuts?
 
Dec 28, 2019
32
25
35
In my understanding, at the very smallest scale, spacetime is composed of 4-D "Planck bits". These are the Planck length cubed (to get the Planck volume) which is 4.22 x 10^-105 cubic meters (pretty small!) times the Planck time, which is the time it takes a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. (10^-43 seconds). Planck bits should really be the basis of a so-called "Theory of Everything" as they represent a quantization of spacetime at the very smallest possible scale, possibly providing the basis for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. Think of Planck bits as the "pixels of reality"....
 
Jan 2, 2020
12
5
515
..
It's always frustrating to read comment sections on news articles for quantum physics. People who have no idea how any of this works think they can just invent terminology and math and be right. It's Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
<<Content removed by moderator>> I describe a new solution and you complain that it doesn't appear in current existing theory.

A 'totally curved space time' is just a way of describing a place where time has stopped due to dilation - like the event horizon of a black hole..

As for nuclear particles not being point like you obviously didn't read or understand the rest of the post.

I know that professional physics is often a little like a cult or religion and the religious cannot tolerate doctrine being questioned or doubted. Everything I described is from a heretical model based on a first principles analysis of FTL physics and behaviour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
788
444
1,260
Civility and respect is a must for all members. Attack ideas, with facts, sources, and explanations, but DO NOT attack each other.

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jan 31, 2020
37
8
535
Ignoring all the nonsense math, I'll just point out that electrons can and do appear within the proton radius. This is measurable and well-established. Trick Question

Can I change my answer to chunky with peanuts?
OK, so I'm not the only person here who is suddenly thinking about peanut butter. :)
 
May 10, 2020
1
0
10
I think it's a grid with no wraps because of mass, and also the bending light is simply because of the sun's atmosphere, and i think it could be verified by creating a very strong source of light that can travel a long distance we will observe a bending in the light, the point of bending is the point where density of air changes
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY