If it is true that space-time is expanding, how does the measure of space-time change?
The shape of space-time is the shape of the universe; how can expansion without a boundary be called expansion? If the boundary of spacetime is the boundary of the universe, can spacetime expansion with a boundary have no background? How is the boundary maintained? If the boundary of spacetime is infinite, how does it expand?
We will use these paired terms to describe spacetime: infinite/finite, absolute/relative*, flat/curved, continuous/discrete, four-dimensional†/higher-dimensional, and so on. Normally we think of these properties as opposites ‡ and only one or the other can be chosen. But the full range of properties of spacetime will be combinations between these different properties. For example, spacetime has infinite, absolute, continuous, flat, four-dimensional properties, or spacetime has finite, discrete properties, etc. In any case, none of us thinks that there is a concept of "multiple spacetimes", or that spacetime should have its own background, or that spacetime can overlap, although physics suggests that there may be local "warps" in spacetime.
Astronomical observations show that the universe is in a process of accelerated expansion [1][2][3], with all stars moving away at an accelerated rate and possibly never returning. Physics attributes the expansion of space-time to the presence of dark energy with negative pressure [4]. Dark energy has been hypothesized in various ways (including non-existence), one of which is the cosmological constant Λ in Einstein's field equations (the zero-point radiation of space [5], the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy [6]).
Physics has not exactly explained the exact relationship between spacetime and the various fields assumed by the Standard Model [7], but only assumes the existence of vacuum energy [8][6], and is not sure which field's vacuum energy it is, whether it is the electromagnetic field, the electron field, the muon field, or the up-quark field, the charm-quark field, the Higgs field [9], or just the sum of their respective vacuum energies. So when it is assumed that space-time is expanding, and vacuum energy is expanding, are they created in it, or are they diffused across the boundary? Are they the driving force or the result? How do they manifest within microscopic particles when expanding at high speeds on the macroscopic scale?
Physics does not explain the origin of the dynamics of the Big Bang, nor does it explain when and how all the various fields in the Standard Model were formed, how they were formed, how they were maintained in existence, and how they evolved along with, or determined, the evolution of the Universe throughout the entire evolution of the Universe from the Big Bang onward. It is not clear how the various particles were excited initially from their own fields, but the explanation of nucleosynthesis [10] to the current period is relatively clear.
Usually we think of the universe as a set of space-time and matter-energy. There are many different models of the universe, and in addition to the Standard Model, there are many cyclic universes and multiverse views [11][15]. Then, when we haven't confirmed the model of the universe, there is no confirmed goal of the evolution of the universe, and there is no confirmed shape and boundary of the universe.
Both Einstein and Hawking say that the universe is "finite and unbounded" [12]. They believe that the universe is a finite three-dimensional sphere with a finite volume but no boundary. Topological theory says, "The boundary of a region has no boundary itself. "** [13]. Wheeler's statement is, "The boundary of a boundary is zero" [14]. What is the result of the infinite extension of the three orthogonal coordinate axes for a finite three-dimensional spherical universe?
Mathematically, there are four combinations between measures and boundaries: finite bounded, infinite unbounded, finite unbounded, and infinite bounded. The first two concepts are clear, but the latter two need to be recognized carefully when translated to physics. The "singularity" is a typical example of an "infinite bounded". Usually in physics, when time or space shrinks to zero, the corresponding physical quantity tends to infinity. For example, E=hν, when ν→0; F=q1*q2/r^2, when r→0. However, we believe that this is only a trend and that there can be no state that reaches a singularity. Therefore, "infinitely bounded" is not real. The Koch Curve, often thought of as a fractal geometry expressing "finite unbounded", is one of the nth iterations of the Koch snowflake that can be implemented in the Wolfram Language as KochCurve[n]¶. The difference between physical reality and mathematics can be shown here, as n cannot be chosen to be infinite, so the Koch Curve will always be in a definite state in reality, and although it can evolve, "finite and unbounded" is a tendency, not a state. The formulation of the Mobius strip††, the irrational numbers, is another way of saying "finite unbounded". In physics, a typical example of "finite unbounded" is the electron. The electron has a fixed charge e, but the boundary of the electric field E of the charge extends infinitely (the field strength is convergent). Of course, the concept of zero-dimensional "point particles" is also a kind of abstract "finite unbounded". In short, in physical terms, finite must have boundaries.
General relativity is the basis for modeling the universe, but is there any good reason why we should be able to determine the evolutionary goals of the universe, its shape, and its boundaries through general relativity alone? Shouldn't such boundaries be "boundary conditions" of GR?
There should not be any boundary conditions, which are the conditions necessary for the model of the universe to hold correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
Notes
* cf, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373877548_Convergent_and_Disperse_Cyclic_Multiverse_Model_CDCMM.
† cf, https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Can_This_Be_an_Argument_for_3-D_Space;
‡ As long as we do not have a precise definition of spacetime, viewing these properties as opposites can only be taken for granted. As with the wave-particle duality of particles, which property is presented depends on the observer's perspective; the structure of the particle itself does not change. Further characterizations of spacetime include whether it is inherently existent or generative, whether the vacuum contains energy, and so on.
¶ https:// mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html; Stephen Wolfram, Founder of Wolfram Language, is very interested in the question of the evolution of the universe, and is the author of the book "a new kind of science", which has been trying to find out how the universe evolves using metacellular automata.
** e.g. the two-dimensional region has as its boundary a one-dimensional loop; the loop has no end, that is, it has no boundary itself.
†† The Möbius strip is bounded as long as one does not confuse metrics with boundaries.
------------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Linder, E.V., Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Physical Review Letters, 2003. 90(9): p. 091301.
[2] Riess, A.G., The expansion of the Universe is faster than expected. Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. 2(1): p. 10-12.
[3] Freedman, W.L., The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe. Physics Reports, 2000. 333: p. 13-31.
[4] "Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration." from https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/.
[5] Oks, E. (2021). "Brief review of recent advances in understanding dark matter and dark energy." New Astronomy Reviews 93: 101632.
[6] Carroll, S. M., W. H. Press and E. L. Turner (1992). "The cosmological constant." Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 30: 499-542.
[7] Group, P. D., P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky and E. Pianori (2020). "Review of particle physics." Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020(8): 083C001.
[8] Jaffe, R. L. (2005). "Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum." Physical Review D 72(2): 021301.
[9] Springer (2020). 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment.
[10] Cyburt, R. H., B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T.-H. Yeh (2016). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status." Reviews of Modern Physics 88(1): 015004.
[11] Carr, B. and G. Ellis (2008). "Universe or multiverse?" Astronomy & Geophysics 49(2): 2.29-22.33.
[12] Hawking, S. W. and M. Jackson (2001). A brief history of time, Bantam Books New York.
[13] Yang, C. N. (1980). "Einstein's impact on theoretical physics." Physics Today 33(6): 42-49.
[14] Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler (2017). GRAVITATION, Princoten University Press.
[15] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373877548_Convergent_and_Disperse_Cyclic_Multiverse_Model_CDCMM.
Dear Chian Fan.
I think it would not be entirely correct to talk about the beginning or origin of the Universe, its end or boundaries. We do not have reliable experimental facts for this.
All we can talk about more or less confidently is the part of the Universe that we see. That is some rather large, but still local area of something much larger. And we are very interested in how this area is structured or what it is made of, what interactions exist between its individual elements, even very large ones, if we consider them separately. Large objects, composed of a huge number of constituent (elementary) particles, make one want to consider them classically. In particular, rely on the model of four-dimensional space-time using Einstein's general relativity. But such an approach may turn out to be a big mistake, since it is clear that all interactions arise (have a cause) at the micro level, and considering only the classical or asymptotic result of these interactions is like throwing out soapy water without seeing the child in it.
It seems that, having the Standard Model at our disposal, we already know everything or almost everything about the interaction of elementary particles at the micro level. But this too may turn out to be misleading. And not because the Standard Model is bad, but because it gives a very one-sided and therefore limited view of elementary particles and their interactions. A view based on the idea of the uniqueness of four-dimensional space-time for everything in the world and the consistent divisibility of material particles up to quarks. Although it may turn out that the electron is already in some sense a composite, but indivisible particle. Which has not only charge, mass and spin (its own rotation), but turns out to be inextricably linked with the quantum of magnetic flux, its own magnetic moment and (gravitational) bends the surrounding space. And the surrounding space in which photons propagate freely may not be the only one. The electrons themselves, as well as the protons and neutrons from which the nuclei of atoms are made, may turn out to be (excited) elements of a completely different space. We should not close our eyes to this possibility if we want to understand how the piece of the Universe we observe works.
It may turn out that considering separately the elements of extended space and separately the elements of time, nevertheless rigidly interconnected by quanta of action, will help to understand how the region of the Universe we observe actually works and what the mysterious dark matter and dark energy are.
Sincerely yours, Mikhail Dulin.
Dear Mikhail N Dulin
You are right. This is a topic that involves so many unknown issues that it is really difficult to focus on.
My intention was just to find agreement on the spacetime measure. there should be common ground on the Length Contraction and Time Dilation of SR, the curvature of GR, and the behavior of spacetime expansion.
There are some issues where our perceptions may differ. Firstly I believe that spacetime is unique and so is its manifestation. Secondly, since the spacetime field is a dynamical field, it has an " strength " just like the electromagnetic field. I think this strength is its " measure " which must be exhibited，and in GR it is actually a special case of " curvature ". This curvature is similar to the bending that light exhibits in a gravitational field.
There are too many questions, need to be debated, to be understood step by step, and slowly. I added a subheading to the question to focus it.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
The answer to the main question is affirmative: Spacetime expansion is spacetime creation. And understanding that comes from the study of Einstein's equations.
Dear Chian Fan
We cannot measure spacetime, we can only measure the mutual relations between the detectable/observable phenomena in the universe. Thus spacetime is a theoretical construct, a model. It cannot elucidate why the speed of light is a constant and the origin of the quantum of energy. Although the model relies heavily on these 2 universal constants.
The new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is so successful that the Standard Cosmological Model (lambdaCDM) has to be revised because the evolution of the universe must be different from what the model predicted (even astrophysics is in trouble).
For example, the Hubble constant is verified and the so called “expansion” of space is limited to vacuum space in between the large scale structures in the universe. Actually the proportions of the voids in between these large scale structures are increasing. That means that galaxies and clusters of galaxies are drifting apart under influence of one or more quantum fields. Simply because spacetime as a model that “creates” the gravitational influence cannot be responsible.
Although I haven’t yet read papers about the consequences, it is simple to understand that the proposed cause behind the non-Doppler redshift of the light of distant galaxies cannot have a direct relation with the increase of the distance between the large scale structures during the evolution of the universe. One more reason that disproves spacetime as an accurate representation of physical reality.
The site phys.org shows every day a description and a link to new papers of a number of scientific branches, inclusive Physics and Astronomy & Space. You can find there a lot of information about the results of the new JWST observations.
With kind regards, Sydney
“……This is a topic that involves so many unknown issues that it is really difficult to focus on…”
- yeah the topic addresses to really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case to “Matter”– and so to everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental issue, the result completely logically inevitably is nothing else than transcendent/mystic something, i.e. “that it is really difficult to focus on” – really that isn’t difficult, in the mainstream that is, again, fundamentally impossible.
. All these phenomena/notions can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
So to
“…..My intention was just to find agreement on the spacetime measure. there should be common ground on the Length Contraction and Time Dilation of SR, the curvature of GR, and the behavior of spacetime expansion….”
- really actualizations in concrete informational system “Matter” of absolutely fundamental phenomena “Space” and “Time” as concrete Matter’s space/time/spacetime, fundamentally haven’t some “own measure”, and if there is only one object and only one change happened, it is principally impossible to state that object has come concrete length and change happened in some concrete time interval values, only relative comparisons are possible, in Matter/physics – comparisons with space and time etalons.
There cannot be fundamentally any really scientific grounds for Length Contraction [more correctly just in the SR “Space Contraction”] and Time Dilation of SR, and the curvature of GR,
- that, as that is rigorously scientifically proven in the SS&VT conception and models above, is fundamentally impossible, really only lengths of moving concrete real bodies are contracted, and intrinsic processes in such bodies are really slowed down;
- while spacetime expansion is fundamentally impossible. Matter’s [as that rigorously shown in the SS&VT model above] fundamentally absolute, fundamentally continuous, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), fundamentally appeared just at creation of first FLE of Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]; as fundamentally infinite “empty container”; the lattice at the “inflation epoch” was first time spread/ “expanded” in which.
“…..There are some issues where our perceptions may differ. Firstly I believe that spacetime is unique and so is its manifestation…”
- that is correct, and so principally contradicts with the SR;
“….Secondly, since the spacetime field is a dynamical field, it has an " strength " just like the electromagnetic field. I think this strength is its " measure " which must be exhibited，and in GR it is actually a special case of " curvature "…”
- there cannot be fundamentally any “spacetime fields” and any spacetime “curvatures”.
Etc.; more see the linked above papers, where all issues in the thread topic really are scientifically rigorously, clearly, and substantively, clarified.
Cheers,
Dear Stam Nicolis
Thanks for bringing the mainstream physics perspective, however Spacetime creation gives us some new questions. Does the new spacetime contain energy-momentum? Is this part of the energy-momentum a diffusion of the energy-momentum contained in the original spacetime? Or is it new? Should spacetime expansion manifest itself as cosmic-wide gravitational waves?
The Einstein field equation can't be wrong, but our interpretation of it, and whether we need to set boundary conditions and whether there is a Λ, may need to be discussed.
My personal opinion is that as long as it's energy it will interact and transform. Dark energy either doesn't exist or has the same properties as other energy and momentum.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm
Thank you for bringing new information. I need to pay attention to new astronomical observations.
You are right, we cannot measure space-time. But we need to choose a being that can exist without having to explain origins.
It is a joy to share any new discovery, any new perspective.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Я приветствую Вас всех. Я заранее прошу прощения, если я в чем-то не совсем прав, я - практик и привык связывать факты по их взаимодействию и применять обычные простые физические аксиомы.
Случайно моя работа в этой области пересекается с вопросом, который Вы обсуждаете.
Куда пришла энергия снаружи, она в конце-концов выделится там же.
Так энергия взаимодействия гравитационной связи блока Земной коры с Луной и Солнцем выделяет резонанс и расходящуюся первичную волну. Волна (гравитационная и сейсмическая) расходится во все стороны до тех пор, пока идет резонанс. Объем пространства в котором (как в упругой резине) собирается и сохраняется полученная энергия увеличивается с длительностью процесса. Сама первичная энергия зависит от фиксированных (с небольшими девиациями) факторов и размер дискретно (а не непрерывно) увеличивается пока идет резонанс.
Скорость процесса постоянная и потому энергия связана с временем первичного процесса.
Когда резонанс кончается и возникает обратная волна (кольцевая, сходящаяся) - мы часто видим сложение волн (стоячую волну). Фронт волны кольцевой и действие схождения заканчивается выделением энергии там же, где был резонанс.
Константа скорости связывает пространство, энергию (и впоследствии - магнитуду) и время между резонансом и коллапсом (гравитационным взрывом, как это определял и Евгений Барковский). Константа - 100 км/час =/- 10% - девиации по физическим причинам.
Обратное пребразование возвращающейся волны энергия, выделяющаяся пропорционально связи времени, объема пространства, выделяемой энергии (магнитуды).
Dear Chian Fan
There's no such notion as ``mainstream physics''-there's only physics, which is the mathematically consistent description of natural phenomena.
Regarding energy and momentum: In curved spacetime energy and momentum aren't well-defined notions, because translations in time and space-which is what lead to the definition of energy and momentum-aren't globally defined. So the answers to your questions are all, in fact, No. Energy and momentum can be unambiguously defined in a reference frame that's approximately flat.
Regarding Einstein's equations-of course boundary conditions must be imposed and they are imposed. For describing cosmology the boundary conditions are, typically, radiative. It is possible to impose different boundary conditions and compare the results with observations.
While it was thought that including the cosmological constant was optional, it turns out that it is mandatory-the only question is its sign and its value. For a long time it was thought to vanish and a lot of effort went into trying to describe this. In 1998 it was finally possible to measure its value that turned out to be non-zero and positive. What matters is that the cosmological constant is the only term, besides the Ricci scalar, that it is possible to include in the Einstein-Hilbert action.
I greet you all. I apologize in advance if I am not entirely right about something, I am a practitioner and am used to connecting facts by their interaction and applying ordinary simple physical axioms.
By chance, my work in this area intersects with the issue you are discussing.
Where the energy came from outside, it will eventually be released there.
Thus, the energy of interaction of the gravitational connection of the block of the Earth’s crust with the Moon and the Sun releases a resonance and a diverging primary wave. The wave (gravitational and seismic) diverges in all directions as long as there is resonance. The volume of space in which (as in elastic rubber) the resulting energy is collected and stored increases with the duration of the process. The primary energy itself depends on fixed (with small deviations) factors and the size increases discretely (and not continuously) while resonance occurs.
The speed of the process is constant and therefore the energy is related to the time of the primary process.
When the resonance ends and a backward wave (ring, converging) appears, we often see the addition of waves (standing wave). The wave front is circular and the convergence action ends with the release of energy in the same place where the resonance occurred.
The rate constant connects space, energy (and subsequently magnitude) and time between resonance and collapse (gravitational explosion, as defined by Evgeniy Barkovsky). Constant - 100 km/h =/- 10% - deviations due to physical reasons.
Reverse transformation of the returning wave is energy released in proportion to the connection of time, volume of space, released energy (magnitude).
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Chian Fan,
Without spacetime expansion,as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, atoms and galaxies wouldn't have been formed or created. More details by Professor and Nobel Prize Laureate Frank Wilczek in this short YouTube video https://youtu.be/gt4g1ND_two?si=vNIFGYNt3khe5tvO
Nota Bene:The Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 will be announced on Tuesday 3 October,so stay tuned.
Dear Chian Fan.
I know at least one work by Lipovka, A.A. (2017) Physics on the Adiabatically Changed Finslerian Manifold and Cosmology. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 5, 582-595 (https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2017.53050), in which the microstates of the surrounding space is associated with the observed expansion of the Universe, that is, its macrostate. In this work, the measure of space is the action, and the quantum of action h is an adiabatic invariant. Under this condition, the author manages to calculate with good accuracy the value of the quantum of action (Planck’s constant) based on the expansion of the Universe from the measured values of the cosmological constant Λ and the Hubble constant H.
Based on this work, I can draw two very important and interesting conclusions:
• the surrounding space consists of action quanta h;
• expansion of space can occur due to increase in the number of action quanta h in it, appearing as a result of radiation from stars or other processes occurring inside them, when elements of space inside stars turn into elements of surrounding space.
True, the author himself makes a slightly different and opposite conclusion, that a change in the cosmological constant, if it ever happens, should lead to the change in value of the quantum of action. But that is his right.
Sincerely yours, Mikhail Dulin.
The really scientific answer to the thread question is in the SS post on page 1.
“…Einstein's field equations with the cosmological constant as a parameter demonstrate the conservation law of total energy, momentum and stress in GR. ….”
- yeah, the really completely arbitrary “cosmological constant”, which sometimes appeared and disappeared in the GR equations, can conserve arbitrary, including any fantastic, energy, momentum and stress in GR.
More see the SS post above; SS posts at least on page 5 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force/5are relevant in this case.
Cheers,
In my opinion Stam Nicolis is correct. There is no “tangible” relation between Einstein’s spacetime and the 2 universal conservation laws (energy and momentum). Spacetime isn’t measurable, only the phenomena like particles and their mutual relations.
The 2 universal conservation laws are about the continuous changes within the electromagnetic field and matter is part of it (E = m c2). If we want to prove that the curvature of space is part of the 2 universal conservation laws, we have to show that gravity is an emergent effect that is created by the electromagnetic field. But if we can prove it, Einstein’s model of spacetime is obsolete.
The problem is that Einstein's spacetime doesn’t represent the whole volume of the universe. It isn’t even “the background” of the universe. The “background” are the basic quantum fields because “the curvature of space itself” only emerges at the moment the electromagnetic field creates matter.
The universe and spacetime are not equal, although Einstein's use of the basic terms "space" and "time" suggests that spacetime is the "fabric" of the universe.
With kind regards, Sydney
It's useful to avoid misunderstanding: In curved spacetime there do exist conservation laws for energy and momentum, only these are local, not global, as they are in flat spacetime.
Spacetime isn't measurable, in the sense that the spacetime interval between two events isn't invariant under diffeomorphisms. Therefore to define what spacetime expansion (or contraction) means and what it means that it's accelerating (the cosmological constant is positive), the rate of expansion is constant (the cosmological constant is zero) or that the cosmological constant is negative requires some care.
To better understand the issues, the files prepared for the announcement of the Nobel Prize for 2011 might be useful, namely, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf and https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2019/05/popular-physicsprize2011.pdf
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev discovered the connection between time and energy when he sat (or lay) without outer clothing on the cement floor of a prison cell as punishment. The punishment cell has no roof - you can see the sky. The temperature exceeded -35 degrees Celsius (frost). He stayed in this state for more than a day and came out alive and without a cold. He began to analyze why he did not freeze and where the energy came from.
Many consider this mystic. But in 2000, in Yekaterinburg, I accidentally intercepted the transmission of Kozyrev’s mirrors from Novosibirsk to Taimyr. I see that he is right, his discoveries are real.
Николай Александрович Козырев открыл связь между временем и энергией, когда он без верхней одежды сидел (или лежал) на цементном полу карцера тюрьмы в наказание за то, что у него украли телогрейку. У карцера нет крыши - видно небо. Температура превышала -35 градусов Цельсия (мороз). Он больше суток находился в таком состоянии и вышел живым и не простуженным. Он начал анализировать: почему он не замерз и откуда пришла энергия.
Многие считают это мистикой. Но я в 2000 году случайно в Екатеринбурге перехватил передачу "зеркал Козырева из Новосибирска на Таймыр. Я вижу, что он прав, его открытия - реальны.
Time is created during the decay of mass. Its structural information becomes time. Just as there is an energy and mass equivalent, there is an information and time equivalent. The universe must become lighter with its age.
Presentation The world formula
Dear Stam Nicolis
The statement about mainstream physics is making me feel embarrassed about myself. In any case, thanks to mainstream physicists for providing and emphasizing the mainstream view. I have always believed that it is extremely dangerous to completely dismiss the basic view that mainstream physics has affirmed. However, it should be beneficial if we make some new attempts, new interpretations, on the basis of this foundation, as a further exploration.
I have made a new explanation of space-time bending in the following question, please criticize it.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_5-Is_the_space-time_metric_related_to_the_graviton；
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Mikhail N Dulin
You provide a good perspective.
“Under this condition, the author manages to calculate with good accuracy the value of the quantum of action (Planck’s constant) based on the expansion of the Universe from the measured values of the cosmological constant Λ and the Hubble constant H.”But how do we determine which constant is the cause and which constant is the result here? I think that h is a more fundamental physical quantity than Λ and H. Does this question need to be reconsidered?
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan.
I agree with you that h is a more fundamental physical quantity than Λ and H. But Lipovka has an opposite opinion. This unfortunately happens to good scientists.
Planck for a long time considered the radiation from the walls of the cavity in the black body model to be discrete, but rejected the discreteness of the EM field inside this cavity. Einstein corrected the situation by defending the quantum nature of light in his works.
Dirac was wrong in interpreting the negative energy of the relativistic electron in his equation.
There was a time when Feynman solved electrodynamics problems using negative time.
But time put everything in its place. Now we can only smile over past mistakes.)
Sincerely yours, Mikhail Dulin.
Dear @Chian Fan,
The qualifier ``mainstream" doesn't make sense for the technical content of physics, only for the sociological aspects: It does make sense when referring to what topics or directions ``most" people study, or how many papers are written about some topic-the topic on which the most papers are written,can be considered a proxy for the ``mainstream".
New efforts are being made all the time. Thanks for the link, I'll follow it up :)
Hi Gang: "The shape of space-time is the shape of the universe; how can expansion without a boundary be called expansion?" 1) By increasing the area of two discs embedded in a 2D plane. So that when you sail your ship off the edge of one disc, you appear inside the other disc, and don't sail off the edge of the Earth. 2) By increasing the volume inside two spheres, that when you fly your spaceship through the wall of one sphere, you reappear inside the volume of the second sphere because the 3D space of the universe has NO boundary. This flatting and embedding of the disjoint unions of two spaces works in 5D and 6D, but in 4D the number of disjoint unions is NOT finite. Welcome to the multi-verse. Article An infinite set of exotic $\mathbf{R}^4$'s
- Badges
- Science topic