In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Earlier this year, PhysOrg reported on a new idea that suggested that gravitational charges in the quantum vacuum could provide an alternative to dark matter. The idea rests on the hypothesis that particles and antiparticles have gravitational charges of opposite sign. As a consequence, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the quantum vacuum form gravitational dipoles (having both a positive and negative gravitational charge) that can interact with baryonic matter to produce phenomena usually attributed to dark matter. Although CERN physicist Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, who proposed the idea, mathematically demonstrated that these gravitational dipoles could explain the observed rotational curves of galaxies without dark matter in his initial study, he noted that much more work needed to be done.
Now with a new analysis, Hajdukovic has taken another step toward demonstrating the credibility of this idea by showing that the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum can explain four cosmological observations, only some of which can be explained by dark matter models or theories of modified gravity. In his paper, which was recently published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he starts off with some background information.
http://phys.org/news/2011-11-quantum-vacuum-dark.html
In The Quantum Vacuum, Peter Milonni describes the concept of the vacuum in quantum physics with an emphasis on quantum electrodynamics. He elucidates in depth and detail the role of the vacuum electromagnetic field in spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, van der Waals, and Casimir forces, and a variety of other phenomena, some of which are of technological as well as purely scientific importance.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Vacuum-Introduction-Electrodynamics/dp/0124980805
It is considerable that any imagination of space without gravity effect (or no graviton from quantum mechanical perspective), is away from the physical reality. So, this question is arised that what is the structure of quantum vacuum?
Dear Prof. Mohamed
So, if analyze quantum vacuum (as you have related it to multi fractal), then we should have a real model of universe.
I am not convinced Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is an eternal principle of physics. It is certainly a principle of modern and postmodern physics. I am convinced a contemporary physics without that principle is possible. I am going on that direction.
Dear Arno
Sorry, what you mean of "There is an ultimative 'it's not knowable' out there..."?
Dear Daniele
I agree with you. In addion, I am convinced without useing uncertainty principle we are able describe modern physics better and reality. I think limit of speed c, and uncertainty principle obstacle to a better understanding nature of physics.
Dear Arno
I agree with you about multiple fractal, but my problem is description of the mechanism of quantum vacuum that is beyond of multiple fractal. Best Regards
Dear Prof. Javedi,
I think there is a necessary condition in the existence of quantum vacuum space which is the interaction of space flow and time flow. If you can characterise that then you can String Theoretically explain quantum vacuum but for that factorisation you will need an explanation in terms of special relativity (under experimental conditions) or general relativity (in Minkowski space say) to explain the interaction picture. In that sense vacuum is how you define vacuum. I hope I could shed some light. SKM QC FEPS(D)
Dear Soumitra
I agree with you that we "will need an explanation in terms of special relativity (under experimental conditions) or general relativity (in Minkowski space say) to explain the interaction picture."
Here arise the problems of modern physics that theories at the quantum scales have been discontinued. Therefore we should pass through the quantum scales and review phenomena at the sub quantum levels. The question is where to enter the sub quantum levels? Answer is; open a new window for massive photons. The reason this answer is that although there are theoretical reasons to accept that the photon is a massless particle. The massless particle is an assumption, also a long series of very different experiments lead to the current experimental upper bound on the photon mass greater than zero. In this article, we analyzed that c is the edge of visible and invisible particles such as virtual photons and graviton. It leads us passing the real spacetime and enter into the virtual spacetime and describe interactions between real spacetime and virtual spacetime and reach to non-obvious space. For more detail please see following article;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub
Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How is it explainable? If a charged particle as a generator has an output known as a virtual photon, what will be its input?
Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy. If the zero point energy in space (vacuum) exists, how can we explain the zero-point energy without using the uncertainty principle?
In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume. There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons, photon or quarks, which have no internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure. According to the quantum mechanics that photon is an unstructured particle, how can we explain the relationship between the photon energy and frequency, and also pair production and decay?
QED rests on the idea that charged particles (e.g., electrons and positrons) interact by emitting and absorbing photons, the particles of light that transmit electromagnetic forces. These photons are virtual; that is, they cannot be seen or detected in any way because their existence violates the conservation of energy and momentum. If the electromagnetic field is defined in terms of the force on a charged particle, then it is tempting to say that the field itself consists of photons which cause a force on a charged particle by being absorbed by it or simply colliding with it - as in the Photo-electric effect. The electric repulsion between two electrons could then be understood as follows: One electron emits a photon and recoils; the second electron absorbs the photon and acquires its momentum. Clearly the recoil of the first electron and the impact of the second electron with the photon drive the electrons away from each other. So much for repulsive forces. How can attraction be represented in this way? The uncertainty principle makes this possible. The attraction between an electron and a positron may be described as follows: the electron emits a photon with momentum directed away from the positron and thus recoils towards the positron. This entails a degree of definiteness in the momentum of the photon. There must be a corresponding uncertainty in its position - it could be on the other side of the positron so that it can hit it and knock it towards the electron. Is there a way to explain virtual photon (in fact interaction between charged particles) without using the uncertainly principle?
The Big Bang Theory does not address what happened before or at the instant of extreme expansion. The Big Bang addresses only events in micro, micro seconds after the Big Bang. Dr. Eric Verlinde, professor of physics and string theory at the University of Amsterdam and Princeton, says:
"It is illogical to think there was nothing and then it exploded. We use concepts like time and space, but we don’t really understand what this means microscopically. I think we will figure out that what we thought was the Big Bang was actually a different kind of event. Or maybe that we should not think that the universe really began at a particular moment and that there’s another way to describe that. In short, the universe originated from something, not from nothing. There was something there. It has something to do with dark energy and how that is related to dark matter. If we understand the equations for those components of our universe, I think we’ll also have a better understanding of how the universe began. I think it’s all about the interplay between these different forms of energy and matter. The whole idea of an expanding universe that started with a big explosion will change. You need to describe more than just the matter particles. You need to know more about what space/time is. All these things have to come together in order to be able to explain the Big Bang."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.particlecentral.com/mysteries_page.html
Only moving photon has mass as follows from the Einstein formula E=mc^2. Physicists have not stopped on assumption of massless. There are more attempts were made to clarify the photon massless in theoretical and experimental physics. There are good theoretical reasons to believe that the photon mass should be exactly zero, there is no experimental proof of this belief. These efforts show there is an upper bound on the photon mass, although the amount is very small, but not zero. The tight experimental upper bound of the photon mass restricts the kinematically allowed final states of photon decay to the lightest neutrino and/or particles beyond the Standard Model. Theories and experiments have not limited to photons and graviton will also be included. For gravity there have been vigorous debates about even the concept of graviton rest mass.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub
Massless photon is an assumption only.
Griffiths, D. (2008). Introduction to elementary particles: John Wiley & Sons pages 80-95
After 1906 Einstein have derived the second postulate of special relativity the constancy of the speed of light by assuming that the light quanta that he proposed in 1905 were massless particles.
Field, J. (2014). Einstein and Planck on mass-energy equivalence in 1905-06: a modern perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.8507
De Broglie believed that the photon has a mass
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-333/aflb333m497.pdf
De Broglie noticed that photon mass would lead to a faster speed of violet light than that of the red one.
L. de Broglie, La mechanique ondulatoire du photon. Une nouvelle theorie de la lumiere, tome premier, Paris, 1940, pp. 39, 40.
There is an upper bound on the photon mass, although the amount is very small, but not zero.
Heeck, J. (2013). How stable is the photon? Physical review letters, 111(2), 021801
Theories and experiments have not limited to photons and graviton will also be included. For gravity there have been vigorous debates about even the concept of graviton rest mass;
Goldhaber, A. S., & Nieto, M. M. (2010). Photon and graviton mass limits. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(1), 939
A nonzero graviton mass would upset this remarkable agreement altering the predicted orbital decay, implying an upper limit on the graviton mass.
L. S. Finn and P. J. Sutton, “Bounding the mass of the graviton using binary pulsar observations,” Physical Review D, vol. 65, no. 4, Article ID 044022, 2002.
There is a link between the cosmological constant and the graviton mass.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/718251/
Graviton production through photon-quark scattering at the LHC
Phys. Rev. D 91, 035017 - 2015
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.035017
Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
Suppose graviton exists, If this attitude be able resolve the unanswered physics problems and works well, then we should accept that graviton exists, and it is an alternative for theory of everything. So please see following articles:
Modern physics; problems and solutions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280150715_Modern_physics_problems_and_solutions?ev=prf_pub
Unified Force, Energy and Mass
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280626794_Unified_Force_Energy_and_Mass?ev=prf_pub
Graviton and Newton's second law
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279185909_Graviton_and_Newton%27s_second_law?ev=prf_pub
Graviton and virtual photons
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub
Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub
Graviton: physical time and thermodynamics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279531060_Graviton_physical_time_and_thermodynamics?ev=prf_pub
Graviton: Virtual photon and Quantum Chromodynamics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280113834_Graviton_Virtual_photon_and_Quantum_Chromodynamics?ev=prf_pub
Article Modern physics; problems and solutions
Article Unified Force, Energy and Mass
Article Graviton and Newton's second law
Article Graviton and virtual photons
Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang
Article Graviton: physical time and thermodynamics
Article Graviton: Virtual photon and Quantum Chromodynamics
Dear Hossein, let we have to answer confusion of contents that is typical of postmodern physics with the clearness. It is manifest that we can associate photon with a virtual equivalent mass but real physical nature of photon is the energy quantum. For instance in modern and postmodern physics the dualism wave-corpuscle is in use but it is manifest that we cannot say an elementary particle is at the same time wave and corpuscle or alternatively it is a wave or a corpuscle according to our expediences. It seems to me you are inclined to consider all particles are massive. I think there are whether massive particles or energy particles and they represent two separate physical realities.
With regard to gravitons, as you just affirm, they are a hypothesis and I will consider them when they will be a physical reality. From the theoretical viewpoint I don' t understand from what that hypothesis derives. After having reduced mechanics and optics to electromagnetism now postmodern physics intends to riduce also gravity to electromagnetism, but all those reductions look at a great theory of unification that has no physical meaning because in nature luckily exist different realities: mass, charge, energy quantum, temperature, continuous energy, ordinary bodies, elementary particles, cosmological systems, etc..... The purpose of unifying all those physical realities will be the last act of science and I don't think it is time now for that unification. We have to understand before still many basic concepts.
Dear Daniele
You have noted some important concepts in post modern physics, according to old theories you are right and I will not disagree with.
About concept of particle
Generally, we have almost the same understanding and imagination of large objects (at the level of molecules and larger). But in the case of subatomic particles, there is no clearly defined and visualized concept, and there are many uncertainties, especially in the case of photon and graviton. Therefore, any theory offers certain understanding (such as loop and string) of these particles. In discussion with my dear friend Daniel, I enjoyed his imagination. He wrote; "...since I consider gravity to be a localized phenomenon with rapid attenuation and to be a space deformation like the rubber sheet of Einstein, I maintain that gravitons are not particles -- indeed, I believe all bosons are a wavelike field phenomena. Even Higgs never proposed a Higgs particle -- he proposed the Higgs Field that "clusters" many wavelets to a denser state. He was a Field Theorist as I am. To me all is field and condensed energy moving wavelets at different frequencies."
Daniel Remy Elec. Eng., Physicist, MBA, Principal Physicist at ALPHA-OMEGA PHYSICS RESEARCH
However, I have used the particles word for graviton and photon without any imagination of them.
Rest mass
As we know, some particles such as photons are never seen at rest in any reference frame. So, there are two kinds of particles in physics;
A. Some particles like the photon move only with the speed of light c, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles the NR particles or Never at Rest condition particles.
B. Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v
In my opinion, beyond the layer of zero point energy there are layers of more subtle materials which can be compared to materials of which the mind is made up, materials of which human thoughts are made up, materials which are responsible for the existence of human itelligence, materials that cause love and hate relationship between persons. All these are distinct functions and no body can deny their existence at the same time it is not possible for human to detect them with their apparatus. These are very subtle energies. And beyond these layers of subtle energies there is a fundamental layer which is perfectly motionless and has a zero mass gap. Zero point energy has a non-zero mass gap. This motionless layer could not be called energy. When this motionless layer begins to move then it becomes energy. The motionless layer is the most subtle of all and does not interact with any energy.
Dear Vikram
"This motionless layer could not be called energy." In my theory, there is not any motionless physical being in the universe, but some of physical being appears when they goes from virtual spacetime to real spacetime. For more detail pleas see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub
"...materials of which the mind is made up, " There is a considerable likeness between your opinion and Roger Penrose theory about "Neuroscience". See:
Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html
and
http://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html
Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
In my personal research I want to close the analysis there because I am thinking of Econophysics Machines or Machine Systems like Digital Stock Exchanges or Digital Libraries (publications on my RG page) or Digital Coal Stock Markets. Now I am thinking in terms of Digital Industrial Design Engineering. All could be summarised in some ways by Econophysics of ECommerce. I am in my twenty third year of Academic Service, although my first publication was in 1987 as a term paper at Columbia Business School for Finance Prof. Gur Huberman's course on various methods of monetary and non monetary incentives on the shop floor with respect to percentage of machine utilisation and the nature of the simple two by two noncooperative Game. It was found that nonmonetary performance levels can be used as a dynamically consistent Nash Equilibrium incentive scheme. I think since then I have designed time consistent industrial strategies which in my publications in 2014 I have proved have quantum continuum mechanical String Theoretic explanation in Information Meanfields which can be constructed using General Relativity and Fractal Geometric Factorisation which together give rise to Systems Classification Theorem and Systems Integration Theorem in Stock Exchanges or Digital Asset Econophysics Spaces. I think that is a self contained and fundamental research programme with some new field which is very much applied mainly to Developing or Emerging countries but of course globally networked. Thanks for your correspondence, it has been very helpful.SKM PhD QC FEPS(D)
Dear Hossein Javadi
What is not energy, could not be physical. Therfore what is motionless is not a physical being. My views and that of Roger Penrose are not the same. Penrose holds the view given in (A) below.
(A) Consciousness is not an independent quality but arose as a natural evolutionary consequence of the biological adaptation of brains and nervous systems.
My view is given in (B) below.
(B) Consciousness has always been in the universe. (It is not a quality.)
Penrose articles that you mentioned deals mainly with the materials of the brain, not of the mind. Penrose accepts that the mechanism by which the brain produces consciousness remains mysterious. In my theory brain (matter) cannot produce consciousness. It is the motionless spirit behind the mind which makes the mind conscious. When the mind detach from this all pervasive spirit, it becomes unconscious. Brain is only a box for housing the mind.
Once I attended a seminar by Prof. Padmanabhan and at the end of the seminar I asked him, how do you explain the presence of consciousness all around us. He said, I cannot answer your question because there are no mathematical equations to deal with the consciousness. Then I asked him, you explained about all the energies that got released during the big bang. Where did all these energies come from. He said sum total of the energies of the universe have always been zero. He was referring to the zero energy universe theory upon which General Relativity is built. This requires creation of poitive and negative energy in equal qantity. Negative energy is the gravitational potential energy which resides in the space-time fabric. The ripples in this negative energy is suppose to generate the gravitational waves which have not been found so far. So there is no evidence for the negative energy or space-time fabric. So here we see that physicists have no answer for the origin of the energy and the existence of consciousness. This is exactly what my theory explains. The article given below explains that there is a perfectly motionless field underlying the entire universe which is of the nature of pure consciousness (Spirit). This field is implanted in the (spiritual) hearts of all beings. When this spirit begins to move, it becomes energy. And when energy stops moving it becomes Spirit again. Neither Spirit nor energy can ever be destroyed.
Article Unified field of consciousness
Dear Vikram
"Consciousness has always been in the universe. (It is not a quality.)" I do not know.
"Penrose articles that you mentioned deals mainly with the materials of the brain, not of the mind." I have read it, I have not any opinion about it.
You have written in your article: "The cause of the rst motion is the force of Will associated with ufc, which itself does not have any other cause."
I my theory, graviton moves with constant amount of speed and its energy remains constant. Energy is formed of gravitons and no time passes for graviton. But everything behaves as a clock. In fact everything is a clock. A photon, an electron, an atom, earth, galaxy and even the visible universe, each one is a clock. Everything has a starting point in space with its lifetime. So, in general form everything is a space-time.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279531060_Graviton_physical_time_and_thermodynamics?ev=prf_pub
"Everything in the universe with one exception is a form of energy. The exception is consciousness." Might be right or wrong, I do not know.
You have written in your book: "In this case the space-time continuum connecting two points gets completely obliterated and the resulting sub-quantic medium resembles a singularity. Such a singularity suggests an equilibrated state of primal energy devoid of ripples which we shall call the unmanifest." Is it an interpretation?
Cosmology attempts to describe the behavior of the entire universe using these physical laws. In applying these laws to the universe one immediately encounters a problem. What is the initial state that the laws should be applied to? In practice, cosmologists tend to work backwards by using the observed properties of the universe now to understand what it was like at earlier times. This approach has proved very successful. However it has led cosmologists back to the question of the initial conditions.
According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity (with infinite density and zero volume). Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang. Despite its successes, the standard big bang theory was too simple to be complete. The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history. My question is, if the universe collapses, will it reach to infinite density and zero volume? Or is there a force that will counteract it? That I have answered in this paper, according to reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law, the Big Bang is explained. Regarding the sub quantum energy, the Friedmann equation is reviewed.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub
Article Graviton: physical time and thermodynamics
Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang
Dear Arno:
If Vacuum isn't energy then what is it that fluctuates? There is no such thing as perfect vacuum. Vacuum is filled with zero point energy. Energies have boundaries which make them physical and within the domain of space-time. What is not energy, does not have a boundary and is beyond the domain of space-time. What is not physical can be spiritual but not nothing.
"Consciousness has always been in the universe. (It is not a quality.)" I do not know.
A person has to keep on working in this world till he knows with the first hand experience. Krishna knows, Sankaracharya knows, Ramakrishna knows, Ramana Maharshi knows, Moses and Jesus knows.There are so many who know with their first hand experience. When this knowledge is acquired, there is no more rebirth.
In my theory gravitational waves cannot exist.
____the unmanifest." Is it an interpretation?
This point is further developed in the article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology, wherein at planck length (or planck time) the particle wavelength crosses the limit of Compton wavelength and thus collapses and ceases to be a wave therefore has a zero mass gap. This is a step beyond zero point energy which has a non zero mass gap. Zero mass gap can occur only at wavelengths smaller than planck length. This state is described as the unmanifest.
My question is, if the universe collapses, will it reach to infinite density and zero volume? Or is there a force that will counteract it?
General relativity fails at Planck time (10^(-43) sec.) and Planck length (10^(-35)m.). This is the point at which my theory Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology proposes the transformation of energy to the unmanifest. Therefore universe does not reach zero volume or a geometrical sigularity. The Unmanifest is beyond space-time.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
Dear Vikram
You have written: "What is not energy, does not have a boundary and is beyond the domain of space-time."
Virtual space-time is beyond the space-time.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270339919_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub
You have written: "My question is, if the universe collapses, will it reach to infinite density and zero volume? Or is there a force that will counteract it?"
In my theory, Newton's second law counteracts with gravitational law, and it explodes again.
For long time seemed the Friedmann equation is able to explain universe, but in recent years, the cosmological constant was of interest to cosmologists. However, these two equations are unable to explain before the Big Bang. Thus this paper, from a new approach, turns out to merge the fundamental principles of quantum physics, relativity and classical mechanics through a new definition of rest state of particles like photon, and attempts to present the reasons and the possibilities of the existence of the superluminal speeds. So according to this new view some complex concepts and unanswered questions is explained in this paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264810425_Beyond_the_Modern_Physics_and_Cosmological_Equations?ev=prf_pub
Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
Article Beyond the Modern Physics and Cosmological Equations
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics