Czes-Arivero discussion re Compton wavelength and new Smolin paper

[marcus]

Czes discussion re Compton wavelength and new Smolin paper

These are posts from the bibliography thread (which has enough to do just listing the new papers, without discussing them )

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3668
Newtonian gravity in loop quantum gravity
Lee Smolin
16 pages
(Submitted on 20 Jan 2010)
"We apply a recent argument of Verlinde to loop quantum gravity, to conclude that Newton's law of gravity emerges in an appropriate limit and setting. This is possible because the relationship between area and entropy is realized in loop quantum gravity when boundaries are imposed on a quantum spacetime."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3668
Newtonian gravity in loop quantum gravity
Lee Smolin
16 pages...

Have you seen that I wrote the same 2 days earlier (18 Jan) but without high mathematic ?
They start to use Compton wave length but still do calculate by Shannon entropy using Boltzmann constant. Compton wave length does it much easier.

Compton wave length? Do you mean the the radius for a Newtonian gravitational orbit around a body of mass M to sweep one Planck Area in one unit of Planck time? :tongue2:

 

[czes]

As I wrote the Compton wave length is not appreciated. It is in Schroedinger equation though obscured but seen in Klein-Gordon and Dirac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

According to non-locality of the quantum information it might be non-local too. If it is non-local (due to experiments verifying Bell's inequality it has to be) the information about the Compton wave length has to be distributed inversely proportional to the squared distance from the source of the oscillation. Therefore we have a quantum vacuum network made of the information due to Compton wave length.
Here is the background independent Loop Quantum Gravity.

We can't observe an information alone. It is always relative to another information. There ian't quantum jump and perfect empty space doesn't exist. Therefore what we observe as a vacuum it is a set of interacticng informations (cross product). Here we may use a vector field as in Moffad http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0412/0412195v3.pdf

This cross product f(x)*f(y) is essentialy deterministic because f(x) and f(y) don't collapse like in Copenhagen f(x)^2. The distribution is depending on infinity many factors like in Bohm-de Broglie hypothesis but the wave function don't vanish. According to the conservation of the quantum information (Decoherence approach) the superposition remains and goes away into the environment.

The cross product needs absorber and emiter in each point of the space. Therefore the interaction of the wave functions create an atemporal standing wave due to Compton wave length. This is the double quantum loop of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.
Therefore the vacuum is created by tension between interacting virtual particles-antiparticles.

The fundamental quantum information would be then an information due to Compton wave length. Two particles remains at rest if the distance measured by an amount of the information in that system remains the same. The distance is relative and it is human's perception. The space is a product of the information it is created by information. Smolin wrote about it.

If we have a subset of the particles the information content would be equal a sum of the Compton wave lengthes. The average number for each particle would be radius of the sphere around a subset divided by Compton wave length for one quantum loop. For double loop it is R/2 L = R/h/2*2 pi mc = 4 pi mc R /h
As I deduce of the relation (Planck length)^2 / Compton length(1)*(2) = alfa* F(grav)/F(em) each interaction (standing wave, virtual particle-antiparticle) causes a constant Planck's time dilation and length contraction (frozen length).
To create a space under a sphere one needs to supply N=M/m particles with 4 pi mc R/h information per particle. The interaction (cross product of two double loops ) creates a contraction equal (Planck's length)^2 = hG/c^3.
For a stationary Black Hole the maximum frozen are is equal a surface of the Black Hole with a radius R.
When (M/m) (2*2*2 pi mc R/h) (Gh/c^3) = 4 pi R^2
we have M/c^2 = R/2G

Smolin wrote in conclusion about Compton wave length as a measure of inertial mass.
I think the Compton wave length may be used directly as measure of the information instead of the information as a logarithmic function of the temperature and statistic.

I am sorry for my English. My native language is that of Lewandowski's.
I am not a professional physicist but I noticed the Loop Quantum Gravity has an experimental confirmation in the modern quantum information. The Cramer's Transactional Interpretation can make some problems easier using quantum standing waves as a product of wave functions.
Some calculations seem primitive but they show interesting properties.

 

[Fra]

We can't observe an information alone. It is always relative to another information.

Agreed.

I guess some debate is wether we need a classical context to relate to or not. Current QM, is described in that sense. That's why something isnt' right to me.

But this is where the observer and screen comes in. The information in the environment, is related (measured) relative the observers own coded information. Which in turn determin it's actions, and expectations on actions of the environment.

Further predictions, means IMO we need to solve the coupled system of interaction and evolving observers. The classical structures should of course emerge, but the understanding of the holographic stuff can't depend on that. It would not make much sense to me.

/Fredrik

 

[arivero]

As I deduce of the relation
(Planck length)^2 / Compton length(1)*(2) = alfa* F(grav)/F(em)

each interaction (standing wave, virtual particle-antiparticle) causes a constant Planck's time dilation and length contraction (frozen length).

I am sorry for my English. My native language is that of Lewandowski's.

And it is clear that he does not need to use TeX neither. Btw, they are rumours that he could play in my local football team, Real Zaragoza.

Notation aside, I think that you are reading a lot from this equality. Now, the "alfa" of an interaction as electromagnetism has a very good interpretation in relativity: it is the maximum angular momentum for a bound particle, measured in units of h. Or, the same, the momentum for a bounded orbit of radius near to zero. Perhaps it could be of some use to you, there. No idea. Really I do not like the looks of the equation.

 

[czes]

And it is clear that he does not need to use TeX neither. Btw, they are rumours that he could play in my local football team, Real Zaragoza.

Notation aside, I think that you are reading a lot from this equality. Now, the "alfa" of an interaction as electromagnetism has a very good interpretation in relativity: it is the maximum angular momentum for a bound particle, measured in units of h. Or, the same, the momentum for a bounded orbit of radius near to zero. Perhaps it could be of some use to you, there. No idea. Really I do not like the looks of the equation.

I searched the relation : gravitational/Electromagnetic interaction and I found that relation is equal Planck length/Compton length(1) x Planck Length/Compton length(2) x 1/fine structure const.
Planck length^2=hG/c^3
Compton length = h/mc
alfa = ke^2/hc
It is a simple equation but is suggests that the relation gravity/em has something to do with a space curvature and vacuum.
There is a cross product in that equation and it sugests a tension causing such a curvature. I refer it to the vacuum energy. Therefore I suppose the space as a medium is created of vacuum.We measure the speed of light in vacuum, isn't it ?
Why there is fine structure constant alfa in the equation ? I don't know. Without alfa it would be not true. May be it is a correction in the spatial transformation of the charge ?

Anyway this equation shows a quantum vacuum network build on Compton wave length contracted of the Planck length. The preal particle is a knot where the virtual particle-antiparticle come in and out decreasing an uncertainty of the particle due to number of the entangled information.

 

[czes]

Agreed.

I guess some debate is wether we need a classical context to relate to or not. Current QM, is described in that sense. That's why something isnt' right to me.

But this is where the observer and screen comes in. The information in the environment, is related (measured) relative the observers own coded information. Which in turn determin it's actions, and expectations on actions of the environment.

Further predictions, means IMO we need to solve the coupled system of interaction and evolving observers. The classical structures should of course emerge, but the understanding of the holographic stuff can't depend on that. It would not make much sense to me.

/Fredrik

The relation between quantum and classical world is not clear now. There are many experiments in physics, biology and psychology showing a connection between them. For example :
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Arndt2009a%20HFSPJ%20Quantum%20Bio%20Printed.pdf
I suppose our reality and material world is at least buil of the quantum information.

 

[arivero]

I searched the relation : gravitational/Electromagnetic interaction and I found that relation is equal Planck length/Compton length(1) x Planck Length/Compton length(2) x 1/fine structure const.
Planck length^2=hG/c^3
Compton length = h/mc
alfa = ke^2/hc

Thanks. It is obvious. Good for you, to know to keep the algebra without losing factors. But to me, that equation (better, this tautology) does not suggest the strong emotions you have. Different artistic sensibility, I suppose. TO me it is just that, the quotient between gravitational/Electromagnetic forces for a pair of particles of unit charge.

Consider the same equation ((where, by the way, you are asking unit charge for both particles... at the same price, you could also ask m(1)=m(2) and then avoid the (1) and (2) indexes)) for muons. And now for tau. And now for an electron and a tau. It is always true, always the same shape, and still different values of Compton lengths and forces.

If your feelings are just that Compton length is a best measure rod for gravity, discard electricity in the equation and you will still show it. If you were aiming to a pure relation between electromagnetism and gravity, well, generations disprove it, but anyway it is not derived from that formula.

 

[czes]

Thanks. It is obvious. Good for you, to know to keep the algebra without losing factors. But to me, that equation (better, this tautology) does not suggest the strong emotions you have. Different artistic sensibility, I suppose. TO me it is just that, the quotient between gravitational/Electromagnetic forces for a pair of particles of unit charge.

Consider the same equation ((where, by the way, you are asking unit charge for both particles... at the same price, you could also ask m(1)=m(2) and then avoid the (1) and (2) indexes)) for muons. And now for tau. And now for an electron and a tau. It is always true, always the same shape, and still different values of Compton lengths and forces.

If your feelings are just that Compton length is a best measure rod for gravity, discard electricity in the equation and you will still show it. If you were aiming to a pure relation between electromagnetism and gravity, well, generations disprove it, but anyway it is not derived from that formula.

This formula is a tautology rather than an equation, I agree.
For example a neutron as a neutral particle is gravitationally attractive. Nevertheless each particle beside a neutrino is build of charged quark. An electron has 1/2 spin an needs 4 pi revolution to come back.
I guessed each oscillation of the particle causes a length contraction of Planck length and dilation of Planck time. If I use this asumption to geometry we get a space curvature like in Loop Quantum Gravity. Such a picture suggests a holografic structure of the information in our space.

 

[arivero]

I guessed each oscillation of the particle causes a length contraction of Planck length and dilation of Planck time. If I use this asumption to geometry we get a space curvature like in Loop Quantum Gravity. Such a picture suggests a holografic structure of the information in our space.

No. If you use XIXth century (well, early XXth) physics, do not expect to find things as LQG and holography. You can find important things, and by not finding them you show a disrespect by our grandfathers.

Note, Planck Units were already known in the XIXth, before Bohr quantum mechanics. So the formula you write could almost be written by our ancestors.

Historically, alpha took a little bit more, being a proposal of Sommerfeld about 1916, (or 1926... my memory is not so strong).

From the reasoning about time and space dilatations along an interacting orbit, it was the way for De Broglie to find and understand the wave corpuscle thing. Note that you need the wave formulation to see a length out of a mass. So you are basically discovering this. Or you could have discovered it, were not contamined (you) by modern buzzwords.

So yes, it is not bad to put everything as lenghts and then to apply relativity. It is even didactical, and you can always check the ancients (most of it in german, no english, by the way. And perhaps some of it even in Polish) to see how near or far you are.

 

[czes]

No. If you use XIXth century (well, early XXth) physics, do not expect to find things as LQG and holography. You can find important things, and by not finding them you show a disrespect by our grandfathers.

Note, Planck Units were already known in the XIXth, before Bohr quantum mechanics. So the formula you write could almost be written by our ancestors.

Historically, alpha took a little bit more, being a proposal of Sommerfeld about 1916, (or 1926... my memory is not so strong).

From the reasoning about time and space dilatations along an interacting orbit, it was the way for De Broglie to find and understand the wave corpuscle thing. Note that you need the wave formulation to see a length out of a mass. So you are basically discovering this. Or you could have discovered it, were not contamined (you) by modern buzzwords.

So yes, it is not bad to put everything as lenghts and then to apply relativity. It is even didactical, and you can always check the ancients (most of it in german, no english, by the way. And perhaps some of it even in Polish) to see how near or far you are.

I don't calculate with a XIX century luminoforous aether. My calculations are based on Schrodinger's wave function and Compton wave length. According to non-locality of the quantum information I assume the information of the Compton wave length is non-local and its distribution would be with a probability inversely proportional to the squared distance from a source of the oscillation.
We observe the quantum vacuum fluctuation and the interaction of the particles with the virtual particles-antiparticles from the vacuum.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
The particle oscillate because it absorbs and emits the virtual particles from vacuum. The process is proportional to the density of the virtual particles-antiparticles. Zero point energy is based on that idea.
http://ldolphin.org/zpe.html
Perhaps the inertia is because of the interaction with the vacuum.
http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html
My assumption is that the quantum interactions create a quantum chain like a Loop Quntum Gravity where the Compton wave length is a parameter of its structure and we may calculate the amount of the information due to number of the Compton wave lengthes between particles.

There are two assumption in my idea:
1. The information of the Compton wave length is nonlocal
2. The potential gravitational energy is due to number of the Compton wave lengthes between particles.

 

[arivero]

My calculations are based on Schrodinger's wave function and Compton wave length

No, Your calculations are based on Planck units. The paper on Planck units was published in the last decade of the XIXth century.

Sorry if you interpreted my remark as despective. My point is that our forefathers did a good work and it is good to follow about their lines and reproducing or paying homagge to their thinking. I was alerting against the use of words as "holographic" or "mtheroy" or whatever, just for the sake of it. It is as laymen using "energy" as a mystical word. Not useful here.

It is true you are using compton lenght, but more as De Broglie used it, as I have told you. And it is false that you are using Schroedinger, as you are not solving differential equations. You are probably nearer of Sommerfeld.

 

[czes]

It is good to discuss with you. I am learning a lot.
I defend my idea that the information of the Compton wave length is non-local and its distribution is inversely proportional to the squared distance from an oscillation source. It creates a lattice background space for all interactions.
It is a scalar-vector or scalar-tensor theory proposed earlier by Jordan , Brans and Dicke.
JBD-type theories with short-ranged scalar fields use, according to Yukawa's theory, massive scalar fields. The first of this theories was proposed by A. Zee 1979. He proposed a Broken-Symmetric Theory of Gravitation, combining the idea of Brans and Dicke with the one of Symmetry Breakdown, which is essential within the Standard Model SM of elementary particles, where the so called Symmetry Breakdown leads to mass generation (as a consequence of particles interacting with the Higgs field). Zee proposed the Higgs field of SM as scalar field and so the Higgs field to generate the gravitational constant.

"The interaction of the Higgs field with the particles that achieve mass through it is short-ranged (i.e. of Yukawa-type) and gravitational-like (one can get a Poisson equation from it), even within SM, so that Zee's idea was taken 1992 for a scalar-tensor theory with Higgs field as scalar field with Higgs mechanism. There, the massive scalar field couples to the masses, which are at the same time the source of the scalar Higgs field, which generates the mass of the elementary particles through Symmetry Breakdown). For vanishing scalar field, this theories usually go through to standard General Relativity and because of the nature of the massive field, it is possible for such theories that the parameter of the scalar field (the coupling constant) does not have to be as high as in standard JBD theories. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar-tensor_theory
My idea holds the constant G (Newton gravitational const.) and shows a possibility of the existence of the massive quantum field due to interaction of the non-local information. The interaction is a vector causing a tension and I join it to virtual particle-antiparticle of the vacuum.
The vacuum (interacting informations) is a scalar field of the potential energy and its gradient shows a curvature of the space and fictitious gravitational force.
Therefore bosons (photon) are vectors fields in the vacuum not a scalar.
The Planck units are here as dilaton scalar fields creating the curvature of the space.

The calculations are here very simple and for not ideal point-like rest mass object the distribution of the virtual particles-antiparticles may vary and need use tensors. Nevertheless when I use Compton wave length and Planck length it shows a picture where the space is a backgroun network of the interacting non-local information (virtual particle-antiparticle) and it creates a non-local vacuum energy which has its own mass.

The holografic principle is here proven direct using the Compton wave as the fundamental quantum information.

 

[czes]

Why Smolin accepted a squared Planck length as a unit for an entropy on a Black Hole surface ?

In my idea it is 4 Planck length squared:
Each oscillation causes a Planck length contraction and a fermion (1/2 spin) has to do 2 oscillation so it needs 2 Plack length.
According to my trivial equation
L(p)/L(1) * L(p)/L(2) - alfa F(g)/F(em)
Therefore for one Compton wave length we need 4 squared Plack length.
Using Compton wave length it is very easy to calculate entropy on the surface of the system.