Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum (with general carp)

  1. Jan 6, 2004 #1
    I have a few observations from my interactions on this site,not just from this latest post. (Please wait while I step onto my pedestal)

    I don't know if its noticed by anyone else but there seems to be a herd effect. The latest and greatest theories that the majority seem to follow often don't pass the smell test. In other words they don't pass the simple rule that, in general, the theory that is simplest (without being overly simple) and still accounts for observable test results will generally be the right one. The fact that a physicist doesn't always do this doesn't have to do with that person not being a qualified physicist but instead that they aren't using critical thinking facilities. Critical thinking isn't an automatic quality that physicists are taught and physicist often get carried away about an outlandish theory JUST because they can do the math and it works out. Physicist are no different in that respect than any other profession - if one has an expertise in a certain area (say math and the manipulation of equations) people want to apply that expertise to everything. In other words, physicists all too often forfeit using the principles of Achims Razor( sic). Just so people don't think I'm just coming out of the blue I'll go to specifics.

    Since the early 30s of the last century scientists have been discovering all the different particles by crashing particles together in accelerators. And in the process they've discovered the strong,weak, and electromagnetic particles. If I'm not mistaken I don't think they've ever discovered a graviton in all that time. I don't think they've ever discovered a gravity wave either. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in spite of that all theoretical physics today has the emphasis on validating gravity as a separate fundamental force and trying to integrate that fact with the other EXPERIMENTALLY VALIDATED particles.

    So in string theory since gravity can't be detected, well then, it must be that there are a bunch more dimensions and gravity isn't rooted in our dimension like the other forces and instead floats around from dimension to dimension. It sounds like horse puckey to me. Has anyone actually experimentally detected another dimension outside the space-time dimensions we already know. I don't think so. Its another example of using tortured logic in the face of unvalidated experimental results.

    I know that isn't proof that there is an "absence" of gravity as a fundamental force but on the other hand it indicates to me a "presumption" whenever a theory of gravity force separates itself from the other three forces. I think it's just too big an assumption given the experimental evidence, especially as opposed to the experimental evidence of the other three.

    Maybe the reason we haven't found gravity as a separate fundamental force experimentally is because it isn't one. Maybe gravity is just a byproduct of the quantum vacuum's interaction with matter. For some reason people have a hard time with this concept. Individuals can only speak for themselves but I've found many physicists would rather believe in 11 dimensions than to believe that gravity isn't a fundamental force. They would rather believe in 11 dimensions than that the quantum vacuum is real and not just a theoretical concept. Yet the quantum vacuum as a real thing originated from the very earliest work in quantum electrodynamics. And you can be relieved of some guilt - even those earliest pioneers couldn't quite believe it. But there have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. Is it possible that gravity is a side effect of the interaction of the quantum field with what would normally be called mass? I think so.

    The most recent experimental evidence comes from the discovery of "dark energy".(This is just a rehash of info most of you know but it get us to an important point)Its really quite a confusing story. When they examined a certain class of very predicable supernovae they discovered that the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. (Here's a good site)

    http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html [Broken]

    Specifically this equates to a cosmological constant of approximately 0.71. And they have a 99% confidence rating that the constant > 0. But at this web site they calculate the vacuum energy using the Planck energy as an upper limit for the sum. Using that figure the Cosmological Constant would have to be, (get this), ~10^120!

    But I started thinking about it. There have been real effects attributed to the vacuum field in the Lamb shift, Van der Waals forces, the Casimir effect, diamagnetism, spontaneous emission, and quantum noise. So one can't easily just write off that 10^120. If one assumes that that the "normal" application of ZPF energy equates to a Cosmological constant of 10^120 perhaps we should believe it but we should add something to it. If gravity isn't a separate force, but is a side effect of mass interacting with quantum effect of the vacuum field, then what would be required is counterbalancing effect of this gravitational action. In other words there is a Cosmological counterforce, Cosm(G), such that

    10^120 + Cosm(G) ~ 0.71

    This Cosm(G) wouldn't include the gravity of the mass we know about - that's already included in the .71 value. It would equate simply to gravity that permeates space and almost but not quite counterbalances the expanding effect of the energy in the quantum vacuum, a quantum vacuum that we know is real. The gravity that we are already aware of is simply the interaction of the quantum vacuum with matter. The gravity in the vacuum comes from the interaction of the quantum vacuum with virtual particles. These are particles predicted in quantum vacuum theory that come into existance spontaneously and then get annialated.

    (Stepping off pedestal)
    I hope I haven't offended people too terribly. If one is taken out of ones safety zone its not neccessarily a bad thing, though it usually feels that way at the time.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 6, 2004 #2
    Maybe the Universe is not as complex as it is made out to be.
    Maybe the simplest of theories will eventually prove to be the best theories.
    We only have proof of 3 dimensions, maybe that's all there is.

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
    You don't see many ducks round here.
  4. Jan 6, 2004 #3
    Our perception is balanced by out molecular make-up, we are existing within a space that is three dimensional, any other added dimensions are purely mathematical based on misguided conceptions.

    For instance any five-dimensional model of our Universe has to accomodate the fact that Gravity acts across a inter dimensional unorbserved domain, unreal that would render its effect different within our three dimensional space. Gravity as we experience it in our three-dimensional world would not be the same if it encounters a fourth or fifth dimension.

    Calling dimensions by numbers ie: one-dimensional..two-dimensional..three-dimensional assigns a concise and precise area to these domains? We know with a great amount of accuracy that three-dimensional space is quite ample to explain Gravity and its actions, it acts in a specific way.

    What seems absurd is that we(some?) advocate a creation of extra-dimensions to accomodate maths, and expect Gravity to give an account that is quite unphysical to our perception and experience.

    If you start with evidence of GR, and couple our three-dimensional space, it should be central to our experience, outside of this Space is lesser dimensions only. If one looks inwards down to the quantum levels, we see ensembles of 3-D space, diverging into EM fields 2-Dimensional.

    If one looks outwards into the cosmos we see the same ensembles but from a different perspective we see Three dimensional space without matter, just a vacuum, and a vacuum that is a 2-Dimensional field energy. Inside our Galaxy looking out we dont transcend across a theorized Fifth dimension, it juts exists on mathematical paper.

    The whole of our Three-dimensional Galaxy exists emmbedded within a 2-dimensional Vacuum field, there is no fifth.>.>11? or 26 extra dimensions, the Universe repeats 3-D spacetimes(Galaxies), in a lattice/space of 2-Dimensional fields..over and over the maximum three dimensional space is all it takes for observers to introduce the concept of time, and I surmise that there are no observers contained outside of any Galaxies anywhere in the Universe, lest they be Flatlanders! and Time is the concept of Observer interaction with three-dimensional space that they reside within.

    By the way for those who are uneasy with this presentation of facts, albeit theorized, the 2-dimensional Vacuum field that surrounds our Galaxy provides the right amount of inward Tension, it contracts our Galaxy by an amount that would account for the Dark Matter (detected/theorized) that is proposed to be shrouding our Galaxy. This has to be offset with the Photon outwards pressure produced by the Stars within our Galaxy.

    There are two forces at work an expanding Vacuum surrounding matter acts as a CONTRACTING force providing what appears to be an Expanding Universe for observers inside Galaxies.

    Photon pressure from Stars inside a Galaxy provide an Expanding pressure opposing the Inwards 2-dimensional grip by the Vacuum energy around Galaxies, but as we are inside our galaxy, when we look out across the cosmic sky, we look across the space inside our Galaxy that is three-dimensional, a bubble of spacetime.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2004
  5. Jan 6, 2004 #4

    That's interesting - I've never heard of this theory of 2 dimensional space outside of galaxys. Perhaps it would account for the diverging cosm factor. I do see a problem though I don't know how significant it is. How would one define where a galaxy ends? I think it presupposes too much granularity of the universe in that the actual boundaries are vague even if they exist as an idea.
  6. Jan 7, 2004 #5
    One has to be careful as to what places on this forum, as I am in studies at the moment (unqualified-layperson) I can say almost anything! which is great as it does not confine my response's, but as I get further into my theory, I have to draw the line, I could answer in a simplistic term that would clarify things, but I have to do this with my up and coming coursework which I have to submit.

    Nevertheless I am not the only one( I may be the only unqualified!) but there are a number of pre-print papers touching upon this very idea, here is a recent one:http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0401/0401016.pdf

    I will provide a number of other papers that go back quite some time, but just to handwave in the right direction so you can 'see' clearly, I will say Vacuum Lengths, transformations from 2+1.>.2+2.>2+3 can alter the speed (observed!) think of this little ditty.

    Q)Why is it that Casimir effect produces observation in a 3-D frame, when its energy has transmitted from a 2-D vacuum between matter(outer-3D object) and its inner Vacuum content(the space between atoms)..squeeze me!..squeeze me! (when has a sponge, place it into another phase of matter, ie water, then one squeeze's it, the water is transfered to the surface of the sponge and falls away!):wink:

    Constant speed of light is always observed in 3dimensional space, it bounces off matter, the same light travelling in a defined Vacuum of greater energy(energy density) cannot be observed to be greater, but SR tells us something important here, tachyons coming from 2Dimensional vacuum field, out into our 3dimensional world.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook