-
Email An Imagineer
Blog Search
Loading...We have shown throughout “The Imagineer’s Chronicles” that observations of our environment suggest space is composed of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimension space-time.
One of these observations involves the theoretical existence of quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct based on the Uncertainty Principal. It states one cannot know the precise amount of energy contained in a microscopic volume of space. Therefore, over a short enough time intervals the energy levels in an empty volume of space can fluctuate. Some physicist believe these fluctuations can provide enough energy to generate virtual particle antiparticle pairs so long as they annihilate each other within the interval of time specified by the uncertainty principal so there is no net creation of matter.
Even though the existence of quantum fluctuations is based solely on theoretical arguments, it may be beneficial to examine the consequences to our understanding of physical structure of the universe if they do exist.
Presently the only viable theory that defines macroscopic properties of space is based on Einstein’s concept of a space-time manifold.
However, it is difficult to understand how fluctuations in space-time manifold can produce the energy theorists associated with quantum fluctuations.
This is because Einstein defined the rate at which time "moves" in terms of the energy content of a volume and according to his space-time concepts time must always move slower in an environment with a different energy content relative to another.
However, this presents a problem for those who define quantum fluctuations in terms of symmetrical energy distortions in the space-time manifold defined by Einstein.
As mentioned earlier, according to Einstein’s space-time concepts time is dilated or always "moves" slower in volumes that contain a different energy content than the ones from which they are observed. This means the time dilation associated with quantum fluctuations will be cumulative throughout the evolution of the universe even though the energy associated with them is not. Therefore, because of the random nature of these fluctuations we should observe random time dilations in volumes were they occur relative to others throughout the universe. However, this means we should observe the velocity of light or position of the spectral emission lines to fluctuate randomly to match the random fluctuations associated with a quantum vacuum.
Since the velocity of light is constant in all volumes and we do not observer random fluctuations in spectral emission lines we must conclude that either quantum fluctuations do not occur or the space-time concepts of Relativity are invalid.
Additionally according to Einstein’s concepts the high energy density associated with quantum fluctuations means time in volumes were they occur would "move" significantly slower than in the adjacent volumes. This means the time interval specified by the uncertainty principal to assure that no net creation of matter occurs would be different inside of the volume where they occur relative to the adjacent volumes. This sets an upper limit on the magnitude of the energy content of quantum fluctuations because higher energy means it would take longer for them to annihilate each other relative to the adjacent volume. Therefore, to satisfy the time requirement of the uncertainty principal of no net creation of matter relative to the adjunct volumes means, that according to Einstein’s concepts there must be an upper limit to the magnitude of their energy.
Therefore, as mentioned earlier one has to assume that either Einstein’s theories or the concept of quantum fluctuations in invalid.
However, as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 26, 2007 defining it in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would allow one to define quantum fluctuations in terms symmetrical spatial displacement in that manifold and their annihilation in terms of the canceling out of those spatial displacements.
Additionally defining time dilation in terms of a spatial displacement as was done in the article "The relativity of four spatial dimensions" Dec 1, 2007 eliminates the problem associated with the cumulative effects causes by defining quantum fluctuations in terms of a space-time manifold because the spatial displacements are oppositely directed, the time differentials associated with their relativistic properties will cancel out.
Later Jeff
The "Shadows" of four spatial dimensions
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2009
(In a PDF format)
Casimir cavities represent a zone where the “energy content” varies inversely to the spacing between the cavity walls or “plates”. QED call this “up conversion” where the longer wavelengths of quantum fluctuations are displaced in favor of shorter wavelengths that can fity a whole number of times in the narrow cavity. The blog above seems to confirm that time inside a volume of space appears slower whenever the total energy summation of vacuum fluctuations is varied during particle pair creation and anihalation. The quantum Casimir effect creates a permanent example of this imbalance where longer vacuum fluctuations are displaced and therefore changes the total energy relative to an observer outside the cavity. This seems to confirm work in Cavity QED that proposes a Casimir cavity breaks gravitational isotropy and work by Jan Naudts that fractional quantum state hydrogen inside a cavity is actually a relativistic effect. I have been trying to convince people that the QED theory of “up-conversion” could be interperted to conform with Jans “relativistic” solution where the longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations are never really displaced but rather turn on an arc where we 3 dimensional beings can only see the cord length of the fluctuation. This would put a new twist on our perception of catalytic action and even the suppression of spontaneous emissions in a waveguide based on time dilation.
A. Circular Reasoning
In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
“Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.””
From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing literally out of “nothing”? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of “nothing”, only something is coming out of something. Here they will perhaps say: as there is no proof for God’s existence so far, so why should one have to believe that the void here is not a true void? But even if there is no proof for God’s existence, still then it can be shown that scientists’ claim that the universe has literally come out of nothing is a pure case of circular reasoning. If believers say that the void is not a true void at all, and if scientists still then hold that it is nothing but a void, then this is only because they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and also because they think that God’s non-existence is so well-established a fact that it needs no further proof for substantiation. But if they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, then they are also absolutely certain that God is not the architect, designer, creator of our universe, because it is quite obvious that a non-existent God cannot be the architect, designer, etc. So their starting premise is this: God does not exist, and therefore our universe is definitely not the creation of a God. But if they start from the above premise, then will it be very difficult to reach to the same conclusion?
But their approach here could have been somehow different. They could have said: well, regarding void, it is found that there is some controversy. Therefore we will not assume that it is a void, rather we will prove that it is such. Then they could have proceeded to give an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, in which there will be neither any quantum fluctuation in the void, nor any hand of God to be seen anywhere. And their success here could have settled the matter for all time to come.
B. “Circular Reasoning” Case Reexamined
There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
(1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
(1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
(1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.
H.S.PAL
I added your blog to bookmarks. And i’ll read your articles more often!