THE GRAININESS OF THE FABRIC OF SPACE MAY BE SMALLER THAN PREVIOUSLY ...
I am fascinated, as readers of my books know, with the idea that the fabric of space-time is quantized, i.e., that it comes in "minimally smallest units of smallness," and is not the infinitesimally divisible continuum that Einstein's General Relativity assumed. Well, I ran across this article at phys.org that caught my eye:
Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein
What really interests me here is that once again, observation has trumped theoretical prediction:
“This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Dr Laurent.
"Integral made a similar observation in 2006, when it detected polarised emission from the Crab Nebula, the remnant of a supernova explosion just 6500 light years from Earth in our own galaxy.
"This new observation is much more stringent, however, because GRB 041219A was at a distance estimated to be at least 300 million light years.
"In principle, the tiny twisting effect due to the quantum grains should have accumulated over the very large distance into a detectable signal. Because nothing was seen, the grains must be even smaller than previously suspected."
Indeed, this might get everyone thinking again, rather than merely thumping white boards filled with equations. As the article concludes:
"Now it’s over to the theoreticians, who must re-examine their theories in the light of this new result." If that magical size, that magical grain of space-time, can ever be found, then the final unification of physics will begin, that final quest to unify the "harmonic series" into a comprehensible whole. When that happens, the music of the spheres will be heard again.
Let us hope that, this next time around, that music won't be used for destructive purposes.
11 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
I’m no physicist and can’t really converse on the level of most here. However I was curious about the validity of Nassim Haramain’s work.
He seems to ridicule the whole effort at CERN to be a futile exercise and a chasing of one’s own tail, so to speak.
I believe he claims to have unified Einsteins field theories with the addition of the correalis effect into his calcs.
I know tries to harmonize a great many subjects to substantiate his religous views using his theories as the hub.
I question his physics because I found his use of the Bible and Bible knowlege sadly lacking and very sloppy. He’s not so disciplined a researcher apparently. Physics is not my field so I’m curious if He is sloppy there as well.
He is however, working with some prominent physics PHDs out of UC Berkeley Ca. proving his calculations to be valid I guess..
Anybody?
James
Perhaps they should be looking at shape, rather than size. Bucky Fuller and others have shown that “space” isn’t empty but has dynamic properties that structure any energy events occurring in it into specific and definite shapes, dividing “inside” space from “outside” space; “size” is just a special case of this generalized principle of shape.
These specific shapes (tetrahedron, Isotropic vector module, etc.) have various axis of rotation, polarizing potentials, topological affinities and antipathies, energy transfer functions, etc.
This isn’t really news to anyone who has heard of F. Ehrenhaft. Though nice to see others willing to say something is wrong.
Quantum Aether anyone?
We also have to remember that our instruments (and the theoretical models used to design them) introduce distortions and errors into our measurements. It can be dangerous to put too much trust into data which come from instruments which have some serious limitations.
Music of the spheres. Beautiful unification and quantized.
Make them testable.
Intesting how Jean Cocteau made a drawing of einstein, newton and Copernicus under the mystic “Eye of Heim”
Yes!
Harmony and music; VERY physics, all science.
Time does come in Quanta, a Planck time,
(approx 10 to the minus 43rd power, which is why they can’t ‘crack’ it)
like frames in a movie.
Don’t we always find that nature invented it first?
In between the frames or Time Quanta is Timelessness which equals
infinity which equals zero.
Oh yes, there really is such a thing, a big no/thing (=infinity) as this timelessness contains all the POTENTIALITY of what comes next.
In this timelessness an infinity of “what’s next” die and an infinity
are born, although it is NOT a ‘random’ process.
Not only is it interesting, it is absolutely beautiful.
The Universe is manifest THOUGHT (certainly NOT the “word”.)
That continuous ‘thought’ creates the frequency that creates the
“strings” forming the (infinite) frequencies and combos that create matter.
Your body is one frequency manifested in/by your brainwaves, but it is
also the combination of the frequencies of each cell, organ, system, etc.,
because everything has its own frequency; organic or inorganic,
however weak such as a rock.
“OUR” physicists have it backward and I’m sure that is no accident
(at least in this country.) There is so much “dumbing down” education
here that the US government goes outside this country for its ‘real’ scientists.
I’m sorry that this seems so simple as I am trying to make it as
basic as I can.
I think primarily in the abstract, if that explains anything(?)
I first heard about “quantized space,” that space only comes in certain minimum sizes, sometime around 1987. This could be true. I have only heard snippets about it since then.
Recently I have learned that Maxwell’s Equations are REALLY Heaviside’s equations. Maxwell used quaternions in his original series of equations and Heaviside “reduced” these to vector equations and eliminated the vast majority of Maxwell’s equations in the process.
A la Tom Bearden, Richard C. Hoagland, and the like, it appears to me that quaternions add a missing dimension, or at least an elusive pattern, to the structure of space. That’s “space” and NOT “space-time.”
Just as soon as I can get my brain around the 180 degree rotation that quaternions require instead of the usual 90 degree rotation familiar to complex analysts (Pun intended.), not to mention a couple more dimensions thrown in for good/better measure, I will be able to understand a lot better.
In the meantime, here is how to (allegedly) unify gravity and light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC51pn3xQZ8
I believe that scientists will not get anywhere near a unified field theory until they take into account the bits taken of Maxwell’s EM equations (to simplify things !! … wahh!!). I believe “simplifying” them left out a very significant part of the whole EM world which they need to take into account like I said (the really significant bits that lead to anti-grav, free energy, Tesla’s longitudinal waves etc).
[I learnt that from Dr Farrell in one of his first Byte Show interviews with George-Ann Hughes … boy that was an eye opener!! It explained so much to me. So much that didn’t make sense when I was studying physics in the James Clerk Maxwell building itself at the University of Edinburgh suddenly made much more sense – I was missing an extremely important part of the equation as it were. So thanks a great deal for that, Dr Farrell :)]
I also believe that string theory is utter nonsense and will lead practically nowhere apart from the odd thing here and there which it will shine some light on … though completely by accident, of course! And I have never really understood why people have been taken up by the whole string theory idea for so long anyway.
In nature things are not made from strings. But … you find eddies, and whirlpools, and many other rotating systems like stars and galaxies. I believe that rotation is the heart of everything, no matter what that is. And has string theory ever been shown to be right? Has it actually predicted anything that has been shown to be correct or engineerable??
And is nature so complicated that it needs 26 dimensions or whatever, and all the other things that string theory posits?? Just by the very nature of its ugliness, string theory has to be wrong in my opinion.
Also, as someone has I think pointed to already, I think the ether is the zero point/ quantum vacuum/ whatever and vice versa. Another baffling thing is that I believe most physicists understand this but are too afraid to say so. It looks to them so Victorian, so 19th Century and backward to admit something like that. Shame really since I believe that if they were to take up the word again they may actually start to make some real breakthroughs in unified field studies.
Just some thoughts …
Best wishes
Harvey P aka paraschtick
Given all the media surrounding the retirmeent of the shuttles what is the message?
I once about learned about the Casimir effect reading the color version of Hawking’s Brief history of time. In it, he describes the vacuum as being filled with virtual particles (vp) coming in an out of existence, each a pair of a plus and a minus which after their short arc rejoined into nothingness and perhaps respawn again.
In essence, this to me explained gravity, magnetism, etc. In magnetism, the space/lengths between the atoms that form the lattice or pattern of the metal is the same, and thus allows a certain wavelenght of vp to exist in there. This, when you draw it down, at the surface of the metal, through a simple domino effect where each layer away from the surface becomes more and more random, explains magnetism.
Gravity comes from this as well. In normal matter, the spacing between atoms is random, so the Casimir effects show as well, through the domino effect from the surface how gravity forms as an emergent property of space, or a structuring of spacetime.
This I saw later on youtube as well, its not something new as an idea, and it probably won’t last too long in front of a real physicist, but I thought its interesting concepts like these that help get to the next truth.
As I see it, the Bell, by an overpowering em field also changed the gravity, like these domino effects I mentionned. I will bet that there is no one measure of the smallest building block. I’ll bet its an average of the various lenghts a casimir vp pair can have.
Five bucks. Anyone? 🙂