Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Astronomers Deal Blow To Quantum Theories Of Time, Space, Gravity
Space Daily ^ | Huntsville - Mar 28, 2003 | Editorial Staff

Posted on 03/28/2003 5:49:29 PM PST by vannrox

Astronomers Deal Blow To Quantum Theories Of Time, Space, Gravity



Huntsville - Mar 28, 2003

For the second time in as many months, images gathered by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) are raising questions about the structures of time and gravity, and the fabric of space.Using two HST images, astronomers from Italy and Germany looked for but did not find evidence supporting a prevailing scientific theory that says time, space and gravity are composed of tiny quantum bits.

Using existing theories, the team led by Dr. Roberto Ragazzoni from the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri, Italy, and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, calculated that infinitesimally small quantum-scale variations in space time would blur images of galaxies seen from vast distances across the universe.

Instead, when they looked at both diffraction patterns from a supernova and the raw image of a second galaxy more than five billion light years from Earth, they saw images much sharper than should be possible if quantum-scale phenomenon operated as previously supposed. Their research is scheduled to be published in the April 10, 2003, edition of Astrophysical Research - Letters.

"The basic idea is that space time should fluctuate," said Ragazzoni. "If you are looking at light from a huge distance, this light passing through space time would be subject to this fluctuation in space time. They should give a distorted image of the far universe, like a blurring.

"But you don't see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope deep field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space time from the source to the observer. This observation is enough to rule out this effect on the quantum scale.

"You can say," said Ragazzoni, "that this measurement constrains the quantum gravity theory to certain parameters."

This report comes a month after physicists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) announced their unsuccessful attempt to use an image from an HST interferometer to find evidence of Planck-scale effects. Taken together, the independent research findings might force physicists to reexamine the scientific underpinnings of the quantum theories of gravity, time and space.

To look for the quantum blurring effect the European team used a parameter from optics, the Strehl ratio, to calculate how sharply the telescope should be able to resolve an image of the distant light source and its first Airy ring - a signature of the interference of the rays of light entering a telescope.

If the popular quantum theories were correct, space-time effects should blur light from distant sources beyond the telescope's ability to resolve them.

They didn't.

"Without a theory to describe this, I think it's hard not to agree that it is time to start to consider theories that do not require this Planck scale, at least not like it is now," said Ragazzoni. "From an experimental point of view, there is no establishment. We are proud to have established in as rigorous a manner as possible the parameters of this quantum effect."

The Planck-scale quantum theories of time, space and gravity were derived from attempts to calculate the theoretical limits to electromagnetic energy, according to a UAH physicist, Dr. Richard Lieu.

By inverting Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (E=mc2 becomes m=E/c2), physicists could calculate how much mass should be added to a photon as it gains energy. Using that, they calculated a theoretical limit to how much energy a photon might contain before gaining so much mass it would collapse into a photon-sized black hole.

That theoretical upper limit was then used to set theoretical limits on time. One cycle of a photon carrying that much energy would last 5 x 10-44 seconds, an interval called Planck time. As the shortest potentially-measurable interval of time, theorists speculated that time moves is Planck time-sized quantum bits.

In his theory of general relativity, Einstein theorized that time, space and gravity are different manifestations of the same phenomenon, much as light and thunder are signatures of the electrical discharge in lightning. If time is made up of quantum bits, that would also mean space and gravity should also be composed of quantum units.

Since the expected blurring "signature" of quantum space time isn't seen, however, it might mean that time isn't made of quantum bits, and neither are space or gravity.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cosmology; crevolist; knowledge; nasa; physics; realscience; science; space; stringtheory; technology; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-231 last
To: vannrox
Does this mean the Flux Capacitor needs more or less than 1.21 jigowatts of electricity?
201 posted on 03/29/2003 9:47:01 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom9
Time is nothing more than measurement relative to observation.

I too have often wondered if time is truly a "dimension" or merely the result of "activity" such as an electron revolving around its nucleus and expanding that concept outward from there. Once there is activity or motion of some sort time then becomes only how we observe it and measure it. I’ve read excellent discussions about this on Space.com.

202 posted on 03/29/2003 10:17:40 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Yes. But I hold out free will as a grand exception. I can't explain it. It just is."

I would like to believe in free will. I really would. But when I translate claims of having free will into English, I get:

"My outputs are not functions of my inputs."

"Very well, then--what are they functions of?"

Cosmic rays? Heisenberg uncertainty? In any case there is a cause, and a random robot is still a robot.

Note that unpredictability is not the same as undeterminism; i.e., unpredictability is a statement about human limitations; the orbits of the planets were unpredictable until Ptolemy, Kepler, Copernicus, et al. But they were still deterministic!

--Boris

203 posted on 03/30/2003 8:17:14 AM PST by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: boris
There was a young man who said, "Damn!
It is borne upon me that I am
An engine that moves
In predestinate grooves,
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."

- Maurice E. Hare (1886-1967)
204 posted on 03/30/2003 8:34:28 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: boris
I would like to believe in free will. I really would. But when I translate claims of having free will into English, I get: "My outputs are not functions of my inputs."

"Very well, then--what are they functions of?"

Indeed, a classic problem. I am unlikely to be the bearer of the long-sought answer. My humble opinion is this: When faced with the possibility of ordering that pizza or not ordering it, it is entirely possible (quite likely, really) that both alternatives are the product of pre-existing inputs into the "system" that is my brain. The decision can go either way, and neither outcome is uncaused. That seems to take care of part of your question (the "no inputs" part).

As for the actual decision ("pizza or no pizza") ... there's the deepest question. It may be undetermined, as with so many QM experiments. But because we are conscious of the functioning of our brains, we "watch" the decision being made, and we have the feeling that we actually made the decision -- when in reality (whatever that means) all we did was go along for the ride.

I don't believe this. I think we really do make decisions. But I don't know how to demonstrate it. The Objectivists take free will as an axiom, so they don't need to worry about proving it. Perhaps they're on the right track.

205 posted on 03/30/2003 8:38:38 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"My life's course is guided--
Decided--
By limits drawn
On charts of my past ways
And pathways--
Since I was born."

--Emerson, Lake & Palmer, lyrics written for finale of "Pictures at an Exhibition", The Great Gate of Kiev

--Boris

206 posted on 03/30/2003 9:33:50 AM PST by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
As for the actual decision ("pizza or no pizza")

This is not an example of a decision. If you have to ask, the answer is "pizza."

207 posted on 03/30/2003 9:36:01 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: friendly
"The Eye of God and the photographs of Hubble behold a clarity beyond our understanding."

A very profound statement friend...

208 posted on 03/30/2003 9:39:47 AM PST by FireTrack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
What's for lunch?

The answer is always "CHON".

It's what's for dinner, too.

--Boris

209 posted on 03/30/2003 9:39:51 AM PST by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: boris
Not AGAIN tonight!!??
210 posted on 03/30/2003 9:42:46 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: freedom9
Did you not read my last reply? That's exactly what I said! Mass can be converted to energy and back. But only those particles with mass have gravity (in general). You need to educate yourself a bit on the basics of physics...
211 posted on 03/30/2003 10:00:24 AM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Physicists do it with force and energy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: soycd
cause and effect, or vice versa.. :)
212 posted on 03/30/2003 10:05:49 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Read the WELL WORLD trilogy...it could work.
213 posted on 03/30/2003 10:12:28 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
They are messing with my existence again...

One second your here, PSSST!!! ,Your an goner... :)

214 posted on 03/30/2003 10:17:57 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AMDG&BVMH
"Or changes the dang cat litter."...Now that is a decidely unpleasant aspect. Take, instead, rabbits. Rabbit "output" is beneficial to the environment and gardeners love it.

Yeah, The rabbits recycle, too.

215 posted on 03/30/2003 10:26:35 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
As for the actual decision ("pizza or no pizza") ... there's the deepest question.

The solution to your conundrum is found by assuming that the PIZZA makes the decision, not you. The pizza has free will; it decides whether or not it wants to be eaten by you. You are just along for the ride.

;-)

216 posted on 03/30/2003 11:43:27 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: FireTrack
And there is more: Recent experiments strongly suggest that the speed of light increases as one approaches "the Big Bang." I actually am writing an essay as to what this implies.
217 posted on 03/30/2003 12:53:15 PM PST by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The pizza has free will; it decides whether or not it wants to be eaten by you. You are just along for the ride.

Why am I reminded of an old girl friend? It must be spring in the air.

218 posted on 03/30/2003 12:56:18 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
"Yeah, The rabbits recycle, too"

Just read an article that rabbits are born with the ambition to die, and it is the rabbit raiser's job to thwart that ambition. SO: It's a good thing they do recyle - tho' not always as easily as one would presume . . . In terms of I/O, and the usefulness of the O, they are one of the most efficiently designed biological systems I have heard of. (Provided they live, or die in a manner to be recycled).

It's a good thing Schroedinger's example was a cat. Would hate to see a cute bun-bun in a complex function of alive and dead. They would tend I guess to the dead end . . .
219 posted on 03/30/2003 2:09:26 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
"Read the WELL WORLD trilogy...it could work."

Chalker's 'trilogy' is something like 7 or 8 books by now, and as most such efforts do, the ones after the first went downhill fast.

I actually corresponded with him, pointing out terrible inconsistencies between the 'rules' laid down in the first book, which appeared in later ones. He just plain forgot his own rules.

Midnight at the Well of Souls was OK; I would not read past the third. Waste of time.

Sort of like Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld in this respect, or Piers Anthony's Cluster.

BTW, have you noticed Chalker's fixation on people being transformed into other things? After a while it gets old.

--Boris

220 posted on 03/30/2003 2:17:33 PM PST by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: boris
Well...Yeah, I've read them all...so much for my SF reading. Hal Clement, is better, he sticks to hard science.
221 posted on 03/30/2003 8:13:46 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
This is the one I saw. I had to go fix dinner and left it to my son to read. Forgot to come back and read it myself.
222 posted on 03/30/2003 10:45:20 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
thanks for this ping.

The beginning of the end.

we will be rethinking everything soon.

bye bye QM
223 posted on 03/31/2003 1:16:54 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: djf
God runs MVS!!!

I knew a DB2 DBA on an MVS system who called himself "God", so you may be onto something there.

224 posted on 03/31/2003 1:24:00 PM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Ping!

225 posted on 11/06/2004 4:40:00 PM PST by SunkenCiv ("All I have seen teaches me trust the Creator for all I have not seen." -- Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; FairOpinion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; ...
This topic is from 2003, and is not about string theory per se, but very likely will be of interest.

226 posted on 05/01/2007 7:55:16 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Saturday, April 28, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Relativity mission achieves two major milestones
spaceflightnow.com | 8 Mar 02 | NASA-MSFC
Posted on 03/08/2002 12:38:48 PM EST by RightWhale
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/642879/posts


227 posted on 05/01/2007 7:56:09 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Saturday, April 28, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

Poincare’s hypothesis was proved. The universe must be spherical, unbounded, and finite if topology reflects reality. That is reference to the bubble graphic at the top.


228 posted on 05/01/2007 7:58:28 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
We need a new paradigm.

Sorry to respond so late, but we have been abusing the technical terminology, especially the 'paradigm shift' since 1962 and this must stop immediately. Blame the historians.

229 posted on 05/01/2007 8:00:54 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
By inverting Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (E=mc2 becomes m=E/c2)...

Huh? By solving for m, you "invert" the theory, lol? Who exactly wrote this tripe?

230 posted on 05/01/2007 11:35:02 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
infinitesimally small quantum-scale variations in space time would blur images of galaxies seen from vast distances across the universe". ....If light doesn't blur, it might not be because of the new theory.

In my world, if light doesn't blur it's because I have new glasses or am using better eyedrops. Could astronomers be relying for their conclusions on the state of their equipment?

231 posted on 05/03/2007 10:46:45 AM PDT by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-231 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson