Skip to comments.Astronomers Deal Blow To Quantum Theories Of Time, Space, Gravity
Posted on 03/28/2003 5:49:29 PM PST by vannrox
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.
"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.
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. Ive read excellent discussions about this on Space.com.
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!
"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.
--Emerson, Lake & Palmer, lyrics written for finale of "Pictures at an Exhibition", The Great Gate of Kiev
This is not an example of a decision. If you have to ask, the answer is "pizza."
A very profound statement friend...
The answer is always "CHON".
It's what's for dinner, too.
One second your here, PSSST!!! ,Your an goner... :)
Yeah, The rabbits recycle, too.
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.
Why am I reminded of an old girl friend? It must be spring in the air.
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.
I knew a DB2 DBA on an MVS system who called himself "God", so you may be onto something there.
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
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.
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.
Huh? By solving for m, you "invert" the theory, lol? Who exactly wrote this tripe?
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?