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: astronomy; cosmology; crevolist; knowledge; nasa; physics; realscience; science; space; stringtheory; technology; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-232 next last
To: Dark Wing
This is big.

Is it series?

61 posted on 03/28/2003 7:43:06 PM PST by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vannrox; Windcatcher
"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".

This is based solely on the statement above. Is it true? Seems like they just took their word. If light doesn't blur, it might not be because of the new theory.

Maybe someone could enlighten me.
62 posted on 03/28/2003 7:47:00 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
"Our attempts to measure time are arbitrary, as a "second" is no more a universal constant than is a meter. But the flow of time is a consequence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as entropy would have no meaning if time was a human "invention" or simple product of human observation.

(No argument).

"Second, the motion of any body within a uniform gravitational field can be best described as that path that takes the longest proper time, or, from another perspective, an object in a gravitational field always moves from one place to another so that a clock carried on it gives a longer time than it would on any other possible trajectory. So regardless of any units you use to measure it, time does have a real existance outside of observation, because it directly effects the behavior of systems without any observation necessary (the planets falling towards an unknown sun behave differently than an object in the Earth's gravitational field, regardless of whether anyone "measures" anything.

(You describe gravitational effect upon matter, or interaction of material objects. Time is not active, it's passive.)

"Your declaration might have been true if time was a constant, but, like all physical quantities, it is variable. Electricity is not simply a "measurement," even though the units we use to measure electricity are arbitrary and our measurements usually are only of a difference in electrical potential (just like time is measured in differences). Read up on space-time theory and relativity theory and you will see that you are quite mistaken. Time is a quality all its own...

Time is nothing more than measurement of abritrary events, the movement of a second hand from 1 to 10, the duration of one event to another.
(Time is relative only to speed thereby displaying varying effects due to the speed or state of the observer.
The falling tree still makes noise if there is none to hear. And time is not affected by lack of observation.)

63 posted on 03/28/2003 7:57:51 PM PST by freedom9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
RE: "Since Einstein was instrumental in developing the quantum theory, as an explanation of certain photo-eletric effects, I do not think he objected to it. The remark quoted was in reference to the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, I believe."

Yes, in particular, the quote came from the Copenhagen debate. However, in general, Einstein and Schroedinger (whose work also directly related to QM), were NOT happy about the INTERPRETATIONS applied to QM: such as the interpretation that since measurement uncertainty exists at the quantum level, what happens at that level isn't causal but random and hence a bunch of random fluctuations.

Thus, quantum theory is not in jeopardy, just the prevailing view of what it MEANS at the quantum level.

Reality prevails, as Einstein and Schroedinger instinctively knew all along . . .



64 posted on 03/28/2003 7:58:38 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: paul51
These people are just silly.

The special theory of relativity does not mean that one
cannot exceed the speed of light...

It means that you can't come back.

65 posted on 03/28/2003 8:04:24 PM PST by patton (Can you find a two-dimensional object?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
They are messing with my existence again...
66 posted on 03/28/2003 8:04:48 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
That's a good one, Cicero!
67 posted on 03/28/2003 8:05:26 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom9
"Time is nothing more than measurement of abritrary events, the movement of a second hand from 1 to 10, the duration of one event to another."

I KNEW it. I AM due overtime! Class action to follow.
68 posted on 03/28/2003 8:07:39 PM PST by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
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.

Yah think it could be sumpin else?
69 posted on 03/28/2003 8:09:08 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom9
When photons reach our receiver from a distant star, do they convey a 'moment' of the present state of the source from which they were emmitted?... Does that 'present' representation remain in stasis across the vast spatial expanse, arriving at the receiver to express the present of the source at emission?
70 posted on 03/28/2003 8:09:34 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AMDG&BVMH
Pardon me for not having read the entire thread, but your arguement confuses chaos and entropy.
71 posted on 03/28/2003 8:11:29 PM PST by patton (Order vs. Entropy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
That's the current belief, but what happens if the photon is "affected" along the way......
72 posted on 03/28/2003 8:12:05 PM PST by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
Re: "The conclusion, if true, is going to cause decades of dogma to be tossed out the window."

DOGMA is the appropriate word. Dogma is a theological concept. Some scientists were blurring the line between science -- what the physics shows -- and metaphysics -- the interpretation of what it means.

The physics isn't changed by this discovery. QM still works. The interpretation -- the dogma -- is challenged. Quantum theory is not predicated upon these quantum bits. It survives.

73 posted on 03/28/2003 8:16:46 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher
The conclusion, if true, is going to cause decades of dogma to be tossed out the window.

And this is good. Because as history teaches us, once old theories, propped up and supported by the iron fist of the prevailing ideologies established by the scientific authorities of the era are thoroughly discredited, an explosion of new knowledge follows.

It happened in the recent past when the changes wrought by the acceptance of plate tectonics burst on to the scene as quickly as did the changes that accompanied the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.

My personal prediction of the next Big Fall will be that of the Big Bang, or at least the relation of redshift to cosmic distance, and the vindication of Halton Arp and his long published observations that have yet to be explained within current cosmological models.

Arp et.al. propose what they once called "The Gang Bang" theory of cosmic evolution (circa 1990) as contrasted to the Big Bang, in which matter is continuously being created in the universe, and redshift is inversely proportional to the age of matter.

P.S. The innocently named title of a paper by Arp and a dozen or so collaborators containing the phrase "Gang Bang", resulted in a firestorm of condemnation that quickly resulted in the retraction of the article. Their report is probably still out there, but with a different title. I know I have the original somewhere in my files and I searched for it more than a decade ago and couldn't find it, so it would probably be even more difficult for me to find it today.

Can anyone point me to the original source?

74 posted on 03/28/2003 8:17:58 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
No. They represent the future of the source of emission. They have not been sent yet when we receive them. I think the technical term is Premature Emission.
75 posted on 03/28/2003 8:20:08 PM PST by Starstruck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: patton
"The special theory of relativity does not mean that one cannot exceed the speed of light...

It means that you can't come back."

Which explains why so much of the universe's mass is undetectable to our observational plane? I have always believed that c was not the 'speed limit' for matter, but it was the limit to our physics.

76 posted on 03/28/2003 8:23:24 PM PST by 11B3 (.308 holes make invisible souls. Belt fed liberal eraser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In everyday terms, the measurement of time compares the duration of the clocked event relative to an agreed-upon standard, such as the motion of the earth, etc.

Actually, Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

77 posted on 03/28/2003 8:26:38 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
I specialized in computational physics (not Quantum Physics) but from what I've seen and read on the subject current theory appears to say that spacetime is continuously "frothy". That is, it is constantly underoing small, *nonzero* quantum fluctuations. It's in a loose sense analagous to quantum energy levels; they can reach a ground state, but they never truly reach zero. Even in deep space, spacetime would constantly undergo random fluctuations in which "virtual" pairs of particles and antiparticles are spontaneously created and destroyed.

There is a phenomenon known as the Casimir effect that many feel bears this out; if you place two plates very close together (I'm not sure, but there might be a requirement that they be charged), they undergo a slight attraction to one another. They have to be VERY close, on the order of nanometers. It is postulated that this attraction is due to the fact that when the separation is less than the average wavelength of the virtual particles, then there will be more particles on the outside of the plates than between them, resulting in something similar to a vapor pressure--hence the seeming attraction. If spactime wasn't "frothy", then this effect shouldn't take place. On the other hand, however, one would expect that this effect should also disturb light over very large distances and cause it to blur--that appears to have been the conjecture prior to this result.

Off the top of my head, I suppose spacetime could still be frothy, but perhaps it only produces massless virtual particles, those that wouldn't disturb light, since photons have no charge. I'm by no means an expert on the subject however, and this is merely a gut feeling.
78 posted on 03/28/2003 8:27:18 PM PST by Windcatcher ("So what did Doug use?" "He used...sarcasm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: patton
Re: "your arguement confuses chaos and entropy"

I apologize that my statement was not clear. I was trying to summarize the correspondence between Einstein and Schroedinger, who were both unhappy about the interpretations of QM by the Copenhageners and others -- which they did not agree with, but were unable to disprove while they lived.

Probably neither one of them was confused about chaos and entropy. ;) Personally, I like chaos theory; and rely upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain the state of order in the house. (Unless outside energy is applied in measures greater than I oft possess, the system tends to a state of greater disorder . . .)
79 posted on 03/28/2003 8:28:38 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"When photons reach our receiver from a distant star, do they convey a 'moment' of the present state of the source from which they were emmitted?... Does that 'present' representation remain in stasis across the vast spatial expanse, arriving at the receiver to express the present of the source at emission?"

When one views a painting, does it convey a moment of the present state of the painter?

80 posted on 03/28/2003 8:29:55 PM PST by freedom9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-232 next 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