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

Space Daily ^ | Huntsville - Mar 28, 2003 | Editorial Staff

[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.

[Windcatcher]

I think one of my grad school professors may have shown this to us. It totally blew me away.

[Eastbound]

" Time is nothing more than measurement relative to observation."

Durn! Guess I'll have to trade in my watch for a tape measure now.

Boss: "Hey, Mort! You're two feet late for work."

Mort: "Sorry, Boss. My son left my tape measure at the drag strip."

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's still an interesting question. One uses the cat to amplify the uncertainty of radioactive decay. The interesting part is to describe how a small, random, quantum effect can be converted into a classical situation.

[boris]

"Time is caused by the fact that things don't all happen at once."

Things not happening all at once are caused by time.

Barbour thinks space time is an 'arena' in which events are embedded. "Things happening' are events. In Barbour's view--as far as I (mis)understand it, all possible configurations of events in what we call 'space time' are already present in the 'arena'.

Part of my difficulty with Barbour is that his argument seems somewhat circular--it seems to imply an 'instruction pointer' or 'moving finger' that selects events in some sequence. But a sequence presupposes time--or so I suppose.

Slippery as Mach's Principle.

--Boris

[AMDG&BVMH]

"The more I 'study' time, the more confused I become. There is a deep mystery here. I wonder if humans can ever discover the true nature of time."

It has always been a mystery, I guess. Stephen Hawkings once thought time was reversible. At the sub-atomic level, it would seem to be. But it just isn't. Time is merely progression or existence of matter in the material world. I.E. atoms wiggling; but they can't wiggle to "backwards" to "reverse" time at the macroscopic level. (Because of entropy). Time is an aspect of the Universe and when the Universe ceases to exist, so will time as we know it. Outside the Universe, i.e. at the God's eye view, there is no time and everything does happen "at once." I.E. all "time" since the beginning of the Universe is accessible at the same "time." The space twin experiement of relativity basically predicts the same concept of eternity that St. Augustine had.

[boris]

"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."

How can you define time without appealing to time?

"Movement" implies change in time. In other words, the velocity of the second hand is the first derivative of position with respect to time. So defining time as a 'measurement of movement' is circular.

--Boris

[DarthFuzball]

Does this mean that that guy who says he traveled in time actually did?

Actually it means that the guy who says he traveled in time will have been going to be considered a liar.

[Capitalism2003]

I think this stuff is amazing...space being bent..time being relative...makes my brain hurt...that's why I like it.
You sound like you know stuff about physics.
Hypothetical Question: If someone were to construct a perfect cube container...absolutely symmetrical on each side...and if someone were to construct this box with perfectly polished mirrors are placed on the inner sides...and a flash bulb was inserted into the box...the lid (also a mirror) firmly closed...then *POOF*
The bulb flashes...
Question: What happens to the light? Does it keep bouncing around off the symmetrical mirrors forever? It has no means of escaping the box. Where else can it possibly go?
Wouldn't this create an everlasting light source? :)


I got this idea a few months ago...I think if someone could make one of these boxes with two sided mirrors..ya know, the kind you can see through on one side, with a normal mirror on the other side...If someone can make the cube out of this stuff and flash the light from the inside...wouldn't it be an infinite light source?
Sure, it would probably cost a few thousand to make each cube, but after the initial flash...No electric bills...EVER!;) Can I patent the idea? I may get to it someday..

[AMDG&BVMH]

Re:"The interesting part is to describe how a small, random, quantum effect can be converted into a classical situation."

Let me know when you figure it out ;).

However, we know that the classical situations exist and basically still follow the laws of classical physics. Thank goodness, so that engineers can use Newtonian physics for civil engineering, I guess.

So that whatever happens at the quantum level, it does not mess up "reality" as we know it.

And QM does not actually posit that particles behave wierdly at the quantum level. We merely use statistical means to describe their (gross) behavior. That does not imply that particles do not follow some rules of which we are unaware. We call their behavior random because we use statistical means to describe and predict them. Just because queuing theory "predicts" when you and I and dozens of our fellows will appear at the bank in line in the aggregate, does not mean that you and I and the others do not have actual "reasons" for going to the bank when we do. It is just that the bank cannot model that ;)

[Windcatcher]

You sound like you know stuff about physics.

I have a masters' in Physics. As to your question, it wouldn't work. First, it's not possible to produce mirrors that are *exactly* perfect, both in smoothness and flatness, and the air would at the very least cause the light to be scattered. Also, dust and corrosion would degrade the mirrors' efficiency, and the *instant* something was placed in the path of the light (otherwise, what's the point to it all), it's game over--the light gets absorbed.

[boris]

"I got this idea a few months ago...I think if someone could make one of these boxes with two sided mirrors"

There are no perfect mirrors. Every mirror absorbs a small amount of the light it reflects. Very quickly, the light in your box will all be absorbed and converted to heat.

=====================

Mirrors can be made very "good", i.e., very reflective for a single wavelength or set of wavelengths. They are still never 100% reflective.

--Boris

[longshadow]

I wonder if humans can ever discover the true nature of time.

"Time is the because with which some dolls are stuffed." - e e cummings

[Capitalism2003]

ah shoot...so even a hubble-quality mirror wouldn't work?..even if the box was a vaccum with no air in it?...It wouldn't even for a little while? ;)

well, it was worth a thought.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The QM particles really do a few weird things though. Tunneling is one. The two slit experiment gives some strange behavior. One use really weak beams of light for the two slits so that only one photon per hour goes through. Or even one per day. How does that first photon "know" to set up an interference with the second which may not even show up at all if the lights go off?

The randomness in QM is different from that in ordinary situations. The lack of marginal distributions is the biggest diffence (at least to me) in QM probability and ordinary probability.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[rolling_stone]

Does this mean I have to have my tax return done on April 15 or not?

[djf]

RE: The Kaluza/Klein work. If the general theory in 5 dimensions yields items that are more indicative or I guess you might say global in their description of reality, then it would seem to be more complete. I wasn't indicating that the general theory was wrong, more in a sense that it becomes an aproximation, just as Einstein showed Newtonian theory to be an aproximation. But there is no question that Bell's work contradicts Al, indeed it's somewhat funny, because Bells inequalities uncovers a sort of epistemology of physics that is almost falling back towards ether and universal time.

[boris]

"Time is the because with which some dolls are stuffed." - e e cummings

"Time is the school in which we learn, time is the fire in which we burn."-- Delmore Schwartz

[djf]

You thinks thats weird. Some reputable places are doing studies on RPK. Reverse psychokinesis. Changing the past. And it does not seem to be violating any theories.

[happygrl]

A fun read. Thanks.