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]

Open box --> collapse wavefunction --> change cat's state.

Of course, collapsing the wavefunction means a Fourier transform...so the transform *itself* is the source of the uncertainty? What I would have given to understand that when I was in grad school...man, I knew I should have double-majored in Physics and Math.

[patton]

Ah, but my perception of the state ot the cat IS the state of the cat.

Unless you are the cat, of course.

[kcar]

"I'm still trying to understand quantum checkbook balancing."

Debits are no longer matched by credits, meaning that what's left is possibly not right at all. But also look for uneven charges which might not be matched by right-side entries, which might be wrong. If the world is still unequal, divide the difference by nine. I hope that helps.
If it doesn't, check out www.Clarkhoward.com.

[AMDG&BVMH]

Re: "Open box --> collapse wavefunction --> change cat's state"

That is Schroedinger's point: opening the box does NOT change the cat's state. The cat is not IN a wavefunction half alive and half dead.

QM works as a predictive model. But it does not tell us what is happening to the individual particle.

[patton]

LaPlace transforms always simplify things...shockingly.

[Doctor Stochastic]

But how about a cat and a ball of twine? They could exist in an entangled state.

A cat is so large as to be decohairballent.

[Windcatcher]

Okay, this is now obligatory...

http://www.jokemonster.com/c/flash/flash_138862.html

[Windcatcher]

Agreed.

[patton]

Well, you pinged me...

[AMDG&BVMH]

Re: "Ah, but my perception of the state ot the cat IS the state of the cat."

That statement is pregnant with metaphysical implications.

Schroedinger certainly believed the state of the cat existed in reality, whether he or you or anyone else knew it or not. I.E. the cat's existence is independent of you and whether you look in the box or not. Unless you are the one who feeds it or dispatches it ;).

[Capitalism2003]

10^-27*(m1*m2)/d^2

did I remember this right? the attraction between two bodies in space =

10^-27*(m1*m2)/d^2

We need a science board on FR. I like these sort of conversations cuz I'm a geek. ;)

[patton]

Or changes the dang cat litter.

[boris]

"I keep reading suppositions that denote time a quality when it is no more than an observance."

Have you read Julian Barbour's The End of Time?

I read it twice and still don't understand it.

One of my interests is the question of time, its nature.

I 'convinced' myself via a somewhat difficult-to-follow internal debate that "the passage of time is an illusion."

Rudy Rucker once asked Kurt Godel 'what causes the illusion of the flow of time?' Godel answered obliquely, but did not reject the question as nonsensical.

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.

--Boris

[AMDG&BVMH]

"They could exist in an entangled state.

A cat is so large as to be decohairballent."

Ah, what a tangled web we weave . . .

The cat is large, but the premise was a photon or something triggering the event, nicht Wahr?

[dogbyte12]

All we are in dust in the wind dude--- "Ted" Theodore Logan.

[TheLion]

Now....that was funny! I will have to research and refresh myself on this subject before I can make any since out of it. Will get back to you.

[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.

[Windcatcher]

LOL I haven't been in Physics in ten years. It looks right, but I can't speak for the constant. It's essentially G * m1 * m2/r^2, but I don't remember what G is (we usually just looked it up).

In the case of bending light, however, the classical calculation really isn't the point. We're really talking about general relativity. Mass bends spacetime. The light is still moving in a straight line, it's just that spacetime becomes curved in the vicinity of an object with mass. If light passes by an electron-positron pair (or any other pair) of virtual particles that arose from spacetime's "frothiness", the mass of the particle pair will warp space and cause the light's trajectory to change.

Of course, we're talking about "virtual" particles. No one ever really explained this to me satisfactorily, but my impression is that it means that space is curved ("frothy") in such a way that it has the same effect as if there were particles with mass present. Of course, I could be totally off base there...

[boris]

"Some mathematician saw it and decided to work out the general theory with 4 space dimensions and one time dimension. He played around with the equations he generated and POOF!. Out popped Maxwells field theories."

Kaluza/Klein.

Maxwell's 'field theories' are actually equations, and they did pop out of Kaluza/Klein. I am unaware of any conflict betweek Kaluza/Klein and Special or General Relativity. In fact, numerous modern theories posit that there are many 'hidden' dimensions. String, superstring, and 'm-brane' theories all seem to imply multiple hidden dimensions.

Were I a betting man, I would bet on the 'reality' (whatever that means) of higher spatial dimensions unaccessible to us.

--Boris

[boris]

"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..."

Minkowski says time is a coordinate, which is quite a different thing from a 'variable'. Coordinate axes do not 'flow'. If one was born on a smoothly-moving train which never accelerated or decelerated, and grew up on that train, one would 'conclude' that the 'x-axis' of space flows. No evidence to the contrary; just look out the window!

--Boris