Featured Post

Breakdown of Navier-Stokes Equations

Find PDF version here. Abstract: Given limited energy and a small mass density or large kinematic viscosity, this work shows why...

Showing posts with label singularity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label singularity. Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2020

High Energy Quantum Gravity

In the above video, Sabine Hossenfelder discusses one of the shortcomings of quantizing gravity. At high energies or short distances things go haywire and you get crazy big numbers or infinities. In this post I present one possible solution to this problem. It is not the only solution, and, only experiments will reveal which solution is correct, or, reveal that none are correct. Here is a list of variables we will be working with:

Let's start things off by taking two arbitrary masses (m',m) and creating a reduced-mass Schwarzschild radius:

At equation 2 below, we express the maximum energy of the gravitational field between the two masses. Notice at equation 3, if the radius between the two masses is taken to the zero limit, you don't end up with an infinity. Instead the maximum gravitational energy is conserved, and, said energy never exceeds the maximum energy available--which is always finite.

The equation at lines 2 and 3 can be written in a more familiar form of work (energy) equals force times distance (see 3a below):

If the distance (carrot r) is great, the gravitational force (mg) is small, but if the distance goes to zero, the force blows up to infinity, but ... the energy is conserved, since the infinite force is only along a zero distance.

The next step is to quantize what we have so far. Let's take equation 3a and use a scale factor (alpha). At equation 4, we multiply alpha by a time derivative of h-bar. That takes care of energy (E). On the right side of 4 we have alpha times the time derivative of momentum (p) times the distance. The time derivative of momentum is, of course, the force.

From 4 we derive Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for the singularity (reduced by the alpha factor):

What does equation 7 tell us? It indicates that if we know the exact position of a singularity, we are completely uncertain about its momentum, and vice versa.

Friday, August 5, 2016

The Universe Has No Beginning--Really?--A Failed Hypothesis is Resurrected

According to Phys.org "[t]he universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity." (Click here to read the article by phys.org.)

The universe-existed-forever hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. I am amazed someone dusted it off and is trying to resurrect it. If the universe existed forever, then anything that is probable has happened already, since an infinite amount of time has passed, but wait! Infinity is not a finite number and it is improper to treat it as such. By its very nature, infinity never ends, so infinite time cannot pass, and the universe has not existed forever.

Even if we were to entertain the notion that the past could somehow stretch back to infinity, then it took an infinite amount of time to get to this moment, but infinity never ends, so this moment isn't here yet. But wait! It is here--so much for the universe-existed-forever hypothesis.

Here is another amusing gem from the article: "These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. " Uh oh! I guess there's no Hubble constant or red shift. But wait! There is. The evidence shows the universe is expanding. The "terms" don't trump the evidence.