• Cosmology
  • A Self-Gravitational Upper Bound on Localized Energy

Jonathan,

I also meant to thank you for the Wilczek letter. I agree with him that the 123 orders of magnitude error in vacuum energy is a really big deal, with significant consequences for 'virtual particles'. It *is* potentially as important for 21st century physics as black body radiation was for 20th century. I've argued with some physicists who seem to think it's no big deal. I think they're whistling past the graveyard. You can't have a change of 123 orders, probably the biggest number in physics, and not have repercussions on theories that depend on this for their basic concepts. This ties in with the fact that almost ALL current theories depended on SUSY, and that's going away too. It's actually a great time to be a physicist, if one is concerned with real things, i.e., things that are measurable.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

Something also worth noting is that Kauffmann's framework solves the universal solvent paradox (i.e., whether there exists a container strong enough to hold a solvent that can dissolve everything).

For if only the universe itself is capable of containing the arbitrarily high frequencies of a quantum field, the universe is clearly not a black body and the cosmological redshift prescribes a no-boundary condition.

Furthermore, though, one is compelled to speculate from this point whether a hypothetical observer in an adjacent universe might perceive our universe as a black body -- leading to a deeper paradox answered by the multiverse hypothesis.

Tom

  • [deleted]

All,

What is "self-gravitation"? Do I dare ask! Only physical explanations that make sense, please!

Constantinos

    • [deleted]

    "What is 'self-gravitation'?"

    I would hazard to guess that it's the coalescing field of all particles possessing nonzero mass toward the center of the greater mass according to the inverse square field law that governs both gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

    Dare to ask.

    Tom

    Hi Jonathan, all,

    A quick note here. Christoph Schiller had explored some of this about maximum force in nature a few years ago in this paper arXiv:physics/0607090, "General relativity and cosmology derived from principle of maximum power or force". And derives Einstein's field equations from it. I believe that he also talks about it in his comprehensive physics textbook.

    Of course this is all subject to if you believe that Planck length, etc. is some kind of law in nature. I'm still on the fence about that.

    Best,

    Fred

      Hi Constantinos,

      You ask, "What is "self-gravitation"?".

      Einstein said that "there is no space absent of field" and today there are dozens of (supposed) fields, fermion fields, boson fields, gravity and electromagnetic fields, and gauge fields in general ( and if you count the 'multiverse', which I don't, then add several hundred more fields, per Susskind. One question that interests me is whether the universe came into existence (assuming it did) with all of these fields or are some derivative. In my first and second FQXi essays, I make the assumption that the universe began as only ONE field, and ask what can be derived from this assumption. I conclude that if there is only one field (absolutely nothing else) then the only way it can evolve is to interact with itself, which implies the equation I present in these essays, and have developed at length. It quickly becomes clear that Newton's equation for gravity falls out of this, as does a generalized uncertainty principle. Therefore it would appear if there was initially only one field, it must have been the gravitational field. This idea can be pushed quite a long way, and I have done so in several places.

      In 1953 Eugenio Calabi (of Calabi-Yau fame) in effect asked if my equation was valid: "Could there be gravity...even if space is a vacuum totally devoid of matter?" He reasoned: "...being non-linear, gravity can interact with itself and in the process create mass", and he conjectured, "curvature makes gravity without matter possible". The Calabi-Yau manifold confirms my equation--based only on gravity. [He preceded me, of course, I wasn't writing original equations in 1953.]

      The key ideas are "fields have energy" (Maxwell) and "energy has mass-equivalence" (Einstein) and "gravity acts on mass" (Newton), so a gravitational field can and does act on itself. I find it more reasonable to believe that one field initially exists, from which all else evolves, than that dozens or hundreds of fields 'just happened' to come into existence at the same time.

      Anyway, that's how I interpret 'self-gravitation'.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      Edwin, Tom

      Thank you for your thoughts re:self-gravitation. Pardon my doubting self. I am skeptical of everything! Down to gravity and beyond! But I am more inclined to favor Edwin's view on this, however. Is it mass that produces gravity or gravity that produces mass? Is it the Law of Gravity that produce elliptical orbits or elliptical orbits that produce the Law of Gravity? What if the Universe "just is" as it is. With no universal laws but certain self-similar (self-interacting) patterns that emerge. Just like ripples in the desert sand. And all we say and know about "what is" is what we create in our own minds to fit our own understanding of our experiences. Any problem with that? Just asking!

      In my view, there are no 'physical laws' per se. Only 'mathematical identities' camouflaged as 'physical laws'.

      Constantinos

      • [deleted]

      " ... I am more inclined to favor Edwin's view ..."

      What is that view, exactly?

      Tom

      • [deleted]

      Tom,

      From what I understand, he starts from 'one' to create 'all' in contrast to starting from 'all' to create 'one'. But you better ask him that to be sure!

      "coalescing field of all particles possessing nonzero mass" asks for too many particles. Before, in my view, none exist.

      It's me, Tom. You are probably correct in some 'multiverse' of thinking.

      Constantinos

      Constantinos,

      "What is "self-gravitation" You may well ask. In words of 5 syllables it seems to be;

      The gravitational attraction between individual electrons and protons.

      This seems fair enough as most massive bodies are made of them. But it's the distribution pattern effects that are being considered here. It seems to me it's mainly making some theory consistent with much else, which is an important task when most isn't. i.e. in Astronomy potentials are calculated using very diffuse particle densities over virial radii and modelling the effects. But I recall an excellent astronomical paper was recently shouted down by theorists because theory didn't recognise that very thing. So all grist to the mill.

      The 'correction' quantification seems to be the inverse of the gravitational redshift factor. I find that a very tenuous link so far, but linked none the less. I expect to get my head better round the reasoning once fully assimilated.

      I also by the way disagree with a number of assumptions. i.e. a spherically symmetrical field. That is not reality, but it is easy to calculate so at least gives an approximation. It just quandruples the error bars. One day someone will also catch up wit the fact that the systems are NOT static as assumed! So the Navier Stokes equations are also needed, and subject to gamma appraoching a density limit which I put at of 10^21/cm^3 but which he doesn't consider or derive.

      All in all I think it has value as a step in the right direction. But I would, as it's conceptually consistent with some basics of my own fuller model. The 'energy density' decrease (from the big bang?) is of course identical to that of my AGN based model.

      What I want to know is where did Frank Wiczeck get his numbers from? I agree with him too, except he still ignores the distortion implicit in plasma n = 1, which is ignored by all in correlating curve space time to baryonic matter density. I also missed any discerning of Dark M from Dark E! Do point it out to me if it's there.

      I hope that hasn't confused you even more. It has me! What did that Bohr say? "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think"

      Peter

        Thanks Fred,

        I forwarded a copy of Schiller's paper to Steven Kauffmann, along with a few comments. My view, after quickly skimming the Schiller paper, is that it is largely complementary to Kauffmann's work - affirming the existence of a bound but approaching the problem from a different angle. A profound result, how ever you interpret it.

        I'll have to read for detail, before I say too much more.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        Easy for you to say! For me ... more googly-gook!

        Constantinos

        Let me jump in,

        People don't normally talk about gravitation in terms of energy, or apply gravity to energy, but this does not mean it can't be done. Mass-energy is a unified quantity near the Planck scale, and becomes more differentiated into mass associated with matter and expansiveness associated with energy over time. It took a while, though; as I recall it was some 500000 years of interchangeability before matter and energy underwent decoupling to go their separate ways.

        For the record; I agree with you Peter, that plasma streaming and eddys were a major shaper of large scale structure in that era (largely unappreciated for their formative role). But recent studies have found that mapping CMB cold spots allows the location of galaxy clusters to be discovered. Several new clusters have been found through this technique. So I wonder if the variations in vacuum energy predicted by Steven Kauffmann have a similar distribution to those observed in the CMB.

        More later,

        Jonathan

          I should add..

          While mass-energy was a unified quantity near the Planck scale; I should state clearly that the differentiation of matter and energy does not just happen at the moment of decoupling / recombination - when the CMB is released. Rather differentiation begins with the appearance of the first particles, and continues to proceed as hundreds of thousands of years of decoupling unfold. Then at the point the matter-energy soup becomes transparent, we see the final decoupling and the energy associated with the CMB is released into the universe of matter.

          So the question on the table involves how does the self-gravitation of undifferentiated mass-energy influence things - due to the fact that even pure energy partakes of gravitation. Of course; anywhere but at the Planck scale, this effect is incredibly small, and can be ignored. But in the realm of the incredibly small, or at the outset of the universe's story, this effect is dominant or deterministic.

          Have Fun!

          Jonathan

          • [deleted]

          Constantinos,

          What I mean is, it would be sufficient to say, as Einstein (and Descartes before) said, "No space is empty of field." (EEK and I have discussed this extensively).

          So it's "turtles all the way down" for field theory. Remember, though, that mass and energy are equivalent, so quantum field theory should be entirely able to fill the all the gaps without --as Edwin pointed out -- the proliferation of fields of different variety. That leads back to a unified theory -- no particles required.

          Tom

          Everyone seems to first apply their own idea of what the title means, as did I above. After studying Kauffmann's paper I'd like to add to my above remarks. First, he is talking about the interaction of gravity with energy (including the energy of the gravitational field.) But more specifically he is saying that localized energy -- such as the 'virtual' particles of infinite energy that appear in QED -- will have a mass equivalence that generates its own gravitational field, and this field, if energy is to be conserved, will not be 'extra' energy added to the situation but will be energy of the particle that is effectively 'converted' to gravitational energy. He then proceeds to analyze the correction to the particle energy based on this appreciation of the problem to establish an upper bound on localized energy. It is this 'self-gravitational' effect that is responsible for the upper bound in the title of his paper. I believe that one should also read arXiv:0908.3024 to better understand this process.

          Some of his math gets complicated, but I don't see anything that seems flat out wrong or ridiculous; although I have not followed every step of his derivation, it looks ok to me. A particularly interesting approach to avoiding perturbation theory, which is the source of all the infinities appearing in field theories, is to define an iterative approach, based on a partial fraction expansion. His paper developing this approach is arXiv:1301.1647. From the papers I've looked at Kauffmann has an incredibly broad (and deep) background, and a unique approach to many of the current problems with physics theories. I don't know how he retains arXiv publishing "privileges" as he seems to be independent of institutions, and therefore can depart from the dogma without suffering punishment. I'm very impressed with his work and thank Jonathan for bringing this to our attention. I hope Kauffmann can be persuaded to take part in the FQXi essay contests and threads. He would make a great addition and raise the level of discussions.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hi Peter,

          Much as I appreciate your contributions, I don't think that it's the gravitational attraction between electrons and protons that Kauffmann is discussing. I've added additional interpretation in a comment below. Also, you object to his "spherically symmetrical field". As you go through the paper you'll find that he does this for simplicity, but then he generalizes this to 'any static energy density tensor', specifically refraining from the assumption of spherical symmetry (on page 9 in his relativistic treatment).

          His is a pretty dense treatment with lots of implications, including dark energy. I hope this article gets the attention it deserves, and am grateful that FQXi has decided to allow us to bring topics of interest to new threads.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Yes indeed Ed,

          Your detailed description in the first paragraph above is spot on. It's not extra energy, but the portion effectively converted to gravitation, which would otherwise be unaccounted for. And I agree it helps to read his papers on 'Orthodox quantization of Einstein's gravity' and 'Nonperturbational "Continued Fractions"' if one seeks a detailed understanding of this paper. The continued fractions paper explains in detail the way he arrives at the final equation in the 'Self-gravitational upper bound' paper.

          I agree Steven would be an asset to these discussions, and also that his knowledge is both deep and broad. I've got a working hypothesis that there is a cognitive advantage to being a mature or elder scientist today - with a broader understanding of a subject like Physics - when the object is to consider foundational questions. Having a detailed understanding within a single area of specialization does not confer the same degree of interdisciplinary awareness. This thread will continue in a bit...

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          I'll start a new thread here..

          Perhaps an elder scientist like Steven Kauffmann is better equipped to be an innovator - in some areas of Physics - than most younger researchers, simply because is knowledge is both broad and deep, with sufficient mastery of Maths essential to his purpose. Plus; as you pointed out Edwin, he no longer has a university affiliation to safeguard, and is somewhat more free to explore what topics he may.

          At the end of FFP11, Physics professor Jaime Keller asked me "Why at a major conference with Nobel laureates and other top scholars speaking, were there so many dumb questions?" and I told him about RPI Chemistry prof John Carter's experience, where his students did not even want to hear the explanation of why things work as they do - but instead wanted only to know the equations to memorize, and answers for the test.

          Unfortunately, Jaime is no longer with us. During his life; Keller started out in Chemistry, wanted to know how things work so learned Physics, then delved into Maths for a deeper understanding still - becoming an advocate of Clifford algebras in Physics. Given the time investment per subject; I guess that only a mature researcher could follow such a path. But it may be the only way to learn some subjects adequately.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            I wanted to add this;

            It sadly happens too often that researchers in Physics approach their retirement with ideas to develop, and the hope that the extra time will afford them opportunities to hone some works for publication - only to find out that is a difficult road for a retired scientist. I too am glad the arXiv folks continue to let Steven post his papers as pre-prints, even if some never see publication in journals. The quality of his work is almost always excellent, and indeed worthy of publication.

            Regards,

            Jonathan