How to unbalance nothingness

Oct 28, 2011

German scientists succeeded in calculating the time evolution of the vacuum decay in detail.

Nothingness – this is the research subject-matter of a team of theoretical physicists from the Universities Jena (Germany) and Graz (Austria). "The ground state of our world can't be described by the absence of all matter," Professor Dr. Holger Gies from the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena and the Helmholtz-Institute Jena explains. "This so-called quantum vacuum rather turns out to be a complex state of constantly fluctuating quantum fields with physical properties."

The world-wide community of physicists is hoping to be able to witness a particularly spectacular characteristic in a few years' time: the spontaneous decay of the vacuum into pairs of particles of matter and antimatter in super strong electric fields. Due to the new research results of the Austro-German team of physicists, this goal came a few steps closer.

Although first theoretical consideration concerning the spontaneous decay of the vacuum dates back to the year 1931, its comprehensive understanding is still in its infancy. "A great challenge in modern theoretical physics is the description of quantum fields out of equilibrium," Professor Gies explains. "We are facing this problem in phase transitions in the early Universe as well as in many experiments in solid state physics." Therefore experimental proof of the vacuum decay – as it might be delivered by high intensity lasers in the near future – will provide knowledge exceeding this particular field.

The scientists from Graz and Jena now succeeded calculating the time evolution of the vacuum decay in detail. "Even we were surprised by the results," Professor Gies confesses. According to the results particles of matter and antimatter behave in a novel self-focusing way and therefore the possibility of discovering them is higher than expected. "The quantum vacuum has already had some surprises in store," says the Heisenberg-Professor for . "To unbalance this nothingness could develop into a new prolific field of research."

The results of this work have just been published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

More information: F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, H. Gies: Particle Self-Bunching in the Schwinger Effect in Spacetime-Dependent Electric Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 180403 (2011), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.180403

Provided by Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaet Jena

4.8 /5 (16 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy

May 10, 2007

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor ...

Exotic quantum states: A new research approach

Oct 03, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Theoretical physicists of the University of Innsbruck have formulated a new concept to engineer exotic, so-called topological states of matter in quantum mechanical many-body systems. They ...

Recommended for you

What is Nothing?

1 hour ago

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

On the hunt for dark matter

4 hours ago

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Water window imaging opportunity

22 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Star_Gazer
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
So the first real steps toward real ZPM.. I like it!
Husky
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2011
well, it still takes high powered lasers to boil the vacume so its hardly a free lunch
lairdwilcox
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2011
Boy, it's a relief that this got figured out. Now we can sleep again.
Cynical1
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2011
So... Now even WE can make something appear from nothing...
Kinda gives a whole new perspective on the word God, doesn't it...
Nerdyguy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
So... Now even WE can make something appear from nothing...
Kinda gives a whole new perspective on the word God, doesn't it...


To your first point: NO

To your second point: NO
Callippo
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Now even WE can make something appear from nothing
Schwinger effect (historically more accurate would be the name Sauter-Schwinger effect) is the situation, when electron-positron pairs are sucked out of a vacuum by tunneling in an electric field. This has not yet been confirmed by experiment. After the introduction of a new generation of high-intensity laser systems such as the European XFEL or the Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI), this effect might eventually become observable within the next decades.
GenesisNemesis
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
"The ground state of our world can't be described by the absence of all matter," Professor Dr. Holger Gies from the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena and the Helmholtz-Institute Jena explains.

Appears to be a presupposition.

"The world-wide community of physicists is hoping to be able to witness a particularly spectacular characteristic in a few years' time: the spontaneous decay of the vacuum into pairs of particles of matter and antimatter in super strong electric fields. Due to the new research results of the Austro-German team of physicists, this goal came a few steps closer."

So we have to wait a few years.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
The point is, the strong gradient of EM field cannot be created without (presence of) matter anyway and the formation of particle-antiparticle pairs would just tend to decrease this gradient. So it's not formation of something from nothing, rather transformation of vacuum at the presence of matter dual to formation of Hawking radiation at the surface of black hole. IMO the Schwinger effect occurs inside of black hole jets together with materialization of gamma rays to particle-antiparticle pairs and it contributes to evaporation of fast rotating black holes.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Nerdy. Consider my login name when considering and responding to my comments..:-)
Cynical1
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
In actuality, tho... They are only OBSERVING the spontaneous decay of vacuum into matter. Not actually causing it. That is something from the Universes little trick bag. But - they're working on it...
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Nerdy. Consider my login name when considering and responding to my comments..:-)


Got it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
In dense aether model the particles of matter are formed with nested system of space-time curvatures in the same way, like the vacuum itself. Which means, the vacuum is conceptually the same material stuff, like the particles of matter - it just differs with density observed. In this model the particles of matter are formed in analogous way, like the condensation of droplets from seemingly "empty" saturated vapor with mechanism of so-called spontaneous symmetry breaking. So that no matter is really formed from nothingness in our Universe, it's just transformed from one phase of space-time into another.

The density fluctuations of vacuum have the character of nested foam, which is observable inside of dense vapor like the condensing supercritical fluids and it illustrates, how the dense aether model is related to string theory and/or LQG theories.

http://www1.chem....co24.jpg
kaasinees
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
well, it still takes high powered lasers to boil the vacume so its hardly a free lunch

Thats easy, we just drive through a star to charge our ZPM's (Stargate Universe)
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Cynical1
You are spot on. They are looking for the physical origins of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Kudos. For these origin(s) "super strong electric fields" have become their working hypothesis.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
If I'm not mistaken, an electic field indicates the presence of electrons. I believe there is debate on whether electrons have mass or not. What I'm surmising from this article is - if they do, they are a matter particle. If they don't - well, they will eventually...
Wait - does this just resolve the whole Higgs thing?!?

Or not...
hush1
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
Your hunch is correct. I believe they believe an electric field will harbor the presence of what they are hoping and looking for to find. If they have no bias in their (re) search, then a connection to Higgson or not will not matter to them.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
well, it still takes high powered lasers to boil the vacume so its hardly a free lunch

Seems like another piece of the sustainable energy puzzle, looks like it indicates the use of fuel however. If the vacuum properties are refined along with other variables in the energetic particle arena then wont we be able to use custom made, factory produced fusion packets to supply energy? Kind of like dots of fusion fuel lined up on in a chain that is fed at a certain rate into a reaction chamber. The energy from the reactions sustain further fuel addition.

Seems like we would already have fission plants like this, not much progress has been made with much safer varieties of nuke plants.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
They are looking for the physical origins of spontaneous symmetry breaking

It comes from intrinsic inhomogeneity of space-time. The space-time must remain inhomogeneous or it couldn't exist at all. The fully homogeneous space-time would be as strange as the water surface without Brownian noise.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
And, since there seems to be a LOT of vacuum out there, with potential for a LOT of decay - and therefore lots of matter/almost matter. Source of DE?
This seems so simple. AM I Forrest Gump?
hush1
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
Cynical1 lol

Callippo. Then what are the origins and the mechanisms of those origins for homogeneity and inhomogeneity?
hush1
not rated yet Oct 29, 2011
Describe the "built-in", "intrinsic" features of homogeneity and inhomogeneity.
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
"The space-time must remain inhomogeneous or it couldn't exist at all."

YOu mean heterogenous. Without energy fields (and they don't necessarily have to be electric) of different charge levels there would be no "friction" (for lack of a better word) and therefore no expression of energy field interaction.
In fact, let's just imagine for moment that they are different dimensional expressions bumping together and creating what we see as electric fields in THIS one...

Sheesh... now I'm talking like YOU guys....
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
In dense aether model the water surface plays a role of 2D analogy of 3D space. The more dense the environment is, i.e. the higher amount of particles it contains, then the waves are moving more slowly along it, the more such environment appears homogeneous for these waves.

But the influence of background particles can be never neglected. The same density gradients, which are slowing the spreading of waves, are manifesting like tiny inhomogeneities of the surface. These density fluctuations manifest like the Brownian noise for water surface ripples, or like the CMBR noise for vacuum waves of light. They're even of the (nearly) the same average wavelenght (~ 2 cm or so...).
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
We are roughly saying the same thing, then.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
If we would make a splash at the water surface, a complex mixture of waves will emerge temporarily. But some ripples will survive the longest time - it's the waves, which are moving most slowly in this environment, so they cannot disperse. Their wavelength is about 2 cm and they correspond the neural waves of human observer.

http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif

This wavelength is not accidental, IMO. It corresponds the wavelength of CMBR, because just the waves, which are of the same wavelength tend to disperse mutually in lowest extent - in this sense, we are adopted to the CMBR wavelength. The speed of CMBR waves is superluminal, but their wavelength is the same, like the wavelength of CMBR photons and the wavelength neural waves of human observer, which are observing it. It's the middle of the observational scale of our Universe - all smaller or larger objects are less complex, then the waves of consciousness inside of human brain.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
We are roughly saying the same thing, then.
OK, why not to extrapolate it into testable predictions? This is just my intention: to reconcile, synchronize and unify the thinking of people about Universe on background of the least common model, which would remain acceptable for all people on the Earth. The different people can have different views and they can extrapolate them freely, but they should remain aware, how their model remains connected with the dense aether model. The dense aether model is based on geometry of nested density fluctuations of hypothetical massive environment similar to dense gas. It's the physical model or randomness, which requires the least number of assumptions about intrinsic structure of Universe in accordance to Occam's razor principle. Such minimized model is quite vague, but it's easy to imagine and very universal.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
In dense aether model the human creatures are playing the role of Boltzmann brain in the random Universe.

http://en.wikiped...nn_brain

Inside of random gas, there is always distribution in complexity and motion of its fluctuations. Just the fluctuations, which somehow manage to remain at rest can grow into largest complexity. The complexity of people is essentially given with the fact, they managed to survive at single place of the Universe: at the surface of Earth rotating at the surface of solar system rotating at the surface of galaxy. This rare asymmetry between the motion in space and time created the illusion of flatness of space-time for us.

Illustratively speaking: inside of vessel of gas some fluctuations are larger, some simpler, some more complex and composed of fractal structure of smaller ones. After then one question becomes relevant: how this essentially random environment will appear just for these most complex fluctuations, which are formed in it?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
I THINK what you are saying (with way too many words, by the way) is that "friction" (or evidence of interaction of some sort) between particles within the aether model, are what produce the universe we observe. not the actual aether.

Yes?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
We can model the formation of such fluctuation in limited extent with using of dense supercritical gas providing it molecules remain spherical and they will not react mutually under elevated temperature and pressure. If we compress the dense inert gas, like the sulphur hexafluride inside of sealed capillary, an interesting effect will emerge.

http://www.aether...cal2.gif

Under narrow range of conditions this dense fluid will condense into dense mixture of density fluctuations, which are behaving like another level of fluid. And we can even observe the formation of another generation of hyperfluid, which is composed of nested density fluctuations of itself. While this model remains completely physically relevant, we can ask, how such fluctuations could appear, if we use extremely hot and dense gas, for example the interior of black hole. Its material is so dense, that even slightest density fluctuations of it would exhibit its own inertia and gravity
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Fractal structure is ALWAYS there. The entire universe is fractals within fractals(some research has been done in ergodic nature of "dynamic systems"). And - you are only using our own observational vantage point (within this particular lower entropy fluctuation that we exist in)as a reference point.

"The funny thing about "the big picture" is that there always turns out to be a bigger picture..." - Chuck
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
is that "friction" (or evidence of interaction of some sort) between particles within the aether model
It's the probability of their mutual interaction at both distance, both mutual collisions. The dense aether model leads into some strange extrapolations. For example, in one such interpretations the human creatures are actually a much larger objects with giant sparse overhead, surrounding the whole galaxy. The complexity of our behavior could be interpreted like the result of mutual collisions of all massive objects (stars) inside of this galaxy, which are penetrating mutually like intersecting blobs with superluminal speed. In this sense, we are extension of all massive stars, which we can observe on the sky at the single moment. If we can see some distant objects, it just means, this object can affect us. It's the extended variant of many path integral interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
By example - Our dishwalker NEVER works right when my wife starts it and ALWAYS works when I start it. Are we existing in two different density fluctations? Or is the dishwasher part of the intersection subset area of 2 different sets...?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
The entire universe is fractals within fractals
But its fractal dimension depends deeply on the distance and scope of objects, which we are observing. The dense aether model is quite predicative in it. At the proximity we are facing the fractal shape of clouds, water surface ripples, terrain surface etc. But with increasing distance the objects are becoming more symmetrical and the dense stars or atom nuclei are very regular, spherical objects. With the increasing distance from human observer scale their irregularity increases again, but it doesn't become fractal again. Instead of this, the most large objects observable inside of our Universe (like the galactic clusters) are as random, like the smallest structures observable, i.e. the quantum foam of space-time. The same dependency we would observe at the water surface: at the human scale this surface forms a foam, smaller or larger objects are getting simpler (bubbles, dropplet) and the smallest or largest ones are simply random
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
Are we existing in two different density fluctations? Or is the dishwasher part of the intersection subset area of 2 different sets...?
The both. At the water surface all objects floating above it remain connected at distance with both surface ripples, both underwater sound waves. The former interactions is slower but more intensive, because of higher energy density of water surface ripples, but the underwater sound waves are included too. IMO all objects remain connected with their gravity waves too.

After all, when you're talking with your wife, a strange situation emerges: you're interacting mutually at distance without using of transverse waves of light at all. Instead of this, you're exchanging the information with using of the longitudinal waves of sound. If you call to your wife, it will come to you with using of interaction, which would be quite difficult to describe by all known charge, gravity or large distance interactions - nevertheless it still happens routinely.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Maybe we just don't have the ability to create a perfect vacuum yet?
And doesn't entropy already "unbalance" vacuums?
You can't create something from nothing.. that means there must be something in a vacuum, that we don't know about..
It would be interesting if we could create mass in a vacuum and see what is causing this mass to be created.
It would unlock endless abilities... Just like graphene has.

Sounds all logical to me.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Maybe we just don't have the ability to create a perfect vacuum yet?
IMO interesting question would be, if we can shield the CMBR microwave background. IMO it's impossible, because the microwave photons are visible manifestation of tiny density fluctuations of vacuum, mediated with gravitational waves. So even if you close the cooled helium into Faraday cage, the helium never freeze at room pressure, because the density fluctuations of vacuum would tunnel across the walls of metal and it will keep the helium atoms in motion.

But there is still possible to make vacuum more shielded from it's own noise at close proximity of metallic objects, which is the reason of Cassimir force. So it could be possible to freeze helium inside the thin slit between metallic plates at lower pressure, than the bulk shielding allows.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
One of theories of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel (which I don't believe too much) is so called the hydrino theory. This theory is assuming, inside of tiny pores at the surface of nickel the quantum fluctuations of vacuum are shielded with metallic layer from many directions at the same moment, so that the vacuum becomes cooler and more dense there. It could enable the shift in Planck constant in such a way, a smaller atoms of hydrogen could appear there (which would promote cold fusion and/or various thermal effects, blah, blah...).

IMO this effect of shielding will be much weaker, then the cold fusion and/or hydrino theory requires, but it may be really possible, some physics inside of thin pores of metals will appear slightly differently, than the physics inside of bulk vacuum, because of weak shift of physical constants. After all, on the similar shielding effect of vacuum fluctuations around atom nuclei the so-called Lamb shift of spectral lines is based.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
One last time, then I'm done...
It's like smoke at the tip of an incense stick or cigaret. Starts out tiny, straight and simple, but soon evolves, due to a variety of random or chaotic(if you prefer)variables into curley wisps that become (or evolve) even larger and more complex while moving even slower til eventually they just disappear altogether. Homogeneity at work.
Sounds like a metaphor for the beginning, middle and predicted end of our own universe, doesn't it? It's not a metaphor, it's a fractal.
By the way, that curling smoke also looks eerily similar to density models that are a result of experimentation and observation.
This article describes a process that is the beginning of that fractal. Vacuum decays to electrons, electrons create energy fields which evolve (or devolve, whatever) into slower frequencies to create mass whose density/frequency will eventually get to a zero point which then brings us back to the starting point - vacuum.
And then it starts ALL over again.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
And it all can be deduced/extrapolated by watching a single wisp of smoke... Fractals rule the universe - and will be found to be the unifier of GR and QP.

Dang... what I wouldn't give for a different reference point
(Ring side seat - FRONT row)than that of unwitting participant.

"We and everything we observe around us are the result of joyfully unfetterd experimentation by the Universe. IT is - as well as everything that is a part of it - the observer. Man has just begun dipping his toes in the experimenting/observation game and even THAT is an experiment of the Universe." - Chuck

Infinite possibility...
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
It would be interesting if we could create mass in a vacuum

But we can do it: the materialization of gamma ray photons in vacuum into pairs of electrons and positrons is essentially equivalent the formation of stable vortices (vortex rings) at the water surface with collision ripples at the single place. The formation of vortex pairs inside of perturbed fluids can be observed easily as so-called Carman street. IMO it's quite apparent analogy of formation of particle-antiparticle pairs in vacuum. The particles are representing less or more stable vortices of vaccum and the splashing of vacuum just creates a new particle vortexes from it. If nothing else, it explains, why the new particles always emerge in dual pairs, which are differ mutually just with their helicity.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2011
Fractals rule the universe - and will be found to be the unifier of GR and QP
Why not - but the fractals are ad-hoced geometric structure for dense aether model, being too complex mathematically. You should explain first, why the Universe is or should be of fractal nature - just after then to extrapolate it. IMO it's because, it's random and the randomness is of fractal nature in similar way, like the density fluctuations inside of dense gas. With using of dense aether model you can explain both quantum mechanics, both relativity, both fractal nature of Universe with single assumption and you don't need to introduce adhoced math structures into your model - these structure will emerge like the natural result of particle collisions in aether model instead.

Briefly speaking, you shouldn't violate the causality arrow during explanation of Universe: the simpler model requiring less assumptions always comes first. Only the simplest model could become most general and "Universal".
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Briefly speaking, you shouldn't violate the causality arrow during explanation of Universe: the simpler model requiring less assumptions always comes first. Only the simplest model could become most general and "Universal".

I'll take that as a jocular, friendly poke in the ribs by a classmate...:-)
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
it all can be deduced/extrapolated by watching a single wisp of smoke
But there is still no certainty, that this model corresponds the Universe in more than just single aspect of it. In another words, you didn't prove, that your analogy isn't just a homology or even randomly chosen example, which fits the structure Universe just by accident. You should explain more things with such model than just fractality of Universe at the same moment to remain sure, this model isn't only ad-hoced description of Universe.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Of course. THere are a great MANY observations/experiments during the course of my life that add weight to my hypothesis...
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2011
I'll take that as a jocular, friendly poke in the ribs by a classmate
Nope, it's not joke. Many people are doing the very same mistake. After all, whole the mainstream physics is based on such guessing of reality instead of deducting it. The postulates of relativity or quantum mechanics are all such an ad-hoced models. The physicists have no clue why the speed of light should remain constant and/or why the particles are described with quantum waves. Their model works, because they guessed them correctly from experiments - not because they deduced them from some more general ideas in sequence of logical steps.

As the result, the physicists have no clue, why quantum mechanics is inconsistent with general relativity and where/why is it better to used one instead of another one. They're using these theories like randomly chosen tools, which turned to be surprisingly effective. I.e. in similar way, which the medieval people guessed the usage of alloys, dyes, cures by accident...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
Artist by trade, here. My art is to create new form and function from previous ones. Therefore, my view of the universe follows that path. And I think fractals are not just of the physical kind, but of EVERYthing...

Yours might be different, tho... And thats cool - another perspective.
However, it is STILL within the same observational reference point as mine... So I guess we'll have to find a way to make our perspectives (Theories of) work together...:-)
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
the physicists have no clue, why quantum mechanics is inconsistent with general relativity - Callippo


GR wants the Continuum.
QM wants the Discrete.

That is the "no clue" you assert "the physicists" have.
I considered anyone that clueless to be lucky.

Mathematically you want a continuous function. (GR)
And you do not want a function (QM) that will take you as arbitrarily close to a continuous function as you desire.

You don't want linearization by approximation.
You want linearization to take you to the point (of the function) without approximation.

By the way, that is your homework for now. Find the continuous function using linearization without approximation.
Then report back to me immediately when have done so.

You have not only just solved the "inconsistency" between QM and GR, you have completed one of the incompleteness theorems of Gödel, completed the prime number theorem.

All this, simply because I asked you to do a 'trival' homework problem!
lol
Cynical1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
GR wants the Continuum.
QM wants the Discrete

Hush - if you wouldn't mind...
Provide a little more clarity on those statements. I wish to understand what you mean.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
Fractals are broken symmetry. My conjecture.
I don't want anything broken handed down to me.
Q.
How many fractals does it take to get back to a whole natural number?
A.
An infinite amount. (Wrong conjecture. I actually believe there are fractional dimensions that lead directly to whole natural numbered dimensions without approximation.)

Still, I will leave the fractals to you. You are having too much fun with them
And I will go back to my hyper-reals and spheres.

Poking fun...at whomever. :)
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
lol Cynical1
I am not being evasive when I ask you to tell me what you don't understand.
Is math example unclear?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Sorry. Comment window hung.
No, example was clear. I got it (more or less). Unfortunately, my math skills are probly not up to your level at this point. However, I do not understand what you mean by fractals being broken symmetry. Aren't ALL numbers real (think I read that somewhere)?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
GR wants the Continuum.
QM wants the Discrete.

Wait, maybe I didn't get it. What are your definitions of 'the Continuum' and 'the Discrete'?

And - what the heck are hyperreals and what do they have to do with spheres?
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
There are more numbers than the reals. The hyper-reals.
The fractals are numbers found between whole nature numbers
...0, 1, 2, 3,...on a line, just like fractions are found between whole numbers.

If 0 has a y axis line, you can 'reflect' 1 over the y axis to get -1 on the x axis. The y axis has a 'reflexive' symmetrical property like a half transparent mirror. You can not use the y axis 'half transparent mirror-like properties' to find the 'opposite' of the fractals you chose. You have to use the complex axis.

The construction to find the complex axis is a half rotation about the origin on the x axis. The construction to find the y axis is a quarter rotation about the origin on the x axis.

The difference in rotation to find the axises through construction 'breaks' the symmetry between fractals and natural numbers. Or not. You decide. lol :)
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
GR uses continuous space - the are no 'holes' in the 'fabric' of space. The no holes comes from infinitesimal measure.

QM uses discrete space - there are holes everywhere in the fabric of space. Those 'holes' come from the Plank measure.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
Definitions:
Continuum - Infinitesimal measure.
Discrete - Plank measure.

I'm keeping it simple.
The hyper-reals and what spheres have do with the hyper-reals goes beyond the scope of this thread commentary. Yet, the internet can provide the answers to your question.
Ethelred
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
The fractals are numbers found between whole nature numbers
I think the word you are looking for is Imaginary numbers but they are not between whole natural numbers. The clue is you reference to a complex axis. This implies that you have been taking to much Mandelbrot lately.

Is that Hush like enough?

And I have no clue as to what he meant by hyper-reals unless that was the Imaginary numbers and Hush meant that for both fractal numbers and hyper-reals.(I was wrong, see next post, but I want to show what I was getting from Hush's examples.)

Maybe this is it.

Hyper-reals are imaginary numbers. Numbers that include the square root of -2.
http://en.wikiped...y_number

Fractal numbers are complex numbers. Numbers with an imaginary part and a real part. 5i 5 is a complex number.
http://en.wikiped...>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
OK there is such thing as a hyperreal.
http://en.wikiped...l_number
The idea of the hyperreal system is to extend the real numbers R to form a system *R that includes infinitesimal and infinite numbers, but without changing any of the elementary axioms of algebra.


I never ran across those before. Don't know what do with them now. Maybe someday.

Hush please use links when introducing ideas that stretch the bounds of 1000 characters AND cause strain brains.

Do you mind if I just try dealing with orders of infinity. That one I sort of comprehend. This one might take a while.

Ethelred
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
Sorry, needed a couple hours sleep there...
Okay - forget I asked about hyper-reals and spheres. People already think I'm odd - no tellin what they'd think if I brought THAT to the table, too...:-)
And - I got your definitions. Just not sure I want to accept them as gospel inasmuch as I believe there is room for both holes and no holes in our "time-space" conceptualization. Perhaps on a localized (density) basis.
Dang... Now I'm startin to sound like Calippo...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
And, perhaps I am not utilizing the term fractal in the mathematically correct context(I AM left handed, after all...)
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
Apologies to everyone. Took for granted everyone was introduced to the hyper-reals at one time or another.

Before I was send to kindergarten, my parents show me the hyperreals - so none of my kindergarten class mates was ever too small to be overlooked. :)

Joke, everyone. Not being derogatory in any sense.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
typo in above comment: show=showed

The safest refuge for dreams is sleep. Even during the day.
Sleep well Cynical1.
Eoprime
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
WTF Callipo, Cynical.
pls stop to spam every thread with waterripple nonsense, this gets annoying.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2011
IMO just the water surface analogy is pretty effective and straightforward analogy in explanation of concepts of virtual particles, formation of particle-antiparticle pairs from vacuum, etc. But your stance and voting status of my posts indicates clearly, many people here don't want to hear about such analogies. The pure abstract description is enough for them. They just want to keep the physics supernatural and mysterious, because it substitutes the role of modern religion for them. The role or such religion is welcomed both with its believers, both its priests and the people, who are supporting them, i.e. the supporters of formal approach to mainstream physics.

We should realize, the religion doesn't exist in human civilization, because some Church wants it. It does exist here, because most of people involved in it want it. The contemporary society simply don't want to understand the reality at its intuitive level, because it's not pleasant for many people, not just few physicists.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
WTF Callipo, Cynical.
pls stop to spam every thread with waterripple nonsense, this gets annoying.

Leave me out o that one, EO. That's a Calippo practice only...:-)
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
@Cynical1: strickly speaking, the movement and resultant shapes of curling smoke are described by the mathematics for Brownian motion, not fractal geometry. :)

@Ethelred: imaginary numbers: square root of -1 = i, NOT -2
:)

Cheers, DH66
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
strickly speaking, the movement and resultant shapes of curling smoke are described by the mathematics for Brownian motion, not fractal geometry. :)

Maybe, if brownian motion math applies to fluid mechanics (I honestly don't know).
I used fractal in the more laymen context in that the smoke
appears representational of other observations of different scalar and event-type processes. It's the way an artist's mind works, I guess...:-)
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Nov 01, 2011
"Maybe, if brownian motion math applies to fluid mechanics (I honestly don't know)."
That is exactly what it does. Here are a couple of links:
http://en.wikiped...n_motion
http://physicswor...nian.htm
The applets in these are also recommended
Hope this helps.
Having said that, I do believe that there are some aspects of fractals involved, but to explain the connection is, at this point beyond my scope of knowledge. Could somebody help with how they do come into it? (the basic concepts) It would be appreciated.
Cheers, DH66
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
I do believe that there are some aspects of fractals involved
If you would read your links, you would know that the Brownian motion IS a fractal of Hausdorff dimension = 2

http://en.wikiped...fractals
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2011
Rawa - link was very helpful. I'll be immersed in study for a month or 2, now.
DH - I knew it -just didn't REALIZE I knew it until AFTER I commented...:-)
Thanks to both of you (for gettin me started on a path I'm sure will make my brain explode...;-) - and really piss off my wife...:-)
hush1
4 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2011
Cynical1
Rawa and DH are mind enhancing substances with consequences. Their warning labels are more than just package decoration.

I offer condolences to the surviving members dearest to you.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2011
LOL again, Hush...:-)
Your humour indicates you're more than just a brain composed of only math equations...:-)
(And maybe a bit of a fractalizer, yerself...:-)
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Nov 03, 2011
@rawa - My education is still a work in progress. I haven't had the opportunity to explore fractals in a practical sense on their own - yet. There is only so much computer & study time available to me and getting ready for final exams HAS to take priority. When I went looking for a suitable link about brownian motion, that was the first time that I learnt of a direct practical application for fractals, beyond looking pretty 'as a picture' :) I did try to find a (reasonably basic)article on the net, to help build at least some conceptual ideas about just HOW fractals tie into Brownian motion. The best that I could find was an article that said the same thing that you did, that it had a Hausdorff dimension of 2. That was why I didn't make a more definitive statement about it. I needed concepts, not statements & I wasn't prepared to lead anyone astray. At least, between the two of us, we have managed to excite Cynical1 in a positive way, about an important piece of physics :] Cheers, DH66
Cynical1
not rated yet Nov 03, 2011
Perhaps my definition of fractals is not the same as everyone elses. To me, a fractal is an element of a larger "set" and that element appears analogous of the set. I do not just include physical matter in my "element/larger set" paradigm. I also include events, processes, etc.
Perhaps I should call those elements ergodic, rather that fractal.
The trick is (for me) to understand that each of those elements of a particular set is ALSO an element of a number of OTHER sets.

SOrry for the cryptic/incomplete explanation, but it's a work in progress and, well - you know what happens with those...:-)