Friday, June 12, 2009
Wormholes Generate New Kind of Quantum Anticentrifugal Force
Quantum particles entering a wormhole may experience an entirely new class of force.
There is a gangrenous rot at the heart of modern physics. The two
most successful pillars of modern physics, quantum theory and general
relativity, are at loggerheads, and something has to give.
There is no clearer demonstration of this than in the study of quantum
mechanics in curved spaces. Quantum mechanics works well in the flat
Euclidian space in which we appear to live, but nobody knows how it
fares in the curved space that general relativity predicts. And
surprisingly, physicists have spent little time bothering to find out.
But today, Rossen Dandoloff from the Universite de Cergy-Pontoise, in
France, takes a stab at nailing the behavior of quantum particles in
the highly curved geometry of a wormhole.
His starting point is the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle, which
states that you cannot know a particle's location in space and its
momentum at the same time. It is only possible to measure one or the
other with any degree of certainty.
Dandoloff points out that if space is stretched so that the
uncertainty in position is greater than it would otherwise be in a
flat space, then the uncertainty in momentum must be less. And that
means the energy of the particle must be lower too.
So a highly curved region of space must act like a potential well,
pulling quantum particles toward it (since they'll naturally move to
the region with the lowest energy).
Dandoloff calls this the quantum anticentrifugal force.
A similar effect has been found for certain quantum particles in
two-dimensional space, one of a number of strange forces that arise
when you fiddle with the space. These forces are called quantum fictitious forces because they
vary according to the dimensions of space, and so can't arise in the real space in which the universe is embedded (at least that's how the thinking goes).
But that raises another question: what exactly is the space in
which the universe is embedded? There's no consensus on that, and
until there is, quantum physics and general relativity will continue
to live in a twilight world of theoretical ambiguity where quantum forces may or may not be fictional.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.1209: Quantum Anticentrifugal Force for Wormhole Geometry
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/awt-and-vorm-holes.html
ZephirAWT
06/12/2009
Posts:99
The problem is that entering a black hole, you enter into a sort of zero-space, where space can no longer be quantified. Energy and mass would count for nothing, and there would be no escaping this- interestingly, this rests in tandem with the theme of the article. The Heisenburg Uncetainty principal would move (rather, would explain why) particles into this zero-space where they would be forced to remain, since they cannot move into any space without increasing energy. I found this article very interesting.
Danieleveld
06/13/2009
Posts:17
brentrobot
06/14/2009
Posts:8
1) Is information NOT conserved in black holes? (A big problem for theoretical physicists!)
2) Does that mean that the LHC might create mini-black holes that will NOT evaporate (A big problem for the rest of us!).
Obviously I'm being a little alarmist on the second point because as has been pointed out many times before, these "mini" black holes would've been created by high-energy cosmic ray events before. Still interesting to think about.
kimtheo
06/14/2009
Posts:1
While black holes can be wormholes, they don't need to be- they could simply be a supermassive compression. Also, wormholes don't need to be black holes. A wormhole can very well be completely devoid of mass (until a stray particle comes along). The only problem, which I believe the article describes, is that the incoming energy will likey not be enough to pull it through the wormhole, creating a bastion of quantum particles.
Danieleveld
06/15/2009
Posts:17
This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper (of falsification fame) wrote in Conjectures and Refutations that spacetime is "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." As amazing as this may sound, a time dimension makes motion/change impossible. But don't take my word for it. Figure it out for yourself.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Conjectures and Refutations:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Mapou
06/15/2009
Posts:65
If nothing can move through spacetime, and spacetime does not exist, how do you account for redshift? Or accelerated dilation? We measure these events, but they can't exist if spacetime does not.
Even simple things like orbit are defined by compressions of spacetime. Einstein's first proof was an observation of orbit. Gravity can also be used as a measure of spacial compression. Before you can even begin to dispute spacetime, you need to shoot down the theory that lightspeed is a constant. If lightspeed is constant, it demands spacial compression.
Danieleveld
06/15/2009
Posts:17
Mapou
06/15/2009
Posts:65
Time <> space <> spacetime, therefore motion in spacetime <> motion in space <> motion in time (http://tinyurl.com/lvj9n3 http://tinyurl.com/mthsph)
ZephirAWT
06/17/2009
Posts:99