The Problem of Time leads to a Problem of Energy for the Universe

[Crunchy Cat]

. . . can someone define and give me a few proven examples of "negative energy" . . . humor me a bit here . . .

Negative energy is an energy IOU. It subtracts from positive energy. A proven example of negative energy is one of the particles in a virtual particle pair.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

''This paragraph confused me a little. Do you mean that you could not handle a biology, chemistry, and physics class at once so you just completed a single physics class instead of all 3? ''

Yes.

''I am also confused about your statement about being qualified for biology, chemistry, and physics.''

To qualify for a university I mean. I don't know what is required, but I doubt an insignificant understanding of math won't help, especially when it comes to qualifications, I mean.

Colleges come equipped with a fun little bunch of folks called guidance counselors. They take what you know, where you want to be, and make a custom path for you to get there. That is probably where you want to start.

 

[Reiku]

. . . can someone define and give me a few proven examples of "negative energy" . . . humor me a bit here . . .

I could recite negative energy properties of the vacuum simply from starting with the Dirac Equation predicting a sea of negative energy electrons. That soon developed into a quantum field theory which stated these negative energy fluctuations came in the form of virtual particles, which has been considered mainstream knowledge since the confirmation of the zero point energy field. Energy particles with negative signs therefor atleast happen with a mathematical sign change, whether one is truely positive or negative is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Reiku]

Colleges come equipped with a fun little bunch of folks called guidance counselors. They take what you know, where you want to be, and make a custom path for you to get there. That is probably where you want to start.

Maybe so.

I'd have to travel to Glasgow everyday tho, which would take 1 hour 30 mins... and it's not simply a car drive for me.

I don't drive, to get to one destination, I need to travel by boat. To get to another I need to travel by train to finish of with a fair walk on foot.

I might sound lazy, but it is a lot to ask for a student here. I felt sorry for myself alone while doing college which is half a journey away, a lot of the time failing to get home at all because the boats have been cancelled due to typically shit scottish weather lol

 

[wlminex]

Negative energy is an energy IOU. It subtracts from positive energy. A proven example of negative energy is one of the particles in a virtual particle pair.

An energy IOU? WTF! . . . I'm not a CPA . . . has 'negative' energy or virtual particle pairs actually been 'proven' or are they just hypothetical or mathematical constructs . . . BTW . . . that's one example . . . there MUST be more . . . or is THAT the only one??

 

[Reiku]

An energy IOU? WTF! . . . has 'negative' energy or virtual particle pairs actually been 'proven' or are they just hypothetical or mathematical constructs . . . BTW . . . that's one example . . . there MUST be more?

Of course there is more examples.

In the Casimir Effect, as the distance get's increasingly smaller as the seperation between the two plates enclose, the energy becomes increasingly negative, hence why in the Casimir Effect that the negative energy makes an appearance in the equations... needless to say, I am under the impression it is a very small amount though, not enough to harvest anyway.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

An energy IOU? WTF!

Yep.

. . . has 'negative' energy or virtual particle pairs actually been 'proven' or are they just hypothetical or mathematical constructs . . .

They were demonstrated to be real by Steve Lamoreaux in 1996.

BTW . . . that's one example . . . there MUST be more?

That is the only demonstrable example I am aware of off the top of my head.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Maybe so.

I'd have to travel to Glasgow everyday tho, which would take 1 hour 30 mins... and it's not simply a car drive for me.

I don't drive, to get to one destination, I need to travel by boat. To get to another I need to travel by train to finish of with a fair walk on foot.

I might sound lazy, but it is a lot to ask for a student here. I felt sorry for myself alone while doing college which is half a journey away, a lot of the time failing to get home at all because the boats have been cancelled due to typically shit scottish weather lol

Solution: dormatory :3

 

[wlminex]

I could recite negative energy properties of the vacuum simply from starting with the Dirac Equation predicting a sea of negative energy electrons. That soon developed into a quantum field theory which stated these negative energy fluctuations came in the form of virtual particles, which has been considered mainstream knowledge since the confirmation of the zero point energy field. Energy particles with negative signs therefor atleast happen with a mathematical sign change, whether one is truely positive or negative is in the eye of the beholder.

. . . But, is not the zero point energy (ZPE) field also a mathematical construct? Without quoting a lot of math . . . can you provide me with a few narrative links or citations that actually have "PROVED" the ZPE field exists?

 

[Reiku]

. . . But, is not the zero point energy (ZPE) field also a mathematical construct? Without quoting a lot of math . . . can you provide me with a few narrative links or citations that actually have "PROVED" the ZPE field exists?

There was some talk a while back about the Van der Wall forces, but I can honestly say this:

The zero point energy field was recognized by Einstein. It was believe it or not, a consequence of quantum mechanics itself. The only reason the Casmir Effect was discovered was simply because it's creator realized that quantum mechanics allowed this phenomenon to occur.

It is definately the activity of short quantum fluctuation's which can violate certain conservation laws.That is really all the needs to be known... ... mind you, assuming you knew already that the vaccum was a bubbling sheet of virtual particles anyhow.

 

[wlminex]

Reiku Quote: "It is definately the activity of short quantum fluctuation's which can violate certain conservation laws.That is really all the needs to be known... ... mind you, assuming you knew already that the vaccum was a bubbling sheet of virtual particles anyhow."

So, at least at the quantum level . . . certain conservation 'LAWS' CAN be violated . . . I guess by mathematical inference that, at the quantum level, some physical (GR) laws (like energy? gravity?, for instance?) do not apply?

. . .a bubbling 'sheet' (2-D? or 3-D? . . . 'sheet' infers 2-D) . . . Yes, you are likely correct . . . BTW . . . my hypothesis (elsewhere in Sciforums - Alternative Theories) speculates a similar phenomenon . . . transition from a (yet) undetectible energy universe matrix (pre-universe?) . . . via intermediary virtual particle production . . . to mass (observable universe) . . . kind of an 'energy evaporation' process, but with some qualifiers.

 

[Reiku]

By the way,

$$\dot{\chi} = i(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d_) \nabla^2$$

Is a classical limitation. The main reason is because if anyone decides to take the integral of this equation will end up with the equivalent of a world-line of an object to which you would take a slice out of in order to measure the duration. Taking an integral of this nature would do this assuming the steps $$\delta (x)$$ are made in small progressions since large steps would result in an oscillating system.

 

[Reiku]

Sorry, that really should be written asn $$\delta (\vec{x})$$ to account for the three dimensions of space, the time dependance comes from derivatives.

 

[Reiku]

An oscillating system is equivalent to a metric which is fluctuating after some kind of quantization method.

 

[wlminex]

Reiku Quote: "The zero point energy field was recognized by Einstein"

Can you point me to a reference for this statement? . . . I've not read Einstein's works for quite a while . . . BTW it is interesting to me that his "Cosmological Constant" ideas seem to now be being revisited under different guises . . . . Perhaps it was not "the greatest mistake" of his life (paraphrasing AE here).

Cheers!

 

[Reiku]

I have been thinking about alternative solutions to the time problem (which I have only just considered wondering about the clearup provided by AN concerning q) which is written into the archives of problems concerning unanwered paradoxes of physics. I decided that maybe there was an absolute field, maybe one single matter field where the time derivative does not vanish under the wheeler de Witt formalism [1]. I started to conjecture such a field and came up with

$$\dot{\chi} = i(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d_) \nabla^2$$

The time dependance is inherent in the matter field $$\chi$$ itself. The time derivative appears from $$\dot{q_i}$$ as well. So long as there are real dynamics with real matter (not photon energy or any energy pertaining to nullified particle trajectories [2]) - This tardyonic matter can act as Einsteinian Clocks and measure time passing inside the universe, using a matter field to be a real set of clocks, locally defining time.

In fact, the electron has an internal clock. Not many know this. Hestene's made a brilliant paper on this.

[2] Time for bosons are stretched to a hypothetical infinity suggesting that no time passes at all. It is a consequence of relativity itself (as AN knows, just for the benefit of others.)

I should elaborate more on the derivision: It was set on the principle of the dynamics

$$\dot{\chi} = i(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d) \nabla^2$$

$$\dot{\chi}$$ was the ''primordial matter field'' which was being taken with it's derivative of time, which provided us with units of mass over time. This is the general mass flow rate. To have any kind of rate I should remind includes some measure of time. Real particles in relativity with a mass constitute as clocks.

The mass flow rate of an arbitrary system is given as

$$\dot{M} = \frac{\Delta M}{\Delta t}$$

Therefor $$\dot{\chi}$$ if $$\chi$$ spreads out over all space results in a mass flow rate which it's end history and future boundary represent the overall density of the universe. When I speak of density, I mean the energy density. The part

$$(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d)$$

describes a set of dimensions satisfying momentum times the distance. This is equivalent to the reduced Plancks Constant. But we cannot infer on that because our field should not be quantized.

The $$\dot{\chi}$$ part is really just $$\frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t}$$ thus what we end up with is the Canonical Momentum multiplied by the distance which provides the action of the system.

 

[Reiku]

Reiku Quote: "The zero point energy field was recognized by Einstein"

Can you point me to a reference for this statement? . . .Cheers!

Well, just google Zero point Energy on wiki, that article will tell you everything you need to know about his influence, including references.

 

[wlminex]

Well, just google Zero point Energy on wiki, that article will tell you everything you need to know about his influence, including references.

THANKS, Reiku . . . . will do!

 

[Reiku]

I should elaborate more on the derivision: It was set on the principle of the dynamics

$$\dot{\chi} = i(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d) \nabla^2$$

$$\dot{\chi}$$ was the ''primordial matter field'' which was being taken with it's derivative of time, which provided us with units of mass over time. This is the general mass flow rate. To have any kind of rate I should remind includes some measure of time. Real particles in relativity with a mass constitute as clocks.

The mass flow rate of an arbitrary system is given as

$$\dot{M} = \frac{\Delta M}{\Delta t}$$

Therefor $$\dot{\chi}$$ if $$\chi$$ spreads out over all space results in a mass flow rate which it's end history and future boundary represent the overall density of the universe. When I speak of density, I mean the energy density. The part

$$(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q_i}} \cdot d)$$

describes a set of dimensions satisfying momentum times the distance. This is equivalent to the reduced Plancks Constant. But we cannot infer on that because our field should not be quantized.

The $$\dot{\chi}$$ part is really just $$\frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t}$$ thus what we end up with is the Canonical Momentum multiplied by the distance which provides the action of the system.

In fact, looking back at my notes, I should have also said that there is a time-coupling parameter on the matter field and the lagrangian through a proportionality. The time dependant therego arises from $$\dot{\chi}$$ through periodic apperances of $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}_i}$$. The kinetic energy is therefor dependant on the periodic cycles of the overall field $$\chi$$.

 

[Reiku]

''So, at least at the quantum level . . . certain conservation 'LAWS' CAN be violated . . . ''

Yes, this is what happens when you quantize a metric. Cause and effect become unclear.