Image: Illustration by Vault49
In Brief
- Space may not be smooth and continuous. Instead it may be digital, composed of tiny bits. Physicists have assumed that these bits are far too small to measure with current technology.
- Yet one scientist thinks that he has devised a way to detect the bitlike structure of space. His machine—currently under construction—will attempt to measure its grainy nature.
- The experiment is one of the first to investigate the principle that the universe emerges from information—specifically, information that is imprinted on two-dimensional sheets.
- If successful, the experiment will shift the foundations of what we know about space and time, providing a glimpse of a new physics that could supplant our current understanding.
More In This Article
Craig Hogan believes that the world is fuzzy. This is not a metaphor. Hogan, a physicist at the University of Chicago and director of the Fermilab Particle Astrophysics Center near Batavia, Ill., thinks that if we were to peer down at the tiniest subdivisions of space and time, we would find a universe filled with an intrinsic jitter, the busy hum of static. This hum comes not from particles bouncing in and out of being or other kinds of quantum froth that physicists have argued about in the past. Rather Hogan’s noise would come about if space was not, as we have long assumed, smooth and continuous, a glassy backdrop to the dance of fields and particles. Hogan’s noise arises if space is made of chunks. Blocks. Bits. Hogan’s noise would imply that the universe is digital.
It is a breezy, early autumn afternoon when Hogan takes me to see the machine he is building to pick out this noise. A bright-blue shed rises out of the khaki prairie of the Fermilab campus, the only sign of new construction at this 45-year-old facility. A fist-wide pipe runs 40 meters from the shed to a long, perpendicular bunker, the former home of a beam that for decades shot subatomic particles north toward Minnesota. The bunker has been reclaimed by what Hogan calls his Holometer, a device designed to amplify the jitter in the fabric of space.
This article was originally published with the title Is Space Digital?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentPerhaps space is a solid made of space elements. Light is a vibration within the solid that propagates as a wave, while matter is a combination of vibrations within the solid that makes standing waves. This way, all particles are vibrations of space, oscillating between different forms of energy. Matter is made of light, so it can’t go faster than light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks,
-Tony
I agree. Look closely enough in the gaps and you may see Keanu Reeves!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. So what happens, then, when space expands? Do the space "quanta" move further apart, or are new quanta created (from the vacuum energy?) to "fill in" the new gaps? Or does something else happen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe humans tend to think a phenomena must be either a particle or a wave, but in QM it is now assumed that there is a duality between the two. We humans can think in terms of discrete or continuous but maybe space is neither. Space could be some hybrid of the two or something all together different. Maybe the Continuum Hypothesis in mathematics is false. (The CH posits that "There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and that of the real numbers.")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "tiny bits" or virtual particles that are often undetectable products of energy field interactions provide evidence that universal space is permeated by not ether but energy fields...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what happens is the stuff called Dark Energy, that drives the expansion of the Universe, slowly creates new space-time blocks which push out existing space-time blocks similar to chunks of ice melting in a pond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf correct that means expansion of the Universe would stop when no Dark Energy left anymore. After that the volume of Universe would stay constant (unless Black Holes are sucking back space-time blocks, not just particles and light etc.) but the galaxies would start getting closer because of gravity.
It is especially exciting when a relatively simple experiment has the potential to alter our thinking. It has been a while since a truly revolutionary discovery in physics has been made, maybe this is it. Considering the possibility of FTL neutrinos, Higgs bosons and now this, it is truly an exciting time for theoretical physics. Consider the connection between this experiment and the Casimir effect. Wow!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fermi gamma-ray satellite team has published two observational tests of spatial "foaminess" in Physical Review Letters. Both conflict with the spatial "foam" hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most recent test by Nemiroff and colleagues finds that any "foaminess" would have to be at a scale 500 times smaller than the incredibly small conventional Planck scale.
Thus the observational results so far are: No subquantum "foaminess", except in the minds of Platonic pipe-dreamers.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
I'm surprised that no one mentioned Planck's Constant. It defines the smallest allowable amount of quanta in the quantum universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
It has been known since 1900, when Planck discovered his famous constant, that the universe is broken down to irreducible quanta. The experiment described in the article above seems to be just looking for further details of the same thing.
Just because foaminess may possibly be discredited in an experiment does not preclude its existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere could be such a thing as fully populated non-foamy space near the inner parts of galaxies, but only partially populated foamy space on the outer edges of galaxies.
I don't know if this view is consistent with how "foamy" space is considered to behave. However, it is how I personally have viewed space for some time. It is conceivable that MOND could be related to such a view.
As far as space itself having a minute digital granularity, I am convinced that it does. However, the tiny digital pieces are VERY closely synchronized with one another except in areas of extremely dense mass. This could cause misinterpretation of granularity if one assumes the pieces behave somewhat independently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Gravity Man,
My research tells me that matter is fractal, with discrete self-similarity, and no lower or upper bounds.
Therefore physical objects like an atom, star or galaxy have an infinite hierarchical substructure.
Space-time, i.e., the pure geometry of the cosmos, does not appear to be quantized, "chunked" or "digitized".
Space-time may not be smooth and differentiable, except in approximation, but it is almost certainly continuous.
It is matter that is quantized at all of the fundamental cosmological Scales of the infinite hierarchy.
So if you want to find Subquantum Scale structure, the best place to look in places where matter is reasonably dense, and certainly not in intergalactic space where one has a very low density of matter.
Bottom line: Within a discrete fractal cosmos, your point is well taken. There are places where there is infinite substructure, and places where there is not.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http:www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete cale Relativity
Now then, now then, now then. If it's digital, we're all virtual (if not virtuous).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Ow's About who wrote The Program? Or did a program just happen randomly?
'Ave we got a virus? Where do I download a patch?
Terrible thought for the day - it's designed by Microsoft.....
"There is a software error, your universe has had to close, please reboot."
I have been a regular reader and subscriber to Scientific American for at least forty years. Like most readers, I don't understand all of the articles that I read, or attempt to read. However, I have degrees in math, astronomy, and engineering and have spent my entire career in the engineering field. I do understand most of the articles about physics and cosmology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost articles in Scientific American seem to be written by researchers who understand the subject that they are writing about. This article / cover story is by far the worst that I remember reading. It is a rambeling, poorly written, incoherent piece of shit. It was obviously written by someone who didn't even prepare an outline, let alone understand the subject. Most of the paragraphs are tiny chunks of very important concepts and theories that are poorly presented and in a athorative manner that is not justified or explained.
Most egregious of all, it never even gives the values of the Planckian length or Planckian time. Based on this article, anyone who has any familiarity with interferometers and knows the approximate sizes of the Plank length and time values, as I do, must come to the conclusion the two physicists working on this experiment are either fools, or idiots. Having attempted to read Craig Hogans scientific paper on this subject, "Interferometers as Probes of Planckian Quantum Geometry" at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4880v26.pdf I don't believe that he or his co-leader, Aaron Chou are fools or idiots. (I wish I could fully understand Hogan's paper, but that is exactly the reason I subscribe to Scientific American).
The author of this article is described as a "senior editor". If I were his superior I would summarily fire him and anyone who edited this piece of crap. Then I would send an heart-felt apology to Hogan and Chou for discrediting them and damaging their reputations.
This is truly appalling. Scientific American has skidded a long way over the last decade. This has got to be rock bottom.
the space in higher dimension might be symmetry or anti-symmetry. Zero and one belong to 2 values logic. We have logic with higher values. In higher dimension or logic it might be movement making a sound we hear the hum on our world. To imaging all is possible. Anyhow, for the real world I wish the best for Mr. Craig Hogan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis certainly makes sense. Has anyone looked at this theoretically and determined that it fits with what's known (theorized) about structure near the Planck length? Would the "appearance" of additional blocks of space violate conservation of information?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould the distance between space quanta be able to stretch or compress (e.g., above/below the Planck length)? If not, wouldn't that pretty-much mean that one FTL proposal - the Alcubierre drive, wouldn't work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTony_Who wrote: Perhaps space is a solid made of space elements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------
Understanding smallness makes your statement a non theory and you are absolutely correct, however;
Matter and light are made of fire and sound is much, much faster than light! Comment 1, 6, 9, 17, 19, 22, 28, 30, 33, 34 and 38. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=living-in-a-quantum-world
Conservation of information would not be violated when Dark Energy particles converted to space-time blocks. It is just conversion of information, similar to when other particles decay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace-time could be more like a gas to still allow bending, compressing, stretching w/o changing the size of individual blocks.
I think Dark Energy must be creating new space-time blocks because conservation of energy law requires it; since unit volume of empty space-time must have a constant amount of zero-point energy.
If space-time is really digital, I think it would imply Universe is a Cellular Automaton and that would mean Theory Of Everything must be a cellular automaton description, which is something way different than all existing candidate theories for TOE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it would be just awesome if a super expensive experiment like LHC cannot find the Higgs Boson and way cheaper experiments like this one and FTL Neutrino experiment finds evidence for profoundly new physics :-)
When considering the effects of dark energy on gravity, let's not forget that space is a place at near absolute zero, and we know that gravity acts differently at that point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWOW!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany years ago I painted a second rate
{sorry third rate]
Painting of a 'spiral in space' this had a figure of squeezed light emanating from the 'hole'.
At that time I knew nothing about 'Hawking radiation'
I reasoned that, if a 'black hole' existed then, it would not be able to destroy the Universe
and / or survive at the same time.
If the Universal 'expansion' was in total, or near total,
looking glass symmetry, then:- an apposition symmetry
would explain the great attractor ,ect,.
Best wishes,
Marg Allworth.
it is precisely because space-time is quantized that singularities can not exist. this means as i have pointed out before, that black holes must have a complex quantized structure. it also means that the big bang could not have initiated from an infinitely dense point. much of cosmology in its current form will have to be revised. a physicist of the 22nd century will look back on what is currently believed about quantum behavior, and about cosmology and shake his/her head. i just hope i live long enough to see that day of reckoning that results in a nearly complete revision of physics textbooks (as regards quantum physics and cosmology). christina anne knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProficiat! A very good project: the Hogan-project! I am convinced that Hogan will find 'spacetime is digital'. However, what still is neglegted in the press, and mainly by Scientific American, is that a digital spacetime is part of the Double Torus Hypothesis of dark energy and dark matter. Dark energy in this Hypothesis is a new definition of dark energy. It is not the cosmological constant of Einstein, not quintessence and not moduli. In the Double Torus Universe spacetime is recalculated with information from below the Planckscale. Nevertheless I agree this subquantumlevel can not be disclosed yet. Hogan will make that happen with experiments. This will be, however, not the first evidence for the recalculation-mechanism of the Double Torus (enclosing Relativity). The faster-than-light experiments of CERN-Gran-Sasso also prove my theoretical calculation for this phenomenon within the statistical and systhematic margins. In this calculation a new dark-energy-force-formula is used as the theoretical buildingstone of the Double Torus Hypothesis. When is Scientific American ready to contact me (email is known). Reference: www.darkfieldnavigator.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace is digital. Einstein introduced the concept “space-time” as two relative parameters that are related between them and have the speed of light as their absolute reference. At the far end of the scale, the minimal distance between two particles is the number of Planck. Consequently, time and space are not infinitely small. Both parameters begin to exist starting from the mentioned quantity. Neither infinitesimal time nor infinitesimal space is possible. In the universe there is a lowest limit and a top limit for causality. The lowest limit is the dimension of energy given by Planck’s constant, which determines the lowest scale possible for the existence of the causal relationship. The top limit for this relationship refers to the maximum speed that movement can have, which is the speed of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat underlies all movement is change, which is the origin of movement. Movement is the visible and measurable side of change. Both time and space are the measures of the extension and the duration of a process. In both cases time and space measure a cause in relation to its effect. On the one hand, time measures how long it takes a cause to affect something and how long a change takes as it happens. In this sense the duration can last for a brief instant, or can last much more. On the other hand, space measures the distance between the position of a cause and the position of its effect. When change is measured through the causal relationship, time becomes irreversible, because there is energy expense and energy regain, and the generation of force.
This experiment is of interesting, and is indeed looking a lot like the Michelson-Morley one, for the finding of ether.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two major things in my opinion that are important :
The first is when we accept the Planck length as the minimum lenght so the length of a space grain, how does it happen that the ESA's Integral gamma ray observatory indicates an underlying quantum graininess of 10^-48cm? (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html),
second : is this graininess really a volume that contains inforamtion ? Information as we stock it up in our causal universe has two faces , 0 or 1, yes or no, so should you be able to sort out two kind of grains ?
Should it not be more logical to accept just the fact that our Universe (the causal material) has limits, we still not know where these limits in space and time are, but we can begin of course with the Planck length and time, beyond these limits we enter a new kind of "non causal dimension", where there is no before or after. So at the borderline of these limits each point (with the length of the minimum lengths) touches this dimension and radiates a certain information into the causal universe, our consciousness is ordening this information in the for us understandable life- and time-lines.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus.
I'm in on the idea that space/time is discrete i.e. made up of parts but the Planck length might not be the smallest scale. I also do not think that space time is digital/holographical but it is an okay theoretical frame to use. If Hogan's experiment detects space/time jitters that would prove discreteness and microscale activity. It would still be a longer road to prove the digital/holographical theoretical interpretation as there are alternative explanations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case it would be exciting if the experiment does see any jitters as it would open up a whole new area for research. It could even possiblity get some solid hits before the gravitational waves experiments see anything; and they have been active for years. Of course there are a lot of "if's" and much depends on eliminating noise and having a high enough sensitivity in the expermental detection technology. I hope Hogan strikes gold.
Thanks so much for the link to Hogan, (2011), "Interferometers as Probes of Planckian Quantum Geometry", http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4880v26
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike you, I have read SA for several decades. After briefly examining Hogan's research report, I generally agree with your assessment of SA's article. I think in the past Hogan himself might have been invited to write an article properly explaining his proposals to the SA readership.
I don't have your qualifications, but have spent >30 years as what could be generally described as an information systems analyst. I certainly don't understand Hogan's work in the context that it's presented, but I did find what I believe to be some critical information.
In the section, "POSITION IN QUANTUM GEOMETRY", Hogan begins to explain how he envisions that "information" is encoded in the physical universe:
"Consider an idealized world consisting of matter and radiation in an unperturbed, 3+1-dimensional spacetime. We wish to establish an operational definition of position for matter. For definiteness, consider a reflecting surface. It forms a spacelike boundary condition for an electromagnetic field. Its position is defined by its effect on the field, which is how the position is measured: the field solution depends on the position of the surface..."
He goes on:
"Position in each direction is measured by a normally-reflected mode traveling in that direction. The position of a body is defined by measurements based on configurations of reflected radiation. The quantum geometry we seek to study is introduced by imposing quantum conditions connecting the position operators in different directions."
I interpret the entirety of Hogans ideas about the encoding of quantum information as purely imaginary. I find no physical basis for the storage of information other than some imaginary "nested system of causal diamonds" whose energy reflectivity somehow determines the state of quantum field characteristics (see Figures 1-3).
Perhaps Hogan could explain in lay terms precisely what physical basis exists for his ideas. Simply establishing that spacetime is quantized at quantum scales does not infer that it is associated with any idealized information or any imaginary encoding/decoding process that transforms that information to produce any physical manifestations. In fact, quantized spacetime would not preclude that it can also be demonstrated to be effectively smooth and continuous at larger scales. At any rate, I found no mention of the SA article's assertion that information is stored digitally...
NOT CONTINOUS SPACE PROVING PSYCHO – SOMATIC SMART UNIVERSE : DISCOVER IT WITH INVERTED PARADIGM METHOD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf space were not continous, change your paradigm by thinking that our (smart) Universe is really a living reality of Psycho – Somatic entity body the same as the way we look at human body comprising of Body – Mind – Soul . In this circumstance, our smart Universe is an ultimate huge creature among other creatures or other Universes (MultiUniverse)
The relevant method to searching this hypothesis, most likely you should use “top down” or “Inverted Paradigm Method” (IPM) approach to complementing the conventional scientific method. Regarding this, I’d like to explain our IPM briefly
The essence of conventional or classical scientific mindset shown through step-by-step “deducto – hypothetico – verificative” way of thinking. But, within “Inverted Paradigm Method (IPM)” totally change in opposite direction. It is called as “reverse engineering”, “evidence-based” or even “gnosis”. The trend using IPM with its variations is prominently exposed since early 21th century, by the fact that scientific world occasionally suffering from the “syndrome of the End of Science”, a syndrome where Science get difficulties in finding answer to many human complex problems.
We, Mobee Knowledge Services, through our Human System Biology-based Knowledge Management (HSBKM) model framework as well as our Mobee Knowledge Competency Capability Maturity (MKCCM) model as Knowledge Management (KM) metrics which we have been using since 2009 for the consultancies, could be considered as solid and robust Knowledge - intensive “laboratory and experimental workplace 2.0” for further another possibility of advanced study. In this case, we used them as material through “Inverted Paradigm Method (IPM) ” (Basic Science derived from Applied Science), a kind of “reverse engineering” by treating KM as Knowledge intensive body toward seeking relevant solution. We noted that it could be done only in a Knowledge intensive scientific body, otherwise we couldn’t succeeded in doing such reverse engineering regarding the matter of the issue to apply into a basic science. In this case Knowledge Management (KM) applied to Theoretical Physics. The resulting process of our efforts to performing IPM on either HSBKM or MKCCM making us quite succeeded in developing theoretical constructs derived from KM applied to Physics namely in Theoretical and/or Astro Physics
Some of our current work to highlights the above mentioned could be read at http://bit.ly/zVS7mF
If information determining the physical manifestation of elements was somehow represented within the universe, we should not presume (as most seem to do, and is inferred by this SA article) that that information is somehow digitally encoded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand correctly (please see my preceding comment), Hogan proposes that information is stored in some reflective characteristics of a "nested system of causal diamonds" that polarize interacting energy waves.
In this highly speculative scenario, quantum information is represented as some abstracted reflective properties and analog reflection processes rather than as digital data processed by some cosmic computer program...
It seems strange and somehow limiting or impoverished, but the more I think about this idea the more natural and intuitive it feels - What with particles not having a set property until "asked" by another particle, and ecosystems with all their chaotic homeostatis, and conservation laws that let all sorts of things turn into each other, and 3-body gravitational interaction and all that, Nature really seems to be going for a "networks of relationships" theme over the more intuitive "building blocks", and in order to not have those relationships dissolve back into oblivion I would think it needs some "1"s to give them a skeleton. When you can cut up an angstrom into exactly as many pieces as a gigaparsec the whole "space" idea starts to seem a little silly. And if you can't tell how big you are and how far you've moved, it's kinda pointless to say how long it took you or how fast you were going. Meanwhile the Discrete Universe, sitting smugly in its "after" box in the brochure, can go on about how now, after a discrete number of weeks on the treatment, it can contain Multiple Things, kept associated via "1 or more Space" and "1 or more Time" which means you can also have a new association *between* a Space and a Time called a Motion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.....At least that's how it seems to me, put in anthropocentric terms. Someone much better at math than I am might know of a way to consistently compare things on a continuous universal scale using all ratios or something, in which case I will stand corrected. (And of course this is all assuming the universe actually is computable/math-based...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProject Home 2011 scientific research derrived a model of the big band that explains why the universe is expanding faster and also eliminates the need for a 'dark matter' theory to explain what gravitational forces are at work. The group's theory deals with the inverse model of the universe, that it is instead a void within a vast singularity that is ripping open. The quantum energy research from Project Home 2011 brought about an electrostatic maglev technology that the research colleagues John Obik and Matthew Mitchel Urquhart are now giving seminars describing how the innovation works.
Project Home 2011
http://projecthome2011.tripod.com
Is it possible the space-time and the biological matter are interconnected through the transforming processes of energy? If the decaying energy of the fissionable-matter can radiate-out and disappear/transform to any other substance then the reverse of that process should produce both subtle and discernible matter.If we include in our equations all the known subtle and biological quanta then can we not bridge to some extent the missing component of the dark-energy/dark-matter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the top left of p36, Moyer states that "Back when Michelson and Morley were investigating the (nonexistent) ether, their interferometer measured a tiny change -- the change in the speed of light as the earth moved around the sun -- by comparing......."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement is false and will be misleading to readers not familiar with physics. The speed of light has been shown to be constant in all frames of reference. Michelson and Morley expected to measure some difference, and were surprised by the null results of their experiment.
But according to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, that the amount of energy in the universe is constant. Question is does Dark Energy fall under that law or the fact that we know so little about it that it may follow a different set of rules.Just like neutrinos traveling faster than light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s assume that the beam splitter can perfectly divide each photon striking it so that the two beams have identical laser noise. Also let’s assume that the splitter and mirrors can be cooled down to reduce molecular motion and black body radiation. The splitter and mirrors will absorb some of the laser beam and thus cannot be cooled down too far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe noise in a laser can be reduced but there will always be a certain amount of inherent quantum noise. Although interference can cancel out amplitude noise, it does nothing for phase noise.
Let’s say that the laser beam wave length is 1E-6m and the noise causes a fluctuation of 1E-6. Then the fluctuation of the beam is 1E-12m. Plank length is about 1.6E-35m or a magnitude of about 1E23 times smaller.
The article contains a curious picture. The caption says, “Precise optical equipment (4) is used to focus and align the beams.” Picture 4 shows on ordinary optical table.
Fred Etcheverry
Santa Cruz, CA
If you were to visualize our Universe as the surface of a sphere which in fact existed as a wave front of Space-Time expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang, and if you were to further assume that ours was only one of a series of many such tightly packed concentric Space-Time wave frontal spheres that are carrying the Energy of the Big Bang then perhaps the infamous Dark Energy is a combination of the push of the trailing wave fronts combined with the Pull of the leading wave fronts expressing itself on the Fabric of Space-Time. If this were the case then the acceleration of the expansion could be explained by the gradual conversion of Energy into Matter on the leading (older) spheres, which would be increasing the natural gravitational pull on the Matter contained on the surface of our Sphere as well as those spheres trailing ours. This effect would increase over time and would leave no fingerprint for us to identify it. Remember that Dark Energy is just a term coined to describe a theoretical force, which is postulated to answer the question of the observed accelerated expansion of Our Space-Time.It would be interesting to see if the frequency of the multiple Wave-fronts could be deduce Mathematically if they did in fact exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis view of independent multiple spherical Space-Time wave-frontal-Universes may also explain the apparent observed uniformity of the CMBR along with the apparent randomness of the Quantum Mechanical Nature at heart of the Sub Atomic level of our Universe in that if we do exist as, on and within, one of many Space-Time wave-front Universes then you would expect all points on any such coherent wave front to exhibit an average radiation signature in all directions and the inherent random motion of the Quantum world would just be a consequence of the energy vibration of the wave front itself. I have to give this some more thought.
As a layman I read SciAm every month. Regarding the 'Is Space Digital' article -- It seems to me that ALL of Hogan's experiment depend on the tubes being EXACTLY the same length. How will this be measured?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHogan's machine is just a huge waste of money. He tries to find holographic noise at the moment, we have the vacuum full of CMBR noise. Why this noise is ignored, if everyone can detect it with his TV set? http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-gravitational-waves.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this/*Instead of the universe being this classical, transparent, crystalline-type ether,” says Nicholas B. Suntzeff, an astronomer at Texas A&M University, “at a very, very small scale, there are these little foamlike fluctuation*/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom when the ether was considered crystalline? Aether model always considered gas. Dense gas is forming foamy density fluctuations. http://www1.chem.leeds.ac.uk//People/CMR
/images/scco24.jpg There is nothing digital with it
Your statement that the First Law of Thermodymanics includes "that the amount of energy in the universe is constant" is incorrect. Lack of an absolute frame of reference percludes simultaneity. Energy/mass (and information?) will move in time at different rates. This seems to have been ignored in the Hawings/Susskind debate on information at a black hole event horizon. Information isn't lost, just left behind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe frequency range of Hogan interferometer is limited by audiofrequencies from bottom (no gravity waves were found there) and with TV frequencies from top. Why just TV frequencies? Because these frequencies are interfering with omnipresent CMBR noise. And this is the actually the stuff, which Hogan is supposed to measure - a gravitational waves. It's just another example of phenomena, where the physicists avoid the measurement of just the effect, which they're expecting to detect. Why the physicists simply will not claim the CMBR noise as a gravity waves and stop with building of detectors worth of billion dollars? I suspect, it has lot of to do with stance of Robert Wilsom, a former boss of APS: http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/physicists/wilson-memo.gif
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was also puzzled by Moyer’s statement, “Back when Michelson and Morley were investigating the (nonexistent) ether, their interferometer measured a tiny change -- the change in the speed of light as the earth moved around the sun.” I think that Moyer has confused the Michelson-Morley experiment with the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment. The former experiment’s null result confirms Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. The later experiment measured the earth’s rotation around its axis—not around the sun—in good agreement with astrological observations and Foucault pendulums. Its results also confirmed the Special Theory of Relativity and used the same principles as modern laser gyroscopes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone agree with my idea that a digital universe is made of everything stopped in a single state until it disappears and that time might be caused by observation of multiple universes - same as how a motion picture portrays timeline of its story. Observation here could be of several of the universes at once that are incomplete but probable into the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis continuous thing with only one companion, among infinite others, cannot be compared.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor years we've been spun this yarn that "the Planck scale will only be fathomed by an accelerator the size of a galaxy (and so we can just make stuff up, 'cause you ain't ever going prove it to be false)". Now Craig Hogan and his team is going there with an amplifier the size of a swimming pool, based on the most pivotal experiment in science, and built on a budget of 'two bottle caps'. It's miraculous. It's clever science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us not get confused. Let us not attribute anything else to empty space which is infinite void of nothing three dimensional container of mega universe. But balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing dark energy at common boundary by annihilation and injected into our universe in non isotropic manner causing a gravitoethertons soup swirling and whirling like fluid causing all rotation,fall and laws and constants changing from place to place is the new idea of DURGADAS DATTA. Therefore subatomic particles get different mass as per strength of this soup and not because of HIGGS BOSON. Our part of the universe is just right for good laws for supporting life but rest of the universe may not be so lucky and barren. This twin balloon inside balloons may be also many in mega universe which can not be limited .But let us talk about our twin re cyclic universes on opposite entropy path ,ever existing,timeless ,recy clic due to opposite entropy rebounce on CP violation. Therefore it is possible that some part of mega universe may be so thin gravitoetherton soup that it is empty nothing space as visualized by NEWTON of ABSOLUTE EMPTY SPACE. That is why time is not fourth dimension but a entropy rate change on energy gradient at that point varying from place to place not absolute but a illusion without any reality except instantaneous . ALL IDEAS OF NEWTON,EINSTEIN AND OTHERS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS REQUIRE A FRSEH NEW THINKING BY SCIENCE COMMUNITY TO PROCEED FURTHER.--durgadas.ddatta@gmail.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were able to understand the structure of Space, at its quantum level, to such an extent that you could encode it with a message and direct that message then perhaps it would be possible to communicate with residents of Distant Star Systems who also possessed an equal level of knowledge and technical ability free from the velocity constraints imposed by “c”. If Space itself is Digital at the Quantum level and if it were possible to tap into it and listen to its vibrations maybe that is where we will hear our first hello from the Stars, embedded therein as an obviously intelligently imposed fluctuation of the normal background vibrations. Since we believe that there is no velocity restriction, at least as far as we know of, on the movement of Space itself then I think its is safe to assume that another sufficiently advanced race would also know the same thing and would exploit this characteristic as a means of faster than light intergalactic communication. Perhaps even now such messages are flowing by us, and possibly even through us, via the manipulation of the background vibrations of Space sent by an advanced race waiting for answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn "Is Space Digital?" the author and his colleagues plan an experiment that will attempt to show if the fabric of space is quantum. If it is, then at the Planck length there are these vibrating, foam like fluctuating quantized bits giving us a 21st century vision of the fundamental reality of the universe. Is this new vision of reality that new?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Stephen Greenblatt's "The Swerve" "How the World Became Modern", a poem "On the Nature of Things" written more than two thousand year ago by the Roman poet Lucretius, that was lost for a thousand years and found almost six hundred ago, articulated a core belief that the vision of the universe - a vision that everything that exists is derived from of an infinite number of very small discrete particles in eternal motion, colliding and swerving in new directions in an infinite void.
Given the limited state of human knowledge and the degree of superstition that existed over two thousand years ago, one cannot help being astonished by the recognition of key elements of the poem's modernity. Conceptually, "Is Space Digital?" and Lucretius' two thousand year old poem "On the Nature of Things" are akin.
Stan Roberts
Vienna, VA
In this article I propose a digital space model where the mass expands the space in which to calculate the law of gravity and Newton's equation of the Schwarzschild black hole:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://vixra.org/abs/1201.0100
From my book: ....One of the difficulties connected with string theories is their
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinability to provide a convincing explanation why three of the
space dimensions expanded at the expense of the remaining ones.
This problem may be avoided if there is a hierarchical grouping
of dimensions in sets of four (three space dimensions and 1 time),
with each group attached to a specific stratum of space-time
geometry. Since each stratum has its own Planck length and
associated measurement of absolute space-time, this establishes
the relationship that exists between the dimensions of the strata that
constitute the space-time fabric. The lower groupings of space-time
dimensions belonging to the dark matter and dark energy strata are
not curled up. Instead, the stratum-dependent variations in Planck
length, parameters, and forces operating in each stratum limit the
interaction between the four-dimensional groupings of space-time
geometry. (The introduction of three stratum-dependent variations
in Planck time permits the inclusion of extra time dimensions in
the extradimensional space-time geometry). This also impacts
the motion of strings (if they exist) as they vibrate through the
entire tristratum structure, and this will be discussed in more detail
later....
One notion for expansion is that if the multi verse exists then the universes with little or no dark energy contract and universes with more expand to fast for galaxies to form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur universe is expanding due to pumping of gravitoethertons. So space is either matter or gravitoethertons. No void or empty space. This is a soup of gravitoethertons swirling and whirling taking stars,galaxies etc Gravitoethertons are produced at the boundary of our universe and the outer antimatter universe by annihilation. Newtons gravity pull is wrong as nothing pulls but equation is to be modified F=P.G.M.m/R.R where P is factor of permeability. Read balloon inside balloon theory. LHC recently mistook gravitoetherton as Higgs boson but they will correct thir observation soon. So in a way our universe is digital and communicative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that everyone is trying to appease the digital craze that is getting up everywhere. Now, everything is explained in terms of being digital or having something to do with digitality. I think it has more to do with our minds and views getting biased towards the current trend and mentality rather than facts. everything analogue was once the dominant mentality. now, it has become everything digital. I am not saying that the above article is wrong or right scientifically. It may be true or not. what I am trying to say is that scientists seem to be biased by current trends of mentality towards the explanation and stipulation of scientific facts and hypotheses. Is what they claim because of what there is in actuality or is it because of the overuse of the word 'digital' that is taking every aspect of our lives into its hands. sometimes, I think to myself that a certain explanation and clarification about a scientific or technical issue is turning into digital 'absurdity'. it sounds like a lingual trap rather than real scientific observation and explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Keith
Assuming the universe is digital (I have always thought it was, it is basically an incredibly complex video game, that is the easiest analogy), and space-time is the mother geometry of this digital universe, and this geometry defines the actual points in which energy/mass and therefore any form of particle can manifest, when we say our universe is expanding, what we are effectively saying is that space-time is stetching, at an accelerating rate, and thus the potential space quanta will move further apart from eachother. It can't be new quanta, the universe's mass and energy are constant, along with the speed of light. You may think how can mass stay constant if the universe is accelerating, but this would be because as the universes volume increases (the actual size the space-time occupies) it's density will decrease proportionately I assume. This is effectively the conservance of energy. The universe will ALWAYS keep energy/mass and the speed of light constance. More importantly, a big clue to a digital universe, is the fact that the universe will change the energy/mass of an object to keep the speed of light constant. Since C = Sqrt[E/M], to keep C constant if there is an increase in energy (I.e speeding up) then mass must be increased to keep this balance.
I'm suprised it's still held our universe is continous, it can't be. The real continuity is the mother field, all potential waves, no matter exists because there is perfect symmetry and every particle cancels with its anti-particle, only probability waves with every single possibility stored within this mother field. The higgs field breaks this symmetry and gives arise to mass from energy, which suddenly requires the universe to start doing more complex actions to maintain a constant energy. Simply put, all particles do not instantly cancel with their anti-particles anymore (only virtual particles in empty space, we can't observe this but only the fluctuational effects, this is the closest there is to the original beautifal state of all being).
Everything that has arisen from the universe is an attempt of the universe itself to experience the mother field once more. This is why evolution exists, this is why entropy exists, why information increases with time, the universe is slowly realising every single possible discrete event in attempt to return to the infinite. It HAS to keep moving, otherwise its energy/mass wouldn't be constant, hence violating light.
All our beautiful universe really desires is to return to it's free state of all infinity potential.
Furthermore, the wave-particle duality hints at a digital universe, since all matter seems to actually be are 'physical' particle manifestations at any given probability point on a wave. Basically, the particle exists in all possible positions in the wave, but only snaps into a DISCRETE position when interacted with. I.e Double-slit experiment, when electrons for example are shot through two slits they produce an interference pattern, showing that they are effectively waves and particles. The interesting point is that when we try to determine the path the electron took (i.e Slit 1 or Slit 2), the pattern it makes on the receiving wall becomes the pattern you'd expect, two feint lines where they hit!! This is still one of the MOST AMAZING discoveries known to man and is extremely overlooked I believe. This simply means that the electron simply DOESN'T EXIST at any one point between emission and absorption by the wall. It simply exists EVERYWHERE as a field. It is only when one tries to determine the path the electron took, that is has a path! This is interesting as it means that the PAST IS CHANGED theoretically, and hence isn't concrete. This can be shown by the delayed -choice study, where a light is shown on the slit JUST before the electron passes, which still kills the intereference pattern, but means the electron had to then pre-determine its path up to that point to follow the expected range of hits on the wall. The fact that there seems to be no concrete past hurts the idea of a continious universe, the 'film reel' would literally change all the time. Instead, all that ever exists in the combination of all the quantum interactions on the smallest scale of action manifesting in a given point in space-time. Therefore, at any given point the universe can be described by discrete data, just like a computers state can be described by binary code. It is important to then note that time is not continious, the Planck time seems to hint that theres a the smallest divisible measurement of time. What does that mean? Well, it means that this is the time needed to cause the smallest possible change in quanta of energy, if there is no change, there is no time. Time is simply then a measure of the rate of change of a system, but a crucial one since it is fundamental to our universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did not read what rloldershaw wrote, didn't you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear colleague ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am Hamid Reza Karimi .I have wrote a paper by title of "Quantized space-time and internal structure of Elementary particles: A new model" and It was published on
Title Hadronic Journal
ISSN01625519
Volumevol.33 no.3
Page249-272
Published on2011. 2.23
SWETS ID31192572
http://www.hadronicpress.com/hadronic_journal.htm
and My paper by the title of " SOLVING EINSTEIN TWINS' PARADOX " It was published on
Title Hadronic Journal
ISSN 01625519
Volume vol.34 no.3
Page 271-276
Published on 2011.11.15
SWETS ID 31192572
http://www.hadronicpress.com/hadronic_journal.htm
and My paper by the title of "Explaining How and Why the Muon Neutrinos Flow Faster Than the Speed of Light in theOpera Neutrino Experiment " It was published on
http://www.hadronicpress.com/hadronic_journal.htm
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/ftlNuSwift.html
http://vixra.org/abs/1201.0005
I recommend you to visit that sit and I would be so glad if you could give me your opinion abut it
Best regards,
Hamid Reza Karimi