Empty space as an infinite particle sea at thermodynamic equilibruim

Labarbapostiza

Consider a point in space, where there is zero energy. To an observer, the empty point is indistinguishable from an electron and positron in perfect annihilation. The point would also be indistinguishable from a Dirac sea, with infinite negative and positive particles in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Extend this to an empty volume in space. Is it empty, or does it have infinite energy at thermodynamic equilibrium.

The empty volume, and the volume containing a particle sea, appear to an observer to be identical. Right up to one point. Adding a particle to the empty volume will have no effect, but adding a particle to the particle sea, will break its' thermal equilibrium. The particle can be annihilated, but there will be an excess that cannot be eliminated. This would lead to a flow in the sea. Which would function as gravity. The flow of the sea would be related to the average annihilation time of a particle.

There are other interesting things about this sea. The disequilibrium caused by adding a particle, could be a ripple/wave extending over a volume of space. Removing the particle from the volume, allows the ripple to vanish.

The idea hinges on an assumption, that at any point in space, the probability for the spontaneous existence of a particle is exactly the same as the probability for the existence of its' anti-particle, and that there is an equal probability for existence of a particle sea. And that probability dictates events, and isn't just a measure of events, or just maths.


And massless photons would need to be observed to have a gravitational effect. On a stellar scale it might be observable.

citrus burst

What?

Labarbapostiza

citrus burst wrote: »

What?

Don't answer a question with a question.


[LATEX]E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}[/LATEX] has negative solutions.

[LATEX]E=\pm mc^{2}[/LATEX]

If the energy of an empty point is equal to zero. E = 0. The energy of a point with infinite negative and infinite positive mass is also zero. [LATEX]E= mc^{2}- mc^{2} = 0 [/LATEX]. Infinite E - Infinite E = 0 = Energy at an empty point in space.

So which is it? Is empty space empty or infinitely full.

The idea looks terrible, but I think there could be some more arguments for it being true, in terms of things we see and don't see.

citrus burst

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Don't answer a question with a question.

What?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

[LATEX]E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}[/LATEX] has negative solutions.

[LATEX]E=\pm mc^{2}[/LATEX]

If the energy of an empty point is equal to zero. E = 0. The energy of a point with infinite negative and infinite positive mass is also zero. [LATEX]E= mc^{2}- mc^{2} = 0 [/LATEX]. Infinite E - Infinite E = 0 = Energy at an empty point in space.

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest stops him, tells him "You can't be in here." The Higgs boson stops, smiles and turns to the priest "Without me, you can't have mass."

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

So which is it? Is empty space empty or infinitely full.

The idea looks terrible, but I think there could be some more arguments for it being true, in terms of things we see and don't see.

Well you tell me.

Labarbapostiza

citrus burst wrote: »

What?



A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest stops him, tells him "You can't be in here." The Higgs boson stops, smiles and turns to the priest "Without me, you can't have mass."



Well you tell me.

0 = 0. We can all agree on that, or at least we can agree that 0=0, 0 = 1-1, 0 = infinity - infinity. all have the same probability of being true.

I'm assuming, as the path of least time and least action hold, so does a path of least energy.

An argument against the quantum fluctuation theory of the big bang, is that if quantum fluctuations are happening all the time, why doesn't the universe appear to be boiling with infinite energy, empty space appears to be largely empty.

It could be filled with infinite energy, if it was at Maxwell's thermodynamic equilibrium.

Labarbapostiza

Okay, let's drag Hilbert's Hotel into this.

Hilbert's Hotel has an infinite number of rooms, but they're all full. A guest arrives at the hotel, and Hilbert says we're full, but I can still fit you in, by moving the guest in room one to room two, etc onto infinity.

Hilbert was a professional mathematician, so he was being serious. There is a paradox. Infinity = Infinity. Can Infinity + 1 = Infinity. It can, if your adding function takes an infinite time to complete, as moving the guests from room to room would. But you need the function, and the infinity is not static.

Now, instead of a Hotel. You take an infinite volume, and fill it with an infinite volume of water. Let it reach thermodynamic equilibrium and it will appear perfectly still. You want to add one more molecule of water, but the volume is full. You can use Hilbert's trick. You pluck one molecule out of the volume, and drop the new one in, then you pluck another out, and put the last one in, onto infinity.

If you did this with a volume of water. Magically plucked a particle out of the volume, the rest of the water would fill the hole (there wouldn't be a hole - there would be an energy imbalance - the net water flow would be towards where the removed particle had been). Magically pop an identical water particle in the old hole, the net water flow is out. If you imagine this in a 3d, you will have a spherical standing wave.

In an infinite volume, that is infinitely full of water, if you do Hilbert's trick for fitting additional particles, you will have standing waves in the volume. The wave cannot collapse because thermodynamic equilibrium is not allowed. But as all water molecules are indistinguishable from each other, if you decide to change the location of where you're picking the molecule from, the old wave can collapse, and the new wave is formed.

What I'm taking about is not an infinite volume of water. But the model does work if you consider the volume consisting of an infinite number of anti water molecules and an infinite number of water molecules.

Imagine if space is infinitely full of photons annihilating each other. If you add a photon, you will have a wave. If you remove the photon, the wave will instantaneously vanish through annihilations.

citrus burst

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Okay, let's drag Hilbert's Hotel into this.

Hilbert's Hotel has an infinite number of rooms, but they're all full. A guest arrives at the hotel, and Hilbert says we're full, but I can still fit you in, by moving the guest in room one to room two, etc onto infinity.

Hilbert was a professional mathematician, so he was being serious. There is a paradox. Infinity = Infinity. Can Infinity + 1 = Infinity. It can, if your adding function takes an infinite time to complete, as moving the guests from room to room would. But you need the function, and the infinity is not static.

Now, instead of a Hotel. You take an infinite volume, and fill it with an infinite volume of water. Let it reach thermodynamic equilibrium and it will appear perfectly still. You want to add one more molecule of water, but the volume is full. You can use Hilbert's trick. You pluck one molecule out of the volume, and drop the new one in, then you pluck another out, and put the last one in, onto infinity.

If you did this with a volume of water. Magically plucked a particle out of the volume, the rest of the water would fill the hole (there wouldn't be a hole - there would be an energy imbalance - the net water flow would be towards where the removed particle had been). Magically pop an identical water particle in the old hole, the net water flow is out. If you imagine this in a 3d, you will have a spherical standing wave.

In an infinite volume, that is infinitely full of water, if you do Hilbert's trick for fitting additional particles, you will have standing waves in the volume. The wave cannot collapse because thermodynamic equilibrium is not allowed. But as all water molecules are indistinguishable from each other, if you decide to change the location of where you're picking the molecule from, the old wave can collapse, and the new wave is formed.

What I'm taking about is not an infinite volume of water. But the model does work if you consider the volume consisting of an infinite number of anti water molecules and an infinite number of water molecules.

Imagine if space is infinitely full of photons annihilating each other. If you add a photon, you will have a wave. If you remove the photon, the wave will instantaneously vanish through annihilations.

To form a standing wave you need to confine it. By definition you cannot confine a wave in an infinite volume, unless it has an infinite wavelength.

What you are talking about are acoustic waves.

Labarbapostiza

citrus burst wrote: »

To form a standing wave you need to confine it. By definition you cannot confine a wave in an infinite volume, unless it has an infinite wavelength.

You're not getting the point, the volume is infinitely full. There are different ways to define what a wave is. If Hilbert moves the person in room one into room two, and the person in room two to room three. If he goes through the hotel in canonical order, he'll have a wave travelling into infinity. But he could decide just to shuffle them around a group of rooms; say room 10 to room 20, then he'll have a standing wave. And Hilbert can solve his guest problem by shuffling around any guest who arrive.

What you are talking about are acoustic waves.

No, I am not.

dlouth15

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

And massless photons would need to be observed to have a gravitational effect. On a stellar scale it might be observable.

Doesn't GR already predict this? Radiation produces curvature in spacetime.

Labarbapostiza

dlouth15 wrote: »

Doesn't GR already predict this? Radiation produces curvature in spacetime.

I kind of had that garbled. It was late.

As far as I am aware, photons have not been observed to have a gravitational effect. I was thinking, with no real good grounds for thinking, photons might do something different. I've just been turning it over in my head, as to what the predictions might be, if the overall idea had legs.

I think the theory would be very similar to GR, except with some no-go rules. And then you'd have to find if those rules were broken anywhere or held up.