Loop Gravity and the Bouncing Universe

My fellow cosmologists, the October issue of the Scientific American
has a very good article on a new theory of quantum gravity, Loop
Gravity, which is very interesting. It talks about theoretical
"atoms" of space-time that are little spheres the diameter a Planck-
length. These atoms of space-time can only hold so much energy, and
then their gravity turns repulsive. So point singularities can never
form, and a collapsing universe will never reach a singularity, but
will only reach a state of extreme density, at which time the
repulsive gravity will make it bounce back in an apparent Big Bang.
The model shows that little information could come through this big
crunch because of quantum scrambling. The theory predicts that
different frequencies of light may travel at slightly different
speeds! (Haven't I been saying that?) Anyway, it's a good read and
worth pondering. Any thoery that gets rid of singularities is a step
forward. You can also read it at

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-or-big-bounce

Double-A

On Oct 15, 12:13 pm, Double-A wrote:
My fellow cosmologists, the October issue of the Scientific American
has a very good article on a new theory of quantum gravity, Loop
Gravity, which is very interesting. It talks about theoretical
"atoms" of space-time that are little spheres the diameter a Planck-
length. These atoms of space-time can only hold so much energy, and
then their gravity turns repulsive. So point singularities can never
form, and a collapsing universe will never reach a singularity, but
will only reach a state of extreme density, at which time the
repulsive gravity will make it bounce back in an apparent Big Bang.
The model shows that little information could come through this big
crunch because of quantum scrambling. The theory predicts that
different frequencies of light may travel at slightly different
speeds! (Haven't I been saying that?) Anyway, it's a good read and
worth pondering. Any thoery that gets rid of singularities is a step
forward. You can also read it at

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-or-big-bounce

Interesting piece, AA. It's actually a refined variation of the
oscillating/reciprocating and 'eternal return' models. And it's
interesting that the author speaks of "space-time atoms", which would
be a rough corollary to our sub-Planckian 'granulons' comprizing the
SPED. However, the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.
Then juxtapose this model alongside the CBB
model which recognizes two distinct referance frames : the restricted
'inside' frame which perceives only a singular 'Bang' bouncing back
from a singular 'crunch' (like a single power stroke of a piston).
Then there's the overarching 'outside' frame from whence the whole
Process is seen continuously running, like a gas turbine.
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

This is why the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. :-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 15, 12:13 pm, Double-A wrote:

My fellow cosmologists, the October issue of the Scientific American
has a very good article on a new theory of quantum gravity, Loop
Gravity, which is very interesting. It talks about theoretical
"atoms" of space-time that are little spheres the diameter a Planck-
length. These atoms of space-time can only hold so much energy, and
then their gravity turns repulsive. So point singularities can never
form, and a collapsing universe will never reach a singularity, but
will only reach a state of extreme density, at which time the
repulsive gravity will make it bounce back in an apparent Big Bang.
The model shows that little information could come through this big
crunch because of quantum scrambling. The theory predicts that
different frequencies of light may travel at slightly different
speeds! (Haven't I been saying that?) Anyway, it's a good read and
worth pondering. Any thoery that gets rid of singularities is a step
forward. You can also read it at

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-or-big-bounce

Interesting piece, AA. It's actually a refined variation of the
oscillating/reciprocating and 'eternal return' models. And it's
interesting that the author speaks of "space-time atoms", which would
be a rough corollary to our sub-Planckian 'granulons' comprizing the
SPED. However, the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.
Then juxtapose this model alongside the CBB
model which recognizes two distinct referance frames : the restricted
'inside' frame which perceives only a singular 'Bang' bouncing back
from a singular 'crunch' (like a single power stroke of a piston).
Then there's the overarching 'outside' frame from whence the whole
Process is seen continuously running, like a gas turbine.
http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

This is why the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. :-)

So if LQG ever takes off as the Primo, Mainstream
"Quantum Theory of Gravity", you could always change
the name of Wolter's to "Continuous Big BOUNCE" and
still keep the same initials! ("CB BLOOM" wouldn't do
because it's inconsistent with LQG.)

LQG's been around for awhile, BTW, starting back in
'86. SA is really reaching when it publishes a story on
quantum gravity. I love it. I still get SA here at the
house every month.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the
future."
Niels Bohr

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Oct 15, 9:03*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:13 pm, Double-A wrote:



My fellow cosmologists, the October issue of the Scientific American
has a very good article on a new theory of quantum gravity, Loop
Gravity, which is very interesting. *It talks about theoretical
"atoms" of space-time that are little spheres the diameter a Planck-
length. *These atoms of space-time can only hold so much energy, and
then their gravity turns repulsive. *So point singularities can never
form, and a collapsing universe will never reach a singularity, but
will only reach a state of extreme density, at which time the
repulsive gravity will make it bounce back in an apparent Big Bang.
The model shows that little information could come through this big
crunch because of quantum scrambling. *The theory predicts that
different frequencies of light may travel at slightly different
speeds! *(Haven't I been saying that?) *Anyway, it's a good read and
worth pondering. *Any thoery that gets rid of singularities is a step
forward. *You can also read it at

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-or-big-bounce

Interesting piece, AA. It's actually a refined variation of the
oscillating/reciprocating and 'eternal return' models. And it's
interesting that the author speaks of "space-time atoms", which would
be a rough corollary to our sub-Planckian 'granulons' comprizing the
SPED.


Right.


However, the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.


This doesn't sound like void space to me. Also its talking about
photons interacting with the space-time atoms doesn't sound like void
space.


* * * * * * * * * * * Then juxtapose this model alongside the CBB
model which recognizes two distinct referance frames : the restricted
'inside' frame which perceives only a singular 'Bang' bouncing back
from a singular 'crunch' (like a single power stroke of a *piston).
Then there's the overarching 'outside' frame from whence the whole
Process is seen continuously running, like a gas turbine.http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/

This is why the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. *


I really like the way it theorizes a big crunch and bang while
avoiding a singularity.

Double-A

On Oct 16, 12:12*pm, Double-A wrote:
oldcoot wrote:

...the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.

This doesn't sound like void space to me. *Also its talking about
photons interacting with the space-time atoms doesn't sound like void
space.

When Uncle Albert kicked out the "aether", he had to substitute
something for it. The mathematical abstraction "space-time" became its
surrogate. That way, space could still be an abstract 'something'
while abiding by the mandate that there is "no medium". So when
somebody talks about "space-time atoms", this same edict is adhered
to. It forbits existance of a literal spatial medium, either the
archaic "aether" or the SPED.

...the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. *

I really like the way it theorizes a big crunch and bang while
avoiding a singularity.

Actually it postulates a 'squashed out', spinning disc similar to the
'ring singularity' of the Kerr BH model.

On Oct 16, 12:41*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:12*pm, Double-A wrote: oldcoot wrote:

...the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.

This doesn't sound like void space to me. *Also its talking about
photons interacting with the space-time atoms doesn't sound like void
space.

When Uncle Albert kicked out the "aether", he had to substitute
something for it. The mathematical abstraction "space-time" became its
surrogate. That way, space could still be an abstract 'something'
while abiding by the mandate that there is "no medium". So when
somebody talks about "space-time atoms", this same edict is adhered
to. It forbits existance of a literal spatial medium, either the
archaic "aether" or the SPED.


Einstein's only objection to the classical aether was that it couldn't
be used as a rest frame against which to mesure absolute motion. (The
quote is out there if only I had time to find it.) By theorizing
space-time atoms, it would seem to me they would have some local
existence, if they interact with photons, and contain defferent
amounts of energt depending on location. I don't see how he can do
this without by doing so establishing an absolute rest frame. If
space has atoms, then the objects in space would have velocities
relative to any particlular space-time atom. The author holds to
relativity, but if he is establishing an abolute reference frame by
defining these atoms, then relativity will go out the window!


...the CBB model subsumes but *does not negate* the singular
BigBang (or singular Big Bounce) idea. Hell, there's even a (singular)
Big Bloom idea floating around the web. *

I really like the way it theorizes a big crunch and bang while
avoiding a singularity.

Actually it postulates a 'squashed out', spinning disc similar to the
'ring singularity' of the Kerr BH model.


So I guess "spin is in"! (I couldn't resist.)

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:12 pm, Double-A wrote:
oldcoot wrote:

...the euphamism "space-time" is still mandated because
the VSP forbids existance of the SPED.

This doesn't sound like void space to me. Also its talking about
photons interacting with the space-time atoms doesn't sound like void
space.

When Uncle Albert kicked out the "aether", he had to substitute
something for it. The mathematical abstraction "space-time" became its
surrogate. That way, space could still be an abstract 'something'
while abiding by the mandate that there is "no medium". So when
somebody talks about "space-time atoms", this same edict is adhered
to. It forbits existance of a literal spatial medium, either the
archaic "aether" or the SPED.

Einstein's only objection to the classical aether was that it couldn't
be used as a rest frame against which to mesure absolute motion. (The
quote is out there if only I had time to find it.) . . .

Double-A

Here's the only "sourced" quote i could find...

"We may assume the existence of an aether; only we
must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it,
i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last
mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

Source: On the irrelevance of the luminiferous aether
hypothesis to physical measurements, in an address at
the University of Leiden (May 5, 1920)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. (to a young physics student) "Your theory is
crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."
Niels Bohr

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Double A Your post has me begging this question What is absolute
motion? TreBert