We looked into that area earlier in the thread. Hoyle believed in the Steady-State theory of the Universe.
The Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity relies on the continual creation of matter from empty space in order to keep the mass density of an expanding Universe constant.
Apparently yes: "The weakest, and yet the most pervasive, of the four basic forces is gravity. It acts on all forms of mass and energy and thus acts on all subatomic particles, including the gauge bosons that carry the forces."
&&
&&
The power of the google! https://www.britannica.com/science/...luding the gauge bosons that carry the forces.
Consider a photon. Even though it has no mass, it has energy and momentum and therefore reacts to gravity.
My brain hurts! 😵
The Universe is described as a 3-manifold.
Apparently, there are ten probable topologies of the Universe, including the 3-sphere and the 3-torus.
Below, there's a link to a comprehensive article on the shape of the Universe which makes the necessary distinction between the topology of the Universe and its geometry - two aspects of the Universe that can cause confusion to non-mathematicians like me.
It also describes the relationship between the three dimensional torus and the two dimensional torus - "The 3-torus is like a continuous Rolodex, a circle of 2-tori".
In the diagram below, a 2-torus is represented by a square, while the 3-torus is represented by a cube, which is then represented by a circle of squares.
You do have to read the article to gain full understanding. I'm beginning to get the picture! 🤓
https://www.americanscientist.org/a... ten are probable candidates for the universe
@AjohnL Here's a link to The Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity
Since energy is equivalent to mass, vacuum energy should exert a gravitational force.
Indeed, the vacuum energy can be interpreted in the form of virtual particles which pop in and out of the vacuum.
Beware, we are straying into the territory of quantum field theory!
Indeed, the vacuum energy can be interpreted in the form of virtual particles which pop in and out of the vacuum.
Beware, we are straying into the territory of quantum field theory!
@Galu, OK, I’ll bite. I opine a circle is 2 dimensional, a sphere is 3 dimensional, count ‘em! X, Y, Z. A piece of paper is 2 dimensional. 8x11, for example. A cube is also 3 dimensional. When you are INSIDE a sphere, for example listening to the soundstage of your HiFi system, there is width, depth and height. No? Is this some kind of topology semantics?
Hoyle's comment on matter was "I do not see any reason why matter could not be created from nothing."
😉Hoyle speak but not hard to realise what he really means and after all the big bang appears to have started from nothing or something.
@geoffkait
You are talking as a geometrist whereas I was talking as a topologist. They look at dimensions in a different way. See the link I gave in post #3,078.
You are talking as a geometrist whereas I was talking as a topologist. They look at dimensions in a different way. See the link I gave in post #3,078.
Some great pre Xmas reading stuff here from ES
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-...mail&utm_content=12/23/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-...mail&utm_content=12/23/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
This presupposes energy is spread uniformly through the cosmos. CMB yes, but 10^80 joules per small unit volume?
;-)
Quantum is a result of Planck's unscientific quest for an 'elegant' equation for blackbody radiation. He needed a value for it, which he determined arbitrarily. He called this value the "Wirkungsquantum", "working quantum". And here, too, he left the scientific path. He could have just called the value the "Veränderungsquantum", "change quantum". But Planck could not distinguish between concept and object. Then Einstein came along with his inability to distinguish between concept and object and turned "Wirkung" into "Energie" and quantum into quanta: plural, corpuscles, particles, things.
Kids, there is no quantum, not a single one;-) And all the quantum mechanics, theories and so on are BS;-)
Quantum is a result of Planck's unscientific quest for an 'elegant' equation for blackbody radiation. He needed a value for it, which he determined arbitrarily. He called this value the "Wirkungsquantum", "working quantum". And here, too, he left the scientific path. He could have just called the value the "Veränderungsquantum", "change quantum". But Planck could not distinguish between concept and object. Then Einstein came along with his inability to distinguish between concept and object and turned "Wirkung" into "Energie" and quantum into quanta: plural, corpuscles, particles, things.
Kids, there is no quantum, not a single one;-) And all the quantum mechanics, theories and so on are BS;-)
'Wirkungsquantum' translates as 'quantum of action'. This is simply an extended name for the quantum and does not refer to the value of Planck's constant as you suggest.
The quantum of action is so called because Planck’s constant has the units of 'action', a quantity which may be thought of as (energy x time) or (momentum x distance).
Lagrangian Mechanics, widely used in all areas of physics, says objects move between two points in such a way as to minimise the action.
At the beginning of quantum theory, the word action took on new importance. The only states of motion of subatomic particles that are possible are actions which are whole-number multiples of Planck's constant.
https://www.britannica.com/science/action-physics