Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT BLOG COMMENTS
Jason: "Mark, I don't know why you're singling me out for criticism by name, and..." in The Beautiful Truth
Mark: "To Ray Munroe, This is an informal answer and we will continue a more..." in The Beautiful Truth
Jason Wolfe: "Georgina, Thanks for a good laugh! But you are right, freedom is better..." in Astrotheology: Do Aliens...
John Merryman: "Tom, My mistake. I was thinking you were considering Steve's seeming..." in Free Radical
Georgina Parry: "Jason, is that a rhetorical question? Would I accept a brain implant,..." in Astrotheology: Do Aliens...
Jason Wolfe: "Lawrence, I've been thinking about quantum mechanics with regards to the..." in Quantum Dating Market
Daniel Ferrante: "@Mary Q: there are many "real world" examples of applications of the SMP,..." in Quantum Dating Market
Steve Dufourny: "I am going to share with you dear Tom , 50 per cent thus 1/2 million for..." in Free Radical
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Ripping Apart Einstein
Cutting the threads of the spacetime fabric and reinstating the "aether" could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing
Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?
Classic Article: Building a Better Black Hole
FQXi essay contest winner Louis Crane explains how artificial black holes might have controlled our universe’s past and could direct humanity’s future, in this classic article from 2007.
Editor's Choice: Taming Infinity
General relativity and quantum mechanics could be perfectly compatible—as long as you know how to handle infinity, that is.
Readers' Choice: True Lies: Why Mathematics is an Illusion
To find a theory of quantum gravity we may have to look through a different logical lens, abandoning conceptions of "truth" and "falsehood" and crossing over to a new "mathematical universe."
Jason: "Mark, I don't know why you're singling me out for criticism by name, and..." in The Beautiful Truth
Mark: "To Ray Munroe, This is an informal answer and we will continue a more..." in The Beautiful Truth
Jason Wolfe: "Georgina, Thanks for a good laugh! But you are right, freedom is better..." in Astrotheology: Do Aliens...
John Merryman: "Tom, My mistake. I was thinking you were considering Steve's seeming..." in Free Radical
Georgina Parry: "Jason, is that a rhetorical question? Would I accept a brain implant,..." in Astrotheology: Do Aliens...
Jason Wolfe: "Lawrence, I've been thinking about quantum mechanics with regards to the..." in Quantum Dating Market
Daniel Ferrante: "@Mary Q: there are many "real world" examples of applications of the SMP,..." in Quantum Dating Market
Steve Dufourny: "I am going to share with you dear Tom , 50 per cent thus 1/2 million for..." in Free Radical
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Ripping Apart Einstein
Cutting the threads of the spacetime fabric and reinstating the "aether" could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Readers' Choice: Much Ado About Nothing
Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?
Classic Article: Building a Better Black Hole
FQXi essay contest winner Louis Crane explains how artificial black holes might have controlled our universe’s past and could direct humanity’s future, in this classic article from 2007.
Editor's Choice: Taming Infinity
General relativity and quantum mechanics could be perfectly compatible—as long as you know how to handle infinity, that is.
Readers' Choice: True Lies: Why Mathematics is an Illusion
To find a theory of quantum gravity we may have to look through a different logical lens, abandoning conceptions of "truth" and "falsehood" and crossing over to a new "mathematical universe."
FQXi BLOGS
March 11, 2010
 |
All this reminded me that I have the distinction of actually having attended a conference a couple of years ago dedicated to building a warp drive, organised by the British Interplanetary Society, in London. The society’s motto is “From imagination to reality...” and that was very much the spirit of the meeting as engineers and physicists met to seriously discuss if, when, and how warp drives could be manufactured, allowing faster-than-light travel. (One participant did wear a Klingon tie, but he did so with irony.)
Jeremy Gardiner kicked off by boldly predicting something that no man had predicted before: that we will be whizzing around in FTL spacecrafts by 2180. His estimates weren’t based on evaluations of the physics or on engineering considerations, but—interestingly—he looked at the timescale for other seemingly wild ideas to shift from science fiction to science fact. In particular, he compared the case with the historical development of the technology needed to travel to the moon, identifying six steps society needs to pass through from “conjecture” (1657 in the moon case, when Cyrano de Bergerac wrote about journeying to the moon), passing through the phases of “speculation,” “science,” “technology,” “application,” to final “realisation” (1969 for the moon case, with the Apollo landings).
 |
That all sounded great, but I wanted to know if anyone actually had any ideas for how to practically implement this. One speaker, Richard Obousy, promised that he had the answer. His method was based on the string theory notion that there are extra spatial dimensions. All you need to build a warp drive, said Obousy, is to manipulate the size of the cosmological constant in front of and behind the craft, by contracting and expanding the curled up extra dimensions respectively, to build your warp bubble. Ok, I said, but how would you actually set about contracting and expanding the curled up extra dimensions—given that we don’t even know they exist? He wasn’t sure, he replied, as it’s still a work in progress...
At that point I lost interest in his warp drive. However, since then Obousy has published his work on the warp drive, so you can check it out, along with a video of one of his talks, on youtube.
I didn’t follow up the warp drive meeting, or think much more about it until the recent hype around the new Star Trek film. But thinking back, one talk, by Claudio Maccone of the International Academy of Astronautics, did make me stop and think. He didn’t make any bold claims, and he didn’t have any speculative blueprints. But he did make a plea to physicists on behalf of engineers: sort out your math. The problem with attempting to build any kind of warp drive, he said, was that engineers and computer scientists are baffled by mathematical conventions that physicists use, for instance, their use of natural units, in which certain physical constants (the speed of light, Planck’s constant...) are set equal to 1. At the moment, he said, progress was being hampered because scientists in different disciplines simply don’t understand each other’s conventions. Put another way, if you want a warp drive, Spock and Scotty need to speak the same language.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
In answer to a critical question, I believe the collective noun for Star Trek stories is a "spocktrum".
post approved
post approved
Quantum theory makes the warp drive unlikely. The Alcubierre warp drive requires negative energy. Quantum mechanically this means there are no lower bounded states. This is a disaster, for it means mass-energy can fall into an endless well and produce a huge amount of energy. it is related to Dyson's observation that letting electric charge e ---> ie i = sqrt{-1} results in radiation from the vacuum.
Only a decent theory of quantum gravity will tell us for sure, but my bet is that macroscopic wormholes and warp drives are not possible.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
Only a decent theory of quantum gravity will tell us for sure, but my bet is that macroscopic wormholes and warp drives are not possible.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
Lawrence,
If you can change the speed of light by understanding how the speed of light is enforced, new things become possible. Of course, even if you could, getting a mass to achieve 100c (100 times speed of light) appears to require insanely high energies: K= 1/2mv2 = 1/2 m(100c)2 = 5000mc2. Warp drive accidents would result in very dramatic explosive events.
But there is another way...
post approved
If you can change the speed of light by understanding how the speed of light is enforced, new things become possible. Of course, even if you could, getting a mass to achieve 100c (100 times speed of light) appears to require insanely high energies: K= 1/2mv2 = 1/2 m(100c)2 = 5000mc2. Warp drive accidents would result in very dramatic explosive events.
But there is another way...
post approved
Hi all,
Personnally if it exists a super velocity ,it will be for the rotation of the quantum spheres around themselves ,those velocities are proportional with mass .
In our physical Universe and its laws the light velocity which is linear is maximum I think .But for quantum spheres around themselves it's an other story .I see these spheres and the velocities of rotations like foundamental ,all is in a logic of rotation .The frequences ,the polarities,the senses , the volumes of spheres ,the fields ,...in fact those velocities are like codes of comportment.It d be interesting to know the quantum architecture of spheres for water for exemple and the liquid comportment on Earth with its parameters .Why H2O is H2O ,what is the spheres architecture and their velocities of rotation at 30 degrees celsius for exemple and what is the velocities of rot for 100 degrees celsius and 0 .
If we take the cosmological numbers of spheres and their volumes ,more an universal law about mv like a constant quant/cosmol ,thus it's possible to know the specific architecture of water like gauge ,or H ,it's there the chemestry is important and the stability of molecules .
About energy ,the maximum is everywhere in maximum quantity after different steps in the quantum architecture towards the wall .At this limit all has the same maximum .
It's interesting this link if we consider the quantum Universe and the cosmological universe ,In this logic ,time is a part of the increase of mass and energy in the physical Universe in evolution .Thus it's always a question of limits towards walls in the quantum dynamic and the cosmological evolution .
The maximum energy is in all things with its limits of perception .
It's a very important foundamental because the applications are incredible .
It's the message of E =mc² all has the maximum quantity of energy .
In my model I perceive the light like a chief orchestra ,the light begins of the center of our Universe ,towards centers towards ultim cosmological membran sphere ,the curvature by gravity implies a spherization of all ,of the light .
The Light is like an ultim frequence of evolution.Thus like a constant of evolution like the time ,both of them are constants of evolution .They won't change I think .The space on the other side changes its volume in time,expansion and accretion.
In this logic of centers ,the comportments of our Universal center are so far of us but so intriguing ,it's there the ultim code .All is linked with this universal center where all begins ,began .
I don't imagine too whormholes and warp drives like possible .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Personnally if it exists a super velocity ,it will be for the rotation of the quantum spheres around themselves ,those velocities are proportional with mass .
In our physical Universe and its laws the light velocity which is linear is maximum I think .But for quantum spheres around themselves it's an other story .I see these spheres and the velocities of rotations like foundamental ,all is in a logic of rotation .The frequences ,the polarities,the senses , the volumes of spheres ,the fields ,...in fact those velocities are like codes of comportment.It d be interesting to know the quantum architecture of spheres for water for exemple and the liquid comportment on Earth with its parameters .Why H2O is H2O ,what is the spheres architecture and their velocities of rotation at 30 degrees celsius for exemple and what is the velocities of rot for 100 degrees celsius and 0 .
If we take the cosmological numbers of spheres and their volumes ,more an universal law about mv like a constant quant/cosmol ,thus it's possible to know the specific architecture of water like gauge ,or H ,it's there the chemestry is important and the stability of molecules .
About energy ,the maximum is everywhere in maximum quantity after different steps in the quantum architecture towards the wall .At this limit all has the same maximum .
It's interesting this link if we consider the quantum Universe and the cosmological universe ,In this logic ,time is a part of the increase of mass and energy in the physical Universe in evolution .Thus it's always a question of limits towards walls in the quantum dynamic and the cosmological evolution .
The maximum energy is in all things with its limits of perception .
It's a very important foundamental because the applications are incredible .
It's the message of E =mc² all has the maximum quantity of energy .
In my model I perceive the light like a chief orchestra ,the light begins of the center of our Universe ,towards centers towards ultim cosmological membran sphere ,the curvature by gravity implies a spherization of all ,of the light .
The Light is like an ultim frequence of evolution.Thus like a constant of evolution like the time ,both of them are constants of evolution .They won't change I think .The space on the other side changes its volume in time,expansion and accretion.
In this logic of centers ,the comportments of our Universal center are so far of us but so intriguing ,it's there the ultim code .All is linked with this universal center where all begins ,began .
I don't imagine too whormholes and warp drives like possible .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
The speed of light is an absolute invariant. The "real McCoy" author kept saying dx^4 = icdt, which is a trivial statement but is worth considering. Everything is moving the speed of light locally, and it is really just a way of comparing a meter stick measure of one dimension in space with the fourth dimension of time.
General relativity is a bit odd, for locally in a flat Lorentx frame the speed of light is an invariant. Yet glocally points of space can be dragged or moved by almost anyway imaginable. In cosmology points on the spatial surface of the universe can slide apart with v = Hd, H = hubble constant and d = distance. The CMB limit is about 75 billion light years away, and this means the points of space frome where we observe these photons from are sliding away at about six times the speed of light! This is also how black holes can form. In these cases we are comparing physics between two frames which are not mutually the same or the same Lorentz frame. It is also interesting that photons from the CMB limit can reach us!!! Very strange indeed, but it does work out.
The warp drive does some sliding of spatial points. It compresses the distance between points in a small region in front of a flat region (inside the warp bubble) and expands spatial distances behind the flat region in the bubble. So in a funny way this does amount to adjusting the speed of light by playing with the curvature of spacetime. Yet, this leads to some pathologies, primarily it violates the Hawking Penrose energy condition, particularly the weak condition T^{00} >= 0. If this momentum-energy T^{00} is determined by quantum fields T^{00} < 0 leads to some very troubling problems with quantum theory.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
General relativity is a bit odd, for locally in a flat Lorentx frame the speed of light is an invariant. Yet glocally points of space can be dragged or moved by almost anyway imaginable. In cosmology points on the spatial surface of the universe can slide apart with v = Hd, H = hubble constant and d = distance. The CMB limit is about 75 billion light years away, and this means the points of space frome where we observe these photons from are sliding away at about six times the speed of light! This is also how black holes can form. In these cases we are comparing physics between two frames which are not mutually the same or the same Lorentz frame. It is also interesting that photons from the CMB limit can reach us!!! Very strange indeed, but it does work out.
The warp drive does some sliding of spatial points. It compresses the distance between points in a small region in front of a flat region (inside the warp bubble) and expands spatial distances behind the flat region in the bubble. So in a funny way this does amount to adjusting the speed of light by playing with the curvature of spacetime. Yet, this leads to some pathologies, primarily it violates the Hawking Penrose energy condition, particularly the weak condition T^{00} >= 0. If this momentum-energy T^{00} is determined by quantum fields T^{00} < 0 leads to some very troubling problems with quantum theory.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
Lawrence,
Lawrence,
The mathematical physics is completely correct as far as can see. But it’s not being interpreted correctly. I offer a succinct interpretation that can explain QM, GR, space, mass, time and String Theory. Just give me a few sentences to appeal to your interest.
The Laws of physics in free space have to be implemented somehow; to say they are Platonic absolutes is to suggest a mysterious cause. All of the mathematical physics is correct, but only part of it represents the a priori phenomena; the question is, which part? Consider two “Action at-a-distance” phenomena, Newtonian gravity and Coulomb’s law; what does it take to implement this kind of phenomena? In special relativity, two inertial frames with some relative velocity experience absolute speed of light, but peculiar temporal affects? What is the connection between them that is capable of transmitting information between the two frames? And finally, wave mechanics and Schrödinger’s equation is more than suggestive of wavy objects.
The real a priori objects that show up everywhere in the mathematics, are one dimensional string-like objects. An over simplification would be that every particle in the universe is connected to every other particle by a string. The string can transmit information and energy at the speed of light, c = v = sqrt (Tension/density). Strings are straight and are under tension; they can vibrate. More accurately, particles are “string” hubs with a finite, more reasonable number of connections. Rest mass is dependent upon the number of strings attached to the particle; a proton would have about (1/6E-27/9E-31) 1800x the number of strings passing through it than an electron would have. Photons would be vibrations/disturbances that propagate along the string and spread out across many strings. The mechanism that explains probabilistic detection remains unknown. The strings have peculiar properties. They are probability amplitudes. They pass through each other (so as to avoid knotting). They implement action at-a-distance forces. There lengths can and will change as particles move around.
Advantages to this interpretation:
1. Twin slit experiments can be explained as the photon energy (from even a single photon) causing the already present string paths to vibrate.
2. Elaborate and hard to imagine mental constructs can simplify into sophisticated 3D networks whose links transmit disturbances at the speed of light.
3. Fields, which are described with waves anyway, become collections of strings.
4. …
As for warp drives and changing the speed of light, one would have to change the properties of the strings (something I don't know how to do, yet).
post approved
Lawrence,
The mathematical physics is completely correct as far as can see. But it’s not being interpreted correctly. I offer a succinct interpretation that can explain QM, GR, space, mass, time and String Theory. Just give me a few sentences to appeal to your interest.
The Laws of physics in free space have to be implemented somehow; to say they are Platonic absolutes is to suggest a mysterious cause. All of the mathematical physics is correct, but only part of it represents the a priori phenomena; the question is, which part? Consider two “Action at-a-distance” phenomena, Newtonian gravity and Coulomb’s law; what does it take to implement this kind of phenomena? In special relativity, two inertial frames with some relative velocity experience absolute speed of light, but peculiar temporal affects? What is the connection between them that is capable of transmitting information between the two frames? And finally, wave mechanics and Schrödinger’s equation is more than suggestive of wavy objects.
The real a priori objects that show up everywhere in the mathematics, are one dimensional string-like objects. An over simplification would be that every particle in the universe is connected to every other particle by a string. The string can transmit information and energy at the speed of light, c = v = sqrt (Tension/density). Strings are straight and are under tension; they can vibrate. More accurately, particles are “string” hubs with a finite, more reasonable number of connections. Rest mass is dependent upon the number of strings attached to the particle; a proton would have about (1/6E-27/9E-31) 1800x the number of strings passing through it than an electron would have. Photons would be vibrations/disturbances that propagate along the string and spread out across many strings. The mechanism that explains probabilistic detection remains unknown. The strings have peculiar properties. They are probability amplitudes. They pass through each other (so as to avoid knotting). They implement action at-a-distance forces. There lengths can and will change as particles move around.
Advantages to this interpretation:
1. Twin slit experiments can be explained as the photon energy (from even a single photon) causing the already present string paths to vibrate.
2. Elaborate and hard to imagine mental constructs can simplify into sophisticated 3D networks whose links transmit disturbances at the speed of light.
3. Fields, which are described with waves anyway, become collections of strings.
4. …
As for warp drives and changing the speed of light, one would have to change the properties of the strings (something I don't know how to do, yet).
post approved
Strings are allowed to rotate along their axis (like logs rotating in the river).
If mass is the consequence of the number of strings attached to a particle, then black holes can be desrbided as the maximum number of strings for a given volume; all of these strings are under tension with everything else in the universe. This idea relates quantity of strings to mass and gravitational attraction. There really is a weave of space-time.
Please challenge me if you don't like my idea. I would like to figure out where the interpretation doesn't work.
post approved
If mass is the consequence of the number of strings attached to a particle, then black holes can be desrbided as the maximum number of strings for a given volume; all of these strings are under tension with everything else in the universe. This idea relates quantity of strings to mass and gravitational attraction. There really is a weave of space-time.
Please challenge me if you don't like my idea. I would like to figure out where the interpretation doesn't work.
post approved
Hi Spheric Steve,
Section 3.2 of my E12 TOE predicts charged scalar fermions, ie. TACHYONS!
Theoretically, these charged tachyons radiate electromagnetic energy until they asymptotically approach zero energy = infinite velocity (if our equations for Special Relativity can be applied to imaginary masses). Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous - there is probably a quantum and/ or Dirac Large Number limit. These tachyons are created and annihilated in pairs.
Could we control tachyons inside a gravitational bottle? It would be the gravitational equivalent of using a magnetic bottle (such as a tokamak) to confine plasma. If we could contain tachyons thus, we may be able to release them such that we can steer our spaceship. Could we envelope our spaceship with a tachyonic field and trick Gravity into thinking that the entire spaceship is a tachyon? And could we steer such a spaceship?
To Jason’s point, we still do not understand the full consequences of Strings and Quantum Entanglement…
By the way, your rotating fundamental spheres are angular momentum, not linear momentum. I do not think they say anything about the speed of light. I suspect the Universal Foundation has a String/ Sphere dual nature.
Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray
post approved
Section 3.2 of my E12 TOE predicts charged scalar fermions, ie. TACHYONS!
Theoretically, these charged tachyons radiate electromagnetic energy until they asymptotically approach zero energy = infinite velocity (if our equations for Special Relativity can be applied to imaginary masses). Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous - there is probably a quantum and/ or Dirac Large Number limit. These tachyons are created and annihilated in pairs.
Could we control tachyons inside a gravitational bottle? It would be the gravitational equivalent of using a magnetic bottle (such as a tokamak) to confine plasma. If we could contain tachyons thus, we may be able to release them such that we can steer our spaceship. Could we envelope our spaceship with a tachyonic field and trick Gravity into thinking that the entire spaceship is a tachyon? And could we steer such a spaceship?
To Jason’s point, we still do not understand the full consequences of Strings and Quantum Entanglement…
By the way, your rotating fundamental spheres are angular momentum, not linear momentum. I do not think they say anything about the speed of light. I suspect the Universal Foundation has a String/ Sphere dual nature.
Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray
post approved
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,
Happy to read you again .
A duality between spheres and strings ,it's interesting indeed ,if I imagine a closed circle membran and a sphere membran ,it's relevent about the frequences ,vibrations and harmonization in Time Space evolution.
What is interesting too is the different step before ,the different volume too ,inside the sphere too .
The quantum architecture in this logic is correlated with cosmological spheres and its volumes ,ratios and proportions .
Just for fun ,let's imagine a sphere with a kind of ultim liquid inside and a membran betwenn math/phys world ,and a code of becoming if I can say .
with those rotations of spheres ,many forms of complementarity are possible .
The rotation and this kind of incompressible liquid imply a specific comportment .
But In a global point of vue ,I see the foundamental in the sphere ,with a big big majority ,a string is divisible ,a sphere no ,it's the perfect balance between strenghts and that everywhere in our physical universe .
Dear Ray ,
could you tell me more about a tachyon ,I have difficulties to imagine it .
Is this supravelocity is linear in this hypothesis ?
thus I understand the time travel hypothesis and the check of futur and past,but really impossible for me to have possibilities to travel in Time .
I think it's more interesting to focus on Space and the check of energy ,it s logic in an evolution point of vue with this time constant .
You say (hihihi me too) Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous ,
personnally I think zero is a human invention ,the infinity is behind our walls .Thus two human inventions and that to imagine the limits of perceptibility .
I use zero but I don't imagine it ,I use infinity but I don't imagine it hihihi
The zero don't exist .like a mirror of the reality ,we can break this mirror ,hihi ...
friendly
Steve
post approved
Happy to read you again .
A duality between spheres and strings ,it's interesting indeed ,if I imagine a closed circle membran and a sphere membran ,it's relevent about the frequences ,vibrations and harmonization in Time Space evolution.
What is interesting too is the different step before ,the different volume too ,inside the sphere too .
The quantum architecture in this logic is correlated with cosmological spheres and its volumes ,ratios and proportions .
Just for fun ,let's imagine a sphere with a kind of ultim liquid inside and a membran betwenn math/phys world ,and a code of becoming if I can say .
with those rotations of spheres ,many forms of complementarity are possible .
The rotation and this kind of incompressible liquid imply a specific comportment .
But In a global point of vue ,I see the foundamental in the sphere ,with a big big majority ,a string is divisible ,a sphere no ,it's the perfect balance between strenghts and that everywhere in our physical universe .
Dear Ray ,
could you tell me more about a tachyon ,I have difficulties to imagine it .
Is this supravelocity is linear in this hypothesis ?
thus I understand the time travel hypothesis and the check of futur and past,but really impossible for me to have possibilities to travel in Time .
I think it's more interesting to focus on Space and the check of energy ,it s logic in an evolution point of vue with this time constant .
You say (hihihi me too) Numbers like zero and infinity make me nervous ,
personnally I think zero is a human invention ,the infinity is behind our walls .Thus two human inventions and that to imagine the limits of perceptibility .
I use zero but I don't imagine it ,I use infinity but I don't imagine it hihihi
The zero don't exist .like a mirror of the reality ,we can break this mirror ,hihi ...
friendly
Steve
post approved
The inclusion of string theory and anything else does not change the problem of the speed of light. The warpdrive exists mathematically by violating the Hawking-Penrose energy condition T^{00} < 0. This causes all sorts of trouble for quantum mechanics. If this condition T^{00} < 0 holds it also means that wormholes and even time machines can exist. We are all familiar with the paradoxes of time travel.
I don't think that the universe is self-contradicting. To avoid causality paradoxes with time travel is a tricky thing to do. Quantum gravity under these conditions would be extremely difficult to formulate. It is hard enough as it is! I suppose in physics we can't ever say something is absolutely impossible, but I do think we can say certain things are very improbable or implausible. Warp drives, wormholes, Krasnykov tubes, time travel and so forth are I think unlikely.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
I don't think that the universe is self-contradicting. To avoid causality paradoxes with time travel is a tricky thing to do. Quantum gravity under these conditions would be extremely difficult to formulate. It is hard enough as it is! I suppose in physics we can't ever say something is absolutely impossible, but I do think we can say certain things are very improbable or implausible. Warp drives, wormholes, Krasnykov tubes, time travel and so forth are I think unlikely.
Lawrence B. Crowell
post approved
Dear Spheric Steve,
Consider the equation (pc)^2=E^2-(mc^2)^2 with imaginary mass (a tachyon), such that -m^2>0. Kinematics demand that a low-energy tachyon travels infinitely fast, while a very energetic tachyon "slows" down and asymptotically approaches the speed of light, so that its speed is always more than c. Electrically charged tachyons must radiate electromagnetic radiation, which reduces their energy and increases their velocity. (Yes, it sounds backwards, but tachyons are like that).
You know how I feel about the number "infinity"... I was an undergraduate student at Florida State University when Paul Dirac was a Professor Emeritus there. I will continue to carry on Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis...
Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure.
One of my friends at NASA was playing around with the idea of stepping through a multi-dimensional (pick a number 10, 11, or 12 dimensions?) doorway into another time and/ or place in the Universe. The idea is that there may be a higher-dimensional short-cut versus the standard four dimensions. I have doubts about that approach because hyperspace is more likely to be small and require high access energies; rather than inflated, invisible, and require low access energies.
Have Fun!
Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray
post approved
Consider the equation (pc)^2=E^2-(mc^2)^2 with imaginary mass (a tachyon), such that -m^2>0. Kinematics demand that a low-energy tachyon travels infinitely fast, while a very energetic tachyon "slows" down and asymptotically approaches the speed of light, so that its speed is always more than c. Electrically charged tachyons must radiate electromagnetic radiation, which reduces their energy and increases their velocity. (Yes, it sounds backwards, but tachyons are like that).
You know how I feel about the number "infinity"... I was an undergraduate student at Florida State University when Paul Dirac was a Professor Emeritus there. I will continue to carry on Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis...
Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure.
One of my friends at NASA was playing around with the idea of stepping through a multi-dimensional (pick a number 10, 11, or 12 dimensions?) doorway into another time and/ or place in the Universe. The idea is that there may be a higher-dimensional short-cut versus the standard four dimensions. I have doubts about that approach because hyperspace is more likely to be small and require high access energies; rather than inflated, invisible, and require low access energies.
Have Fun!
Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray
post approved
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,
I read ....congratulations .You are incredible .
Dirac Was an incredible mathematician and a searcher of truth ,the secret is there I think .
His Hypothesis is relevant about our limits .
In my quantum model and the cosmological link ,the numbers of stars ,planets ,moons ,....are so important ,I don't see an other universality for the quantum architecture and its rotations of spheres .
This quantum architecture is like a code of becoming in space time evolution .
You say "Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure."
So many secrets there in this local mechanic .The increase of energy towards walls ....all has the maximum quantity of energy but before the check of fields....it's the same with our global energy system by nuclear ,where are we ,still far of the wall .Furthermore our global economic system decrease the velocity of evolution and thus the technology,always this individualism against the complementarity .
The quantum mechanics has many secrets to discover ,personnally I think That it's possible to check the space but not the time ,a, interesting point of vue is the decrease of space in an contraction evolution ,thus the space between mass decrease thus intresting for the check of space .
If we consider this ultim sphere ,this ultim harmony between mass ,it's so fascinating for the interactions .The human species is a explorer ,a catalyzer ,a discover,....we must check the velocity ,the mobility ,the communication.
Sometimes I extrapolate the lifes in our Universe ,the astrobiology is fascinating ,how are those intelligences ,how are their evolutions ,hope they don't make the same silly things than us on Earth.In all case ,one day we shall communicate with us and more ,always the complementarity between all like in our quantum architecture and its codes .all lives ,all evolves ,all towards harmony .The light in this logic is the ultim frequence ,and the universal center where all begins .
It's a pleasure Ray to discuss with you .
friendly
Steve
post approved
I read ....congratulations .You are incredible .
Dirac Was an incredible mathematician and a searcher of truth ,the secret is there I think .
His Hypothesis is relevant about our limits .
In my quantum model and the cosmological link ,the numbers of stars ,planets ,moons ,....are so important ,I don't see an other universality for the quantum architecture and its rotations of spheres .
This quantum architecture is like a code of becoming in space time evolution .
You say "Can we use these exotic particles to propel a spaceship? I'm not sure. Could Planck or Einstein have predicted the impact of Quantum Mechanics on our modern lifestyles and economy over 100 years ago? I'm not sure."
So many secrets there in this local mechanic .The increase of energy towards walls ....all has the maximum quantity of energy but before the check of fields....it's the same with our global energy system by nuclear ,where are we ,still far of the wall .Furthermore our global economic system decrease the velocity of evolution and thus the technology,always this individualism against the complementarity .
The quantum mechanics has many secrets to discover ,personnally I think That it's possible to check the space but not the time ,a, interesting point of vue is the decrease of space in an contraction evolution ,thus the space between mass decrease thus intresting for the check of space .
If we consider this ultim sphere ,this ultim harmony between mass ,it's so fascinating for the interactions .The human species is a explorer ,a catalyzer ,a discover,....we must check the velocity ,the mobility ,the communication.
Sometimes I extrapolate the lifes in our Universe ,the astrobiology is fascinating ,how are those intelligences ,how are their evolutions ,hope they don't make the same silly things than us on Earth.In all case ,one day we shall communicate with us and more ,always the complementarity between all like in our quantum architecture and its codes .all lives ,all evolves ,all towards harmony .The light in this logic is the ultim frequence ,and the universal center where all begins .
It's a pleasure Ray to discuss with you .
friendly
Steve
post approved
and again I find theory with its head in the clouds, but that's what makes dreaming fun. now warping space on that scale isn't as easy as it sounds. it would require a large amount of mass (or E equivalent) perpetually warping the space as well as moving on the up slide of the warped space (think of E principles for this) the worst part is the distortive affect it would have on the craft itself. and thats just for movement. For tricking FTL travel without moving FTL u would have to warp time a huge amount (probably doing both at the same time lol) which is even more fun. warp travel Possible YES probable no . imagine riding a grave wave on the edge of an event horizon without getting pulled in or left behind because it to would have to move. then u have to stop it would be really hard surfin.
post approved
post approved
This warp drive conundrum is becoming an obsession. Since physics, as physicists understand it, is not very conducive to FTL travel, we have to think about how the universe is constructed/assembled.
From a QM point of view, I believe that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothingness; this is equivalent to V(r) = infinity. In other words, the non-existent nothingness in which the universe expands, does not allow particles, light or anything to exist in it's n-dimensional space. When the Big Bang occured, the universe (space-time expanded). Space-time is, for lack of better language, made of something (strings perhaps). It is the expansion of this something that reworks the potential energy topography to something less then infinity. As the universe expands and cools, the background energy approaches the zero point energy. I believe that the substance of which space-time is made, creates the background potential energy topography for n-dimensions. Time is nothing more than the fact that energy flows across the available states similar to the way that water seeks its own level.
With the tesselation/crystal approach, you don't get the expansion of space because crystals don't really move. I really like the idea of a molten polymer because superstrings are similar to long carbon chains.
I like the idea that superstrings can have a large number of states such that the low energy states are conducive to three spatial dimensions and allow for rotation as well. In the same way that a plastic cup holds water, is it possible to say that a superstring/polymer-like universe can hold energy in ways that behaves like Hilbert space?
So why are planck's constant, speed of light, etc absolutes? I don't know yet. But I'm trying to get at two energy topographies, one for the standard model and one for hyperspace. I'm willing to bet that trying to get around in hyperspace, using tachyon fields, will get you lost very easily unless you use a lot of energy to direct your spaceship to exactly where you want to go. I'm suggesting that a hyperspace has Quantum behavior in the sense that a detection of a particle in regular space is a parallel to an accurate hyperspace jump. Unless you put a lot of energy into the jump, you will not complete your jump anywhere close to your intended destination (in spite of the fact that you jumped 1 million lightyears away).
post approved
From a QM point of view, I believe that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothingness; this is equivalent to V(r) = infinity. In other words, the non-existent nothingness in which the universe expands, does not allow particles, light or anything to exist in it's n-dimensional space. When the Big Bang occured, the universe (space-time expanded). Space-time is, for lack of better language, made of something (strings perhaps). It is the expansion of this something that reworks the potential energy topography to something less then infinity. As the universe expands and cools, the background energy approaches the zero point energy. I believe that the substance of which space-time is made, creates the background potential energy topography for n-dimensions. Time is nothing more than the fact that energy flows across the available states similar to the way that water seeks its own level.
With the tesselation/crystal approach, you don't get the expansion of space because crystals don't really move. I really like the idea of a molten polymer because superstrings are similar to long carbon chains.
I like the idea that superstrings can have a large number of states such that the low energy states are conducive to three spatial dimensions and allow for rotation as well. In the same way that a plastic cup holds water, is it possible to say that a superstring/polymer-like universe can hold energy in ways that behaves like Hilbert space?
So why are planck's constant, speed of light, etc absolutes? I don't know yet. But I'm trying to get at two energy topographies, one for the standard model and one for hyperspace. I'm willing to bet that trying to get around in hyperspace, using tachyon fields, will get you lost very easily unless you use a lot of energy to direct your spaceship to exactly where you want to go. I'm suggesting that a hyperspace has Quantum behavior in the sense that a detection of a particle in regular space is a parallel to an accurate hyperspace jump. Unless you put a lot of energy into the jump, you will not complete your jump anywhere close to your intended destination (in spite of the fact that you jumped 1 million lightyears away).
post approved
Steve,
I was reading an article about unexplained forces acting on space probes.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-02-29
-nasa-spacecraft-anomalies_N.htm?csp=34
When one of the scientists suggested that gravity might be effected by the rotation of the earth, I thought of you.
post approved
I was reading an article about unexplained forces acting on space probes.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-02-29
-nasa-spacecraft-anomalies_N.htm?csp=34
When one of the scientists suggested that gravity might be effected by the rotation of the earth, I thought of you.
post approved
Hello Jason ,
Thank you very much ,it's nice .
I am going to read it .
Friendly
Steve
post approved
Thank you very much ,it's nice .
I am going to read it .
Friendly
Steve
post approved
Hi Jason ,
It's indeed interesting .Those anomalies are relevants ,
If I take a simple constant m v x =m'v'x'...it's interesting about the variables of velocities of rotations who imply thus different mass thus gravity .
It's logic in this optic to have this kind of problems .
The architecture of gravity and fields in a spherical logic is necessery with some adapted new parameters and variables .With this kind of sphere with spheical fields inside and those parameters,we could adapt and change parameters .If some weak changements of the velocity of rotation of a body are evident thus the mass and gravity too have these changements and that proportionaly.
I think that all is correlated with these rotations of spheres and that in the quantum and cosmological dimensions .
The gauge is possible with thoses rotations and that to have the best architecture .
I have a unknew (with unknews)in this equation mvx like a constant .m the mass of the sphere ,v the velocity of rotations of the sphere ,and x a variable due to the nature of the sphere (liquid ,solid ,gaz,proportion,density,not compressibility ,volume,pression,......more the complexification and the spherization thus the increasing of mass and the decreasing of space ).
I have some questions about the sphercal laws .
Some parameters can indeed change with the centers (planets,stars,galaxies....)thus we can extrapolate with galactic center and its laws ,stars and its laws ......
To elaborate correctly this universal constant ,I need datas and helps of course but the whole is there .
This new constant will permit to link all I think .The rotations of spheres like a driving force of the harmonization towards ultim sphere.
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
It's indeed interesting .Those anomalies are relevants ,
If I take a simple constant m v x =m'v'x'...it's interesting about the variables of velocities of rotations who imply thus different mass thus gravity .
It's logic in this optic to have this kind of problems .
The architecture of gravity and fields in a spherical logic is necessery with some adapted new parameters and variables .With this kind of sphere with spheical fields inside and those parameters,we could adapt and change parameters .If some weak changements of the velocity of rotation of a body are evident thus the mass and gravity too have these changements and that proportionaly.
I think that all is correlated with these rotations of spheres and that in the quantum and cosmological dimensions .
The gauge is possible with thoses rotations and that to have the best architecture .
I have a unknew (with unknews)in this equation mvx like a constant .m the mass of the sphere ,v the velocity of rotations of the sphere ,and x a variable due to the nature of the sphere (liquid ,solid ,gaz,proportion,density,not compressibility ,volume,pression,......more the complexification and the spherization thus the increasing of mass and the decreasing of space ).
I have some questions about the sphercal laws .
Some parameters can indeed change with the centers (planets,stars,galaxies....)thus we can extrapolate with galactic center and its laws ,stars and its laws ......
To elaborate correctly this universal constant ,I need datas and helps of course but the whole is there .
This new constant will permit to link all I think .The rotations of spheres like a driving force of the harmonization towards ultim sphere.
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
In the quest to come up with the hyperdrive (or something plausible), I've been looking very closely at mesons/baryons/hadrons (strong force mediators and quark stuff). There are six kinds of quarks + their antiquarks for a total of 12. I had the following idea. What if there is yet another symmetry for sub light speed/FTL. This will again double the number of quarks. I'm talking about tachyon quarks. When I tried to figure out what their properties would be, I thought of gravitons and Higg particles. If I imagined that gravitons and Higg particles are really tachyon quarks, would I be violating any physics principles?
I'm trying to come up with some UFO physics, something to explain hyperdrives and the bending of space-time (Alcubierre drive). The idea I have is to take a semiconductor material, or a metal, and replace some of the proton/neutrons with tachyon quarks. I thought it might be a possible way to couple electromagnetic forces with gravity-like forces and space curvature in a logical way.
Is there any reason to discount the idea that gravitons and higgs particles are tachyon quarks?
post approved
I'm trying to come up with some UFO physics, something to explain hyperdrives and the bending of space-time (Alcubierre drive). The idea I have is to take a semiconductor material, or a metal, and replace some of the proton/neutrons with tachyon quarks. I thought it might be a possible way to couple electromagnetic forces with gravity-like forces and space curvature in a logical way.
Is there any reason to discount the idea that gravitons and higgs particles are tachyon quarks?
post approved
It's not quite a hyperdrive; but a wormhole with moveable gates would work just as well.
You fly your space shuttle (sub light speed) into the entrance way. Upon crossing the threshold of the wormhome, your shuttle is coated by a protected boundary that isolates the craft and crew (in standard space-time) from the hyperspace wormhole. Once inside, the wormhole treats the globular object (the coated shuttle) as a "mass" in a pendulum. When the wormhole/hyperspace globular object is released and allowed to move, it accellerates up to multiples of c. At the halfway point, it reaches its maximum velocity with zero accelleration, then it starts slowing down. The shuttle, relative to the protective boundary which the wormhole sees as a globular "mass", the shuttle is at rest and not accellerating. Towards the other end of the wormhole, the shuttle is slowing down to a stop. The shuttle passes through the exit where the protective boundary is removed. The gates on either end can be moved without changing the 'altered' laws of physics of the worm hole.
Yes, I know that the physics community doesn't have the slightest clue how to do any of this. Yes, I know about the tv show StarGate. Yes, I know that any real physicist would repeat the chant "that's impossible, that's science fiction". On a positive note, I don't have to worry about steering or propulsion.
post approved
You fly your space shuttle (sub light speed) into the entrance way. Upon crossing the threshold of the wormhome, your shuttle is coated by a protected boundary that isolates the craft and crew (in standard space-time) from the hyperspace wormhole. Once inside, the wormhole treats the globular object (the coated shuttle) as a "mass" in a pendulum. When the wormhole/hyperspace globular object is released and allowed to move, it accellerates up to multiples of c. At the halfway point, it reaches its maximum velocity with zero accelleration, then it starts slowing down. The shuttle, relative to the protective boundary which the wormhole sees as a globular "mass", the shuttle is at rest and not accellerating. Towards the other end of the wormhole, the shuttle is slowing down to a stop. The shuttle passes through the exit where the protective boundary is removed. The gates on either end can be moved without changing the 'altered' laws of physics of the worm hole.
Yes, I know that the physics community doesn't have the slightest clue how to do any of this. Yes, I know about the tv show StarGate. Yes, I know that any real physicist would repeat the chant "that's impossible, that's science fiction". On a positive note, I don't have to worry about steering or propulsion.
post approved
Jason,
Back in the 90's, one of my NASA colleagues (now a Prof Emeritus at UAH) was trying to combine the Star Gate concept with String Theory. His basic idea is that we might be able to find a multidimensional shortcut between doorways. Your basic idea is that we might be able to find a (wormhole/ multidimensional?) super highway with a speed limit greater than c between doorways. The net effect seems similar, but the Physics is different. I wonder if an observer could determine that the Physics was different?
In the Nineteenth Century, travelling to the Moon was also science fiction...
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
post approved
Back in the 90's, one of my NASA colleagues (now a Prof Emeritus at UAH) was trying to combine the Star Gate concept with String Theory. His basic idea is that we might be able to find a multidimensional shortcut between doorways. Your basic idea is that we might be able to find a (wormhole/ multidimensional?) super highway with a speed limit greater than c between doorways. The net effect seems similar, but the Physics is different. I wonder if an observer could determine that the Physics was different?
In the Nineteenth Century, travelling to the Moon was also science fiction...
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
post approved
Let's go for fun and science fiction ,
A door like in Stargate ,and a wormhole ,thus the rotations implies gravity thus possibility to coordonate the frequances of a wormhole and create a symetric space thus a possible teleportation with a good architecture .
Don't forget too to calculate the quantum spheres and the nature of the polarization ,here a human ,Quantum spheres .......HCNO ....cells ...human
Thus the check of rotations is important to harmonize the frequences .
Thus the spherical fields must be very well calculate and the reproduction must be well teleported .I don't want be like in the film the fly.Thus the quantum coded spheres and their rotations must be well replicated .because all is linked by rotations and spherical fields .To reproduce an human ,it's difficult No .We are not God in fact .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
A door like in Stargate ,and a wormhole ,thus the rotations implies gravity thus possibility to coordonate the frequances of a wormhole and create a symetric space thus a possible teleportation with a good architecture .
Don't forget too to calculate the quantum spheres and the nature of the polarization ,here a human ,Quantum spheres .......HCNO ....cells ...human
Thus the check of rotations is important to harmonize the frequences .
Thus the spherical fields must be very well calculate and the reproduction must be well teleported .I don't want be like in the film the fly.Thus the quantum coded spheres and their rotations must be well replicated .because all is linked by rotations and spherical fields .To reproduce an human ,it's difficult No .We are not God in fact .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Dear Steve,
THE FLY? LOL!
OK - I'll let you doublecheck the calculations. I sure don't want to end up like that guy!
Ray
post approved
THE FLY? LOL!
OK - I'll let you doublecheck the calculations. I sure don't want to end up like that guy!
Ray
post approved
Not teleportation. Pendulum Wormhole! In Las Vegas at one of the Casinoes, they have a ride called the Sky Screamer. They strap you down and lift you up in this pendulum system. They live you up about 150 feel, and then they release you. You swing back and forth about 8 or 9 times. Ok, I did scream like a little girl, but it was so much fun. It's a little bit like that.
Nobody knows how to really manipulate space-time without using black holes and singularities. I look at the various electromagnetic field equations and I see charges with velocities crossing field (perpendicular) to create forces (perpendicular to the plane); these cross products give me ideas. Yes, you guessed it; I'm looking for hyper dimensional forces that can shape space-time. I'll let you all know if I come up with anything interesting.
post approved
Nobody knows how to really manipulate space-time without using black holes and singularities. I look at the various electromagnetic field equations and I see charges with velocities crossing field (perpendicular) to create forces (perpendicular to the plane); these cross products give me ideas. Yes, you guessed it; I'm looking for hyper dimensional forces that can shape space-time. I'll let you all know if I come up with anything interesting.
post approved
Hi Jason,
Could you tell me more about a pendulum wormhole and the electro magnetic field equations.
It's interesting all your extrapolations .You are born with an incredible creativity.
The plan ,the symmetry and the perpendicularity are relevants .
Regards
Steve
post approved
Could you tell me more about a pendulum wormhole and the electro magnetic field equations.
It's interesting all your extrapolations .You are born with an incredible creativity.
The plan ,the symmetry and the perpendicularity are relevants .
Regards
Steve
post approved
Hi Steve,
I'm still working on how to actually build a Pendulum Wormhole. Within the cylindrical region of the wormhole, I'm ok with allowing the physics constants to vary, symmetrically, along the pathway. The shuttle must be enclosed within a boundary to protect it from the extreme laws of physics inside of the wormhole. I do not want to use black holes and other huge mass-energies if it can be avoided.
I was thinking about how E&M has coupling between electricity and magnetism; in comparison, mass/gravity has no such coupling, that is obvious. I want to assume that electromagnetism/photons are a separate phenomena from mass/gravity. If electromagnetism is implemented by virtual photons, then mass/gravity would be implemented by virtual Higgs particles and virtual gravitons. But I'm not entirely convinced that they really are point like particles at all. In fact, gravity doesn't seem like a point-like interaction at all.
As for creating wormholes, there is going to have to be a hyperdimensional force involved of some kind. In electromagnetism, the Pointing vector S=E X B (times some constants). I'm looking for a hyper-force that has manifestations in the space-time + hyperspace in a similar kind of cross product way.
I'm going under the assumption that a solid-state crystal picture in not correct. The balloon/giant photon/5D wave-front idea is more compatible with the Big Bang and warping of space-time. Furthermore, I am assuming that QM is absolute and GR is a construct of QM. In other words, I think entire universes can be created and manipulated, but the multiverse is stuck with QM, like it or not.
As for the Quaternion model of a scalar energy dimension + 3 spatial dimensions, if you imagine a boiling pot of water, I believe that virtual photons behave similarly to the bubbles. I believe the the virtual photons (virtual Higgs/gravitons) are manifesting space and an energy dimension by their intereactions. Time/causality only occur if the virtual photons (Higgs/gravitons) are allowed to transmit their momentum/frequency information; kx - wt.
If a pendulum wormhole were to be created, virtual photons would not be of any use; so don't expect lightning or radio contact from the wormhole. It might have to be a region of gravitons/Higgs particles only. The two dimensional surface/boundaries that isolate the wormhole entrance and shuttle are another physics I'll have to think about. If your worried about observers on the other side of the boundary (by observers I mean quantum particles and fields), I'm willing to restrict anything from crossing the boundary. In fact, if electromagnetism does not exist inside of the wormhole, then the boundaries will have to be opaque.
I'll keep thinking about it. If I notice any 6D+time bosonic gravitational forces anywhere, I'll let you know.
post approved
I'm still working on how to actually build a Pendulum Wormhole. Within the cylindrical region of the wormhole, I'm ok with allowing the physics constants to vary, symmetrically, along the pathway. The shuttle must be enclosed within a boundary to protect it from the extreme laws of physics inside of the wormhole. I do not want to use black holes and other huge mass-energies if it can be avoided.
I was thinking about how E&M has coupling between electricity and magnetism; in comparison, mass/gravity has no such coupling, that is obvious. I want to assume that electromagnetism/photons are a separate phenomena from mass/gravity. If electromagnetism is implemented by virtual photons, then mass/gravity would be implemented by virtual Higgs particles and virtual gravitons. But I'm not entirely convinced that they really are point like particles at all. In fact, gravity doesn't seem like a point-like interaction at all.
As for creating wormholes, there is going to have to be a hyperdimensional force involved of some kind. In electromagnetism, the Pointing vector S=E X B (times some constants). I'm looking for a hyper-force that has manifestations in the space-time + hyperspace in a similar kind of cross product way.
I'm going under the assumption that a solid-state crystal picture in not correct. The balloon/giant photon/5D wave-front idea is more compatible with the Big Bang and warping of space-time. Furthermore, I am assuming that QM is absolute and GR is a construct of QM. In other words, I think entire universes can be created and manipulated, but the multiverse is stuck with QM, like it or not.
As for the Quaternion model of a scalar energy dimension + 3 spatial dimensions, if you imagine a boiling pot of water, I believe that virtual photons behave similarly to the bubbles. I believe the the virtual photons (virtual Higgs/gravitons) are manifesting space and an energy dimension by their intereactions. Time/causality only occur if the virtual photons (Higgs/gravitons) are allowed to transmit their momentum/frequency information; kx - wt.
If a pendulum wormhole were to be created, virtual photons would not be of any use; so don't expect lightning or radio contact from the wormhole. It might have to be a region of gravitons/Higgs particles only. The two dimensional surface/boundaries that isolate the wormhole entrance and shuttle are another physics I'll have to think about. If your worried about observers on the other side of the boundary (by observers I mean quantum particles and fields), I'm willing to restrict anything from crossing the boundary. In fact, if electromagnetism does not exist inside of the wormhole, then the boundaries will have to be opaque.
I'll keep thinking about it. If I notice any 6D+time bosonic gravitational forces anywhere, I'll let you know.
post approved
Hypothetically, if two shuttles entered from each side of the pendulum wormhole, each with the appropriate protective boundary, if the two shuttles pass through each other at velocities exceeding the speeding of light, then interaction or a collision cannot occur. A collision requires electrostatic interaction, which requires virtual photons. But photons can only interact at the speed of light. For two shuttles passing each other at faster than light speeds, an electrostatic interaction would not have time to occur. I'm assuming the shuttles have masses that are too small to be gravitationally relavent.
post approved
post approved
Hi Jason,
I understand better .
I d like ask you one thing about the bosons de Higgs ,what do you think about its mass ,its linear velocity and the velocity of rotations .
Let's admit this weak interactions and the Einstein Bose Stat .
This equation thus n=g(i)/exp{Ei-u/K(B)T-1}.
We see the Thermodynamical balance ,in the Bose Einstein condensate ,the weak temperature are in coherence too .
If I take my link with rotating spheres ,a big vel of rot of the sphere implies a small mass ,thus the light has the maximum in the two sens ,linear and around themselves,I d say what these bosons have a big velocity of rot and a proportional weak mass .
If we change the temperature ,like a condensate ,thus we change all velocities of rot of quantum spheres ,thus the thermodynamic and gravitational effects are invariants in their balances .
If the gauge is the light ,the graviton and the higgs bosons are how in this case and do you think there is symetric frequenes .And how keeping the frequences informations .
If one is attractive ,the other repulsive,what I find impossible is the time travel ,but a space travel is interesting .
Let's take a paper ,one page ,you take the plan between two points ,for exemple 25 cm ,and you approach the point of the plan .The two points are 0.1 cm .It's like we cut the Einstein Rosen Bridge and create a circular vortex between the two points ,the two gravitational singularities but not with time but with space .
What do you think Jason ?
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
I understand better .
I d like ask you one thing about the bosons de Higgs ,what do you think about its mass ,its linear velocity and the velocity of rotations .
Let's admit this weak interactions and the Einstein Bose Stat .
This equation thus n=g(i)/exp{Ei-u/K(B)T-1}.
We see the Thermodynamical balance ,in the Bose Einstein condensate ,the weak temperature are in coherence too .
If I take my link with rotating spheres ,a big vel of rot of the sphere implies a small mass ,thus the light has the maximum in the two sens ,linear and around themselves,I d say what these bosons have a big velocity of rot and a proportional weak mass .
If we change the temperature ,like a condensate ,thus we change all velocities of rot of quantum spheres ,thus the thermodynamic and gravitational effects are invariants in their balances .
If the gauge is the light ,the graviton and the higgs bosons are how in this case and do you think there is symetric frequenes .And how keeping the frequences informations .
If one is attractive ,the other repulsive,what I find impossible is the time travel ,but a space travel is interesting .
Let's take a paper ,one page ,you take the plan between two points ,for exemple 25 cm ,and you approach the point of the plan .The two points are 0.1 cm .It's like we cut the Einstein Rosen Bridge and create a circular vortex between the two points ,the two gravitational singularities but not with time but with space .
What do you think Jason ?
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
I think an other thing too .
Let's admit a big attraction thus mass of a Black Holes for exemple ,If the elementary particles are spheres and what the maximum vel of rot if for the light ,thus when we go above this maximum we have thus one a BH or 2 a WH ,due to the sens of rotations ,always + and -
Thus in this cases ,these singularities are relevants about the sense.
Steve
post approved
Let's admit a big attraction thus mass of a Black Holes for exemple ,If the elementary particles are spheres and what the maximum vel of rot if for the light ,thus when we go above this maximum we have thus one a BH or 2 a WH ,due to the sens of rotations ,always + and -
Thus in this cases ,these singularities are relevants about the sense.
Steve
post approved
Hi Jason,
The gravitational waves and their frequences are the secrets in the earliest state and our actual state .
The spherical symetries thus like a rock in the water .Always the symetries of rotation .
I return to the quantum rotations of spheres implying mass and the increasing of mass thus an increase of the curves of the Space Time .
The poincarré Birkhoff theomes and the density is relevant I think .
All depends of this mass always.If the energy is diffused by these waves ???
The aim is to find its velocities in fact and thus ...
What I find relevant is the evolution point of vue and the diffusion of these waves since the beginning ,here the Big Bang Theory or a multiplication of el part ,the general relativity is on the road always .
Let's take now the spin 0,1,2 .and the results of the extrapolations ,thus the restr relativity must be adapted ,the rotations of the spheres and its ponctuality is totatly different than a linear velocity ,in this case the rest relativity is not applicable .
It's important to encircle the real universal dynamic of gravitational wave and the graviton ,the ultim rotating codes sphere or spheres .The Linear velocity ,the gauge ,the limits ,and the rotations which implies mass.
In your case of extrapolations thus between two systems ,one + and one - ,a BH and a WH ,can be optimized if you insert these foundamenatls I think .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
The gravitational waves and their frequences are the secrets in the earliest state and our actual state .
The spherical symetries thus like a rock in the water .Always the symetries of rotation .
I return to the quantum rotations of spheres implying mass and the increasing of mass thus an increase of the curves of the Space Time .
The poincarré Birkhoff theomes and the density is relevant I think .
All depends of this mass always.If the energy is diffused by these waves ???
The aim is to find its velocities in fact and thus ...
What I find relevant is the evolution point of vue and the diffusion of these waves since the beginning ,here the Big Bang Theory or a multiplication of el part ,the general relativity is on the road always .
Let's take now the spin 0,1,2 .and the results of the extrapolations ,thus the restr relativity must be adapted ,the rotations of the spheres and its ponctuality is totatly different than a linear velocity ,in this case the rest relativity is not applicable .
It's important to encircle the real universal dynamic of gravitational wave and the graviton ,the ultim rotating codes sphere or spheres .The Linear velocity ,the gauge ,the limits ,and the rotations which implies mass.
In your case of extrapolations thus between two systems ,one + and one - ,a BH and a WH ,can be optimized if you insert these foundamenatls I think .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
The graviton and the magneton .
In my model ,the incompressibility is important ,if I take a Riemann Sphere and an incompressible nature like an optimized liquid ,we can insert two the Bohr Idea .
We can insert the sense too for the polarizations ,and the topology with the universal center .
The quantum fields theory depends of all that ,the rotations of the quantum spheres pontually and orbital .
post approved
In my model ,the incompressibility is important ,if I take a Riemann Sphere and an incompressible nature like an optimized liquid ,we can insert two the Bohr Idea .
We can insert the sense too for the polarizations ,and the topology with the universal center .
The quantum fields theory depends of all that ,the rotations of the quantum spheres pontually and orbital .
post approved
What do you think about the photon spin of 1 ,this Boson is the gauge of limits for all I think ,when we go above this two limits ,linear ,and rot .The ponctuality appears No ? Fortunaly for the stability of polarizations ....
Steve
post approved
Steve
post approved
Steve,
I haven't forgotten about you. I has just been too busy around here to be able to sit down and explain more clearly what I mean. But I intend to this afternoon.
I strongly believe that the universe is not made of mathematics. It is, however, made of quantum mechanics. The tools and materials to create protective shells of universes and wormholes lies buried within quantum mechanics. I will explain more, later today.
post approved
I haven't forgotten about you. I has just been too busy around here to be able to sit down and explain more clearly what I mean. But I intend to this afternoon.
I strongly believe that the universe is not made of mathematics. It is, however, made of quantum mechanics. The tools and materials to create protective shells of universes and wormholes lies buried within quantum mechanics. I will explain more, later today.
post approved
More videos in the series have been posted on
http://interstellarjourney.blip.tv/
post approved
http://interstellarjourney.blip.tv/
post approved
Hi Steve,
I've been thinking a lot about wormhole physics. After trying to explain these ideas to my girlfriend and her brother, I realized I need to make this as simple as possible.
Our physical universe can be considered like an expanding balloon. The Cosmological constant can be compared to the air pressure of the balloon that causes it to expand. 3d space can be compared to the 2D surface of a balloon. Quantum particles can be described with superstrings within a parallel pair of D-branes (effectively a conduction band). These d-branes are separated by a thickness d that can be compared to the thickness of a balloon; but this thickness 'd' is a placeholder for additional work.
The Higgs field, mass, speed of light, gravitational constant, and charge are all properties of the 3D surface of the expanding/contracting 4D balloon-like universe. Objects that can expand/contract subject to the Cosmological constant are called, by me, for now, Inflatons. Our physical universe is an Inflaton. Inflatons are quantum particles that, if stimulated with radiation (details not known), can expand. Programming the laws of physics for an Inflaton are left for later discussion. Once programmed, the inflaton has to be collapsed back to a singularity (quantum particle) to have it's physical laws reprogrammed. Part of the radiation will be used to add quantum particles (superstrings) to the inflaton. While generally hyperspherical in shape, they can be stretched into stable wormholes and anchored at both ends. More info to follow...
post approved
I've been thinking a lot about wormhole physics. After trying to explain these ideas to my girlfriend and her brother, I realized I need to make this as simple as possible.
Our physical universe can be considered like an expanding balloon. The Cosmological constant can be compared to the air pressure of the balloon that causes it to expand. 3d space can be compared to the 2D surface of a balloon. Quantum particles can be described with superstrings within a parallel pair of D-branes (effectively a conduction band). These d-branes are separated by a thickness d that can be compared to the thickness of a balloon; but this thickness 'd' is a placeholder for additional work.
The Higgs field, mass, speed of light, gravitational constant, and charge are all properties of the 3D surface of the expanding/contracting 4D balloon-like universe. Objects that can expand/contract subject to the Cosmological constant are called, by me, for now, Inflatons. Our physical universe is an Inflaton. Inflatons are quantum particles that, if stimulated with radiation (details not known), can expand. Programming the laws of physics for an Inflaton are left for later discussion. Once programmed, the inflaton has to be collapsed back to a singularity (quantum particle) to have it's physical laws reprogrammed. Part of the radiation will be used to add quantum particles (superstrings) to the inflaton. While generally hyperspherical in shape, they can be stretched into stable wormholes and anchored at both ends. More info to follow...
post approved
Hi jason,
It's a good idea ,the inflaton.
The aim now is to class the particles which can do that .
I see better your point of vue about superstrings and D-branes .
The reprogrammation is important .
I have some ideas I will post them .
Until soon
Steve
post approved
It's a good idea ,the inflaton.
The aim now is to class the particles which can do that .
I see better your point of vue about superstrings and D-branes .
The reprogrammation is important .
I have some ideas I will post them .
Until soon
Steve
post approved
Steve,
While conservation of linear momentum is like a ball and chain to the hyperdrive, I dare not get rid of it. If I did, my whole line of conjecture would be lost in hyperspace.
For a shuttle to enter a pendulum wormhole, it must be able to preserve its own laws of physics, or face disintigration. The pendulum wormhole has its physics streamlined to allow maximum linear velocity in both directions. Since various subatomic particles are not stable in our universe, I expect particle stability to be an important technical challenge to overcome. There will exist particles/materials that are stable within the wormhole. Those particles/materials need to completely coat the shuttle; both to provide something that can accellerate in a wormhole, and to provide part of the protective barrier around the shuttle. Since, E=mc2 in our universe, I would hate to think how much energy it would take to supply enough material mass to completely cover the shuttle. If E = m(c')2 where c' (speed of light in the wormhole) = 100c, the material-energy cost will be enormous.
In a previous post, I suggested that electromagnetism and photons do not exist in the pendulum wormhole. Does this mean that mass cannot exist? I believe it takes something like a Higgs field to provide mass. But a Higgs field is described as the quantity of interactions that resist accelleration.
In the interest of purely fun speculation, is there any chance that a Higgs field manifests as momentum eigenstates that exist across all of space? Let's pretend that the 10 lightyear pendulum wormhole has momentum eigenstates in (1Kg)(1m/s) = 1Kgm/s increments. Let's pretend that each of these eigenstates spans the entire length of the wormhole. Whatever rotational eigenstates there could be, are blocked out, for now. For some wormhole material moving along the length of the wormhole, there is no reason to even consider it's mass unless a change in momentum occurs. Due to the spacing of the momentum eigenstates, the mass is just the energy cost associated with changing momentum. The relationship between measured distance and momentum do not always appear to be 1:1. I'm sure you're familiar with X=X0 + vt + 1/2at2. While it would be nice to just talk about velocity eigenstates that span all of space, conservation of momentum deserves due consideration in terms of mass/Higgs fields and the warping of space.
What I am looking for is a quantum mechanics wave description for momentum. Yes, I know that in quantum mechanics, momentum operator p = -i hbar d/dx. I'm just wondering if it's possible to break up space into momentum eigenstates, such that transitions between these states will point to the need for 'mass'.
post approved
While conservation of linear momentum is like a ball and chain to the hyperdrive, I dare not get rid of it. If I did, my whole line of conjecture would be lost in hyperspace.
For a shuttle to enter a pendulum wormhole, it must be able to preserve its own laws of physics, or face disintigration. The pendulum wormhole has its physics streamlined to allow maximum linear velocity in both directions. Since various subatomic particles are not stable in our universe, I expect particle stability to be an important technical challenge to overcome. There will exist particles/materials that are stable within the wormhole. Those particles/materials need to completely coat the shuttle; both to provide something that can accellerate in a wormhole, and to provide part of the protective barrier around the shuttle. Since, E=mc2 in our universe, I would hate to think how much energy it would take to supply enough material mass to completely cover the shuttle. If E = m(c')2 where c' (speed of light in the wormhole) = 100c, the material-energy cost will be enormous.
In a previous post, I suggested that electromagnetism and photons do not exist in the pendulum wormhole. Does this mean that mass cannot exist? I believe it takes something like a Higgs field to provide mass. But a Higgs field is described as the quantity of interactions that resist accelleration.
In the interest of purely fun speculation, is there any chance that a Higgs field manifests as momentum eigenstates that exist across all of space? Let's pretend that the 10 lightyear pendulum wormhole has momentum eigenstates in (1Kg)(1m/s) = 1Kgm/s increments. Let's pretend that each of these eigenstates spans the entire length of the wormhole. Whatever rotational eigenstates there could be, are blocked out, for now. For some wormhole material moving along the length of the wormhole, there is no reason to even consider it's mass unless a change in momentum occurs. Due to the spacing of the momentum eigenstates, the mass is just the energy cost associated with changing momentum. The relationship between measured distance and momentum do not always appear to be 1:1. I'm sure you're familiar with X=X0 + vt + 1/2at2. While it would be nice to just talk about velocity eigenstates that span all of space, conservation of momentum deserves due consideration in terms of mass/Higgs fields and the warping of space.
What I am looking for is a quantum mechanics wave description for momentum. Yes, I know that in quantum mechanics, momentum operator p = -i hbar d/dx. I'm just wondering if it's possible to break up space into momentum eigenstates, such that transitions between these states will point to the need for 'mass'.
post approved
Steve,
I hope you don't mind. I'm just thinking out loud. If a Higgs field (mass giving field) is unique to each universe, than can linear momentum still be conserved? Or do we have to restrict such interactions? Since only top and bottom quarks are stable, botton is only somewhat stable; truth, beauty, strange and charmed only last for a few nanoseconds before they decay into something else. I have suggested that top and bottom quarks (and other quantum particles stable in our universe), would become unstable in another hypothetical universe with different laws of physics.
To my knowledge, nobody can explain why some quarks are stable but others are not. Quark stability/instability has something to do with the innate characteristics of space-time. As far as momentum conservation, p1 (the shuttle momentum) = m1v1 in our universe. If the shuttle flies into the gateway of a wormhole without any kind of barrier or shield to preserve its laws of physics, then the shuttle's atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons will undergo a change into some other kind of material; or be converted entirely into energy. But will p2 (momentum of the shuttle in the wormhole) still equal p1?
Let's make it easy. Let's imagine a proton in our universe with a momentum of p1=m1v1. It crosses the threshold into the wormhole with altered laws of physics. If c'=100c, then, to solve the problem, a proton's mass is converted into energy. 938Mev/c2. In the wormhole, 1 MeV/c2 converts to 1MeV*(100)2/c'2 = 9.8TeV/c'2. If there is a stable particles in the wormhole at this energy, that's what the proton will become. If there is excess energy, it will probably scatter the proton and violate conservation of momentum.
I suggested that quantum mechanics is independent of which universe is being discussed. I do not know if that includes h-bar, as well.
post approved
I hope you don't mind. I'm just thinking out loud. If a Higgs field (mass giving field) is unique to each universe, than can linear momentum still be conserved? Or do we have to restrict such interactions? Since only top and bottom quarks are stable, botton is only somewhat stable; truth, beauty, strange and charmed only last for a few nanoseconds before they decay into something else. I have suggested that top and bottom quarks (and other quantum particles stable in our universe), would become unstable in another hypothetical universe with different laws of physics.
To my knowledge, nobody can explain why some quarks are stable but others are not. Quark stability/instability has something to do with the innate characteristics of space-time. As far as momentum conservation, p1 (the shuttle momentum) = m1v1 in our universe. If the shuttle flies into the gateway of a wormhole without any kind of barrier or shield to preserve its laws of physics, then the shuttle's atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons will undergo a change into some other kind of material; or be converted entirely into energy. But will p2 (momentum of the shuttle in the wormhole) still equal p1?
Let's make it easy. Let's imagine a proton in our universe with a momentum of p1=m1v1. It crosses the threshold into the wormhole with altered laws of physics. If c'=100c, then, to solve the problem, a proton's mass is converted into energy. 938Mev/c2. In the wormhole, 1 MeV/c2 converts to 1MeV*(100)2/c'2 = 9.8TeV/c'2. If there is a stable particles in the wormhole at this energy, that's what the proton will become. If there is excess energy, it will probably scatter the proton and violate conservation of momentum.
I suggested that quantum mechanics is independent of which universe is being discussed. I do not know if that includes h-bar, as well.
post approved
Jason
It's very interesting .Your extrapolations are relevants .
It's a question of invariances and coherences always in fact .
The problem will be with the stability of systems and the conservation of codes ,moments ,....
If we take the macroscopic point of vue with our senses of perception and if we insert the microsopic point of vue ,it's relevant for the themodynamics laws .
Steve
post approved
It's very interesting .Your extrapolations are relevants .
It's a question of invariances and coherences always in fact .
The problem will be with the stability of systems and the conservation of codes ,moments ,....
If we take the macroscopic point of vue with our senses of perception and if we insert the microsopic point of vue ,it's relevant for the themodynamics laws .
Steve
post approved
Steve,
Yes, of course, you are absolutely right about invariance, stability of the system, etc... It is constraining to try to create the universe out of points, lines, geometric objects, spheres (sorry about that, steve). I want to abandon our preconceived notions about spatial dimensions. I don't believe that there is any absolute space or space-time. Quantum Mechanics is the absolute. We live in a bubbling brew of quantum foam. Out of all of the quantum particles in the foam, only a few different kinds represent the absolute geometric nature of the universe, the virtual photon and virtual gravitons. The rest are engaged in a continual exchange of converved quantities. Space, orientation and direction do not exist until one steps back from the boiling quantum foam. As we step back, conduction bands and higher dimensions emerge. As we step back further and further, 3D space returns to us. Each quantum particle can belong to many different groups the way an overachiever has membership in many clubs. Each "club" may be tachyonic compared to the next.
post approved
Yes, of course, you are absolutely right about invariance, stability of the system, etc... It is constraining to try to create the universe out of points, lines, geometric objects, spheres (sorry about that, steve). I want to abandon our preconceived notions about spatial dimensions. I don't believe that there is any absolute space or space-time. Quantum Mechanics is the absolute. We live in a bubbling brew of quantum foam. Out of all of the quantum particles in the foam, only a few different kinds represent the absolute geometric nature of the universe, the virtual photon and virtual gravitons. The rest are engaged in a continual exchange of converved quantities. Space, orientation and direction do not exist until one steps back from the boiling quantum foam. As we step back, conduction bands and higher dimensions emerge. As we step back further and further, 3D space returns to us. Each quantum particle can belong to many different groups the way an overachiever has membership in many clubs. Each "club" may be tachyonic compared to the next.
post approved
Apparently, I'm not the only one whose been thinking about wormholes.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll/frames.html
The
boiling quantum foam I've been thinking about is probably the effect of the highly tuned Cosmological constant. From what I understand, the exansion of the volume of space creates a vacuum pressure; because the Cosmological constant is perfectly tuned, quantum energy is forced into existence as a bubbling of background zero point energy. At least that is my interpretation.
post approved
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll/frames.html
The
boiling quantum foam I've been thinking about is probably the effect of the highly tuned Cosmological constant. From what I understand, the exansion of the volume of space creates a vacuum pressure; because the Cosmological constant is perfectly tuned, quantum energy is forced into existence as a bubbling of background zero point energy. At least that is my interpretation.
post approved
Just by playing around with wormholes and some extremely simplified physics, I discovered Action and the Lagrangian. If I take a worm hole of lenght 2D (D = halfway point); accelleration of g up to the midpoint, and then -g to the other side, where g is a constant; GR inside of the wormhole is ignored to keep it really simple, I came up with some interesting equations.
L=T-V; T=1/2mv2; V=mgx. How long it takes to reach the halfway point is important, so I'm calling that time t1/2.
If my space ship has a mass m, and initial velocity zero, then it's velocity
v(t) = gt. So T(time t) = 1/2mv2 = 1/2mg2t2.
Potential energy V=mgx = mg(gt2)=mg2t2.
For L(t)=T-V=1/2mg2t2-mg2t2, I get L(t) = -1/2mg2t2.
The Action up to the halfway point is S=int(Ldt)=-(mg2/6)(t1/2)3.
post approved
L=T-V; T=1/2mv2; V=mgx. How long it takes to reach the halfway point is important, so I'm calling that time t1/2.
If my space ship has a mass m, and initial velocity zero, then it's velocity
v(t) = gt. So T(time t) = 1/2mv2 = 1/2mg2t2.
Potential energy V=mgx = mg(gt2)=mg2t2.
For L(t)=T-V=1/2mg2t2-mg2t2, I get L(t) = -1/2mg2t2.
The Action up to the halfway point is S=int(Ldt)=-(mg2/6)(t1/2)3.
post approved
Hi Jason ,
It could be well if you insert the thermodynamics constants and the Riemann zeta function but with a finite serie ,like fourier but with limits ,probably with idea of Ray about the Dirac large number .
An other possibility is to extrapolate the numbers of stars ,planets and moons with their specificities in volume ,mass ,gravity .
If you insert too the gravitational waves in a spherical optic thus .....
In the idea of Lawrence too there are many interesting tools to improve the equations .The planck unities and the link with black Hole ....
Rest with us Jason ,you are already in an other galaxy ?
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
It could be well if you insert the thermodynamics constants and the Riemann zeta function but with a finite serie ,like fourier but with limits ,probably with idea of Ray about the Dirac large number .
An other possibility is to extrapolate the numbers of stars ,planets and moons with their specificities in volume ,mass ,gravity .
If you insert too the gravitational waves in a spherical optic thus .....
In the idea of Lawrence too there are many interesting tools to improve the equations .The planck unities and the link with black Hole ....
Rest with us Jason ,you are already in an other galaxy ?
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Steve,
Yes, I guess I am in another galaxy. Thank you for noticing that.
There is so much to describe and so little time to do it in. I've been discussing hyperdrive technology and wormholes with God. I wanted to understand how the Deity creates universes. God is very handy with mathematics. God likes to use very simple mathematical relationships in ways that stump mortal minds. The Laws of Physics are absolute because they are dictated by God. It takes a significant amount of thought to be able to tie in all elements of a universe into a single absolute relationship. If the speed of light is too high, the universe can fragment into chunks. If the gravitational constant of the universe, G, is too high, everything accerates to quickly. God wants his universe to last many billions of years. He wants a nice, sturdy universe to do things with.
I am infinitely not smart enough to design a universe like God can. It would never occur to me to multiply all of the physics constants that describe a universe, and set them equal to 1. That number would include the number of dimensions, as well. I'm not sure if the speed of light is counted once as a dimension and again as a physics constant. Something like,
4cG(h-bar)(Cosmological constant)=1.
God understands the need and desire to get around the universe quickly. This physical universe exists within hyperspace. Some of the materials that we will need to change physical constants are only available in hyperspace. When the time is right, we will be able to create wormholes by changing the nature of gravity, temporarily. We will choose a star we want to go to. If we can detect AlphaCenturi's gravitatinal field, it's unique signature (something we think we can't do), we can temporarily change the characteristics of that field. In doing so, we will get there in a very short time span. I suspect there may be a hyperspace momentum limit of some sort. God doesn't want us moving planets around the galaxy and rearranging solar systems. I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.
I explained to God that humans have no comprehension of simply changing physics constants to get across space. I could only understand it if we could interact with particles, fields, spin, etc. There are tachyonic materials that exist in hyperspace. They can be made compatible with the four forces.
Look for another charge/field relationship that interacts with mass and coulombic charge.
post approved
Yes, I guess I am in another galaxy. Thank you for noticing that.
There is so much to describe and so little time to do it in. I've been discussing hyperdrive technology and wormholes with God. I wanted to understand how the Deity creates universes. God is very handy with mathematics. God likes to use very simple mathematical relationships in ways that stump mortal minds. The Laws of Physics are absolute because they are dictated by God. It takes a significant amount of thought to be able to tie in all elements of a universe into a single absolute relationship. If the speed of light is too high, the universe can fragment into chunks. If the gravitational constant of the universe, G, is too high, everything accerates to quickly. God wants his universe to last many billions of years. He wants a nice, sturdy universe to do things with.
I am infinitely not smart enough to design a universe like God can. It would never occur to me to multiply all of the physics constants that describe a universe, and set them equal to 1. That number would include the number of dimensions, as well. I'm not sure if the speed of light is counted once as a dimension and again as a physics constant. Something like,
4cG(h-bar)(Cosmological constant)=1.
God understands the need and desire to get around the universe quickly. This physical universe exists within hyperspace. Some of the materials that we will need to change physical constants are only available in hyperspace. When the time is right, we will be able to create wormholes by changing the nature of gravity, temporarily. We will choose a star we want to go to. If we can detect AlphaCenturi's gravitatinal field, it's unique signature (something we think we can't do), we can temporarily change the characteristics of that field. In doing so, we will get there in a very short time span. I suspect there may be a hyperspace momentum limit of some sort. God doesn't want us moving planets around the galaxy and rearranging solar systems. I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.
I explained to God that humans have no comprehension of simply changing physics constants to get across space. I could only understand it if we could interact with particles, fields, spin, etc. There are tachyonic materials that exist in hyperspace. They can be made compatible with the four forces.
Look for another charge/field relationship that interacts with mass and coulombic charge.
post approved
Hi Jason ,
You say
I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.
Don't stop ,it's relevant .
What do you think about the check of rotations thus gravity .Thus the good frequences of these rotations .?
You spirituality is important ,thanks for that and your ideas .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
You say
I'm still going to use the pendulum idea for this wormhole. A(t) = A0sin[2pi(t/tp)], where tp is the time it takes to cross the wormhole to the other side.
Don't stop ,it's relevant .
What do you think about the check of rotations thus gravity .Thus the good frequences of these rotations .?
You spirituality is important ,thanks for that and your ideas .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your encouragement.
I'm trying to simplify an idea I had. There are some radical assumptions, but here is the physics, very briefly. I have a wormhole/acceleration field that a c'=1015c (c = speed of light; c' = wormhole speed of light). The wormhole spans a distance L between our sun and Alpha Centuari, L = 6 light years. The acceleration field is given by a(x) = a0sin[2pi x/L]. The acceleration a0=1015m/s2.
Trying to calculate x(t), v(t), a(t) and v(x) is trickier than I thought; I may need to use parametric equations. I am treating gravitons as a special kind of tachyonic particle that smears out across space like a vibrating gravity string. But this graviton has strange properties. It's not a particle-wave; it's a particle-space. It has conserved quantities like a particle; when it obsorbs energy, it curves.
A graviton can be transmuted into another particle-space that I will call a wormion. Large numbers of wormions will develop into a wormhole. This wormhole will experience large accelerations given by the equation above. I expect 'wormions' to have a half life of about 60 seconds. One wormion will transport a unit of mass-length; I haven't decided what that unit will be, but it means it will carry a Kilogram over a lightyear of hyperspace. The extreme accelerations are not at all lethal if they are spread over a few lightyears. I am allowing a 10m/s^2 acceleration differential for a 10 meter depth.
The way I'm doing this, hyperdrives create wormholes. I haven't worked out the potential/kinetic energy, yet.
post approved
Thank you for your encouragement.
I'm trying to simplify an idea I had. There are some radical assumptions, but here is the physics, very briefly. I have a wormhole/acceleration field that a c'=1015c (c = speed of light; c' = wormhole speed of light). The wormhole spans a distance L between our sun and Alpha Centuari, L = 6 light years. The acceleration field is given by a(x) = a0sin[2pi x/L]. The acceleration a0=1015m/s2.
Trying to calculate x(t), v(t), a(t) and v(x) is trickier than I thought; I may need to use parametric equations. I am treating gravitons as a special kind of tachyonic particle that smears out across space like a vibrating gravity string. But this graviton has strange properties. It's not a particle-wave; it's a particle-space. It has conserved quantities like a particle; when it obsorbs energy, it curves.
A graviton can be transmuted into another particle-space that I will call a wormion. Large numbers of wormions will develop into a wormhole. This wormhole will experience large accelerations given by the equation above. I expect 'wormions' to have a half life of about 60 seconds. One wormion will transport a unit of mass-length; I haven't decided what that unit will be, but it means it will carry a Kilogram over a lightyear of hyperspace. The extreme accelerations are not at all lethal if they are spread over a few lightyears. I am allowing a 10m/s^2 acceleration differential for a 10 meter depth.
The way I'm doing this, hyperdrives create wormholes. I haven't worked out the potential/kinetic energy, yet.
post approved
I'd like to move the FTL conversation to a more appropriate blog to make room for LHC discussion.
Dear Ray,
Thank you for hearing what I'm saying. Thank you for understanding that time-travel has to go bye-bye before we can open the door to FTL propulsion. Thank you for raising the important questions, something I've wanted to talk about for weeks. How do you interface with a...
view entire post
Dear Ray,
Thank you for hearing what I'm saying. Thank you for understanding that time-travel has to go bye-bye before we can open the door to FTL propulsion. Thank you for raising the important questions, something I've wanted to talk about for weeks. How do you interface with a...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Well, it's FTL. I'm still examining it.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
report post as inappropriate
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
To summarize, energy conservation and causality are just two of many reasons why time travel doesn't seem reasonable.
If you want to jump from one brane (that we call space-brane) to another (that we call c'-brane), we assume that we must travel through some sort of quantum barrier.
I am concerned that information may get scrambled in this jump, and that 'entropy' may be the enemy that prevents us from using the c'-brane for FTL travel. Entropy is related to energy and time (via the 2nd law of Thermo) and space and time are related via Relativity. Perhaps it is appropriate that time travel is 'impossible' for one reason, and FTL travel is 'impossible' for a complementary reason.
We need to better understand these barriers between the space-brane and the c'-brane. Can we model these branes? Can we model information transport across these branes? I think you should pick at the problem until it beats you or you beat it. Along the way, you will probably learn this week's lottery numbers. Please remember your old buddy, Ray, when you are super-rich.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
To summarize, energy conservation and causality are just two of many reasons why time travel doesn't seem reasonable.
If you want to jump from one brane (that we call space-brane) to another (that we call c'-brane), we assume that we must travel through some sort of quantum barrier.
I am concerned that information may get scrambled in this jump, and that 'entropy' may be the enemy that prevents us from using the c'-brane for FTL travel. Entropy is related to energy and time (via the 2nd law of Thermo) and space and time are related via Relativity. Perhaps it is appropriate that time travel is 'impossible' for one reason, and FTL travel is 'impossible' for a complementary reason.
We need to better understand these barriers between the space-brane and the c'-brane. Can we model these branes? Can we model information transport across these branes? I think you should pick at the problem until it beats you or you beat it. Along the way, you will probably learn this week's lottery numbers. Please remember your old buddy, Ray, when you are super-rich.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Of course, I have charged tachyons AND colored tachyons. Which kind would you like?
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
Can I get a scoop of each?
Finally, someone understands what the issues are! I'm hoping to avoid brane-jumping by generating a field/shell/bubble in which the spaceship (made of space-brane particles) is enshrouded by the FTl bubble (c'-brane field). The field has to be generated using a material that exists in both the space-brane and the c'-brane. Both branes exist in the same space, but are non-compatible. I want to find a way to make them compatible. That is why I asked about charged tachyons. Probably colored tachyons will be necessary too.
I have a question about charged tachyons. Charge manifests electric and magnetic fields; virtual photons are supposed to make electric and magnetic fields operate; photons (virtual or otherwise) move at the speed of light. I expect tachyon particles to become c'-brane particles. Have you looked at how this will effect your theory of charged tachyons? Since permitivity scales electric fields, permeability scales magnetic fields, it seemed reasonable to me to use electric and magnetic flux when trying to cross a space/c'-barrier. In truth, I expect this to be extremely awkward (thus we don't observe it).
By the way, I totally agree that information content gets scrambled when crossing a space/c'-barrier. That is why I want to generate an FTL field instead of jumping to the c'-brane. The field is supposed to be null inside of the spaceship (so it doesn't disintegrate); it should extend only as far as necessary. Thrust has to be translated to the c'-brane, with equal and opposite force applied to the FTL field. The FTL field accelerates as a c'-brane object. The spaceship has zero velocity with respect to the field because it's generating the field. Whatever it takes to get the space/c' mixture to remain stable (behave itself), is going to tell us whether this will or will not work, and why.
What do you think?
report post as inappropriate
Can I get a scoop of each?
Finally, someone understands what the issues are! I'm hoping to avoid brane-jumping by generating a field/shell/bubble in which the spaceship (made of space-brane particles) is enshrouded by the FTl bubble (c'-brane field). The field has to be generated using a material that exists in both the space-brane and the c'-brane. Both branes exist in the same space, but are non-compatible. I want to find a way to make them compatible. That is why I asked about charged tachyons. Probably colored tachyons will be necessary too.
I have a question about charged tachyons. Charge manifests electric and magnetic fields; virtual photons are supposed to make electric and magnetic fields operate; photons (virtual or otherwise) move at the speed of light. I expect tachyon particles to become c'-brane particles. Have you looked at how this will effect your theory of charged tachyons? Since permitivity scales electric fields, permeability scales magnetic fields, it seemed reasonable to me to use electric and magnetic flux when trying to cross a space/c'-barrier. In truth, I expect this to be extremely awkward (thus we don't observe it).
By the way, I totally agree that information content gets scrambled when crossing a space/c'-barrier. That is why I want to generate an FTL field instead of jumping to the c'-brane. The field is supposed to be null inside of the spaceship (so it doesn't disintegrate); it should extend only as far as necessary. Thrust has to be translated to the c'-brane, with equal and opposite force applied to the FTL field. The FTL field accelerates as a c'-brane object. The spaceship has zero velocity with respect to the field because it's generating the field. Whatever it takes to get the space/c' mixture to remain stable (behave itself), is going to tell us whether this will or will not work, and why.
What do you think?
report post as inappropriate
Confining tachyons may be tricky. Perhaps we could use color charges to bind a tachyonic quark to an unstable pion, and manufacture a 'baryon' or 'meson' that is part tardonic matter and part tachyonic matter.
Otherwise, tachyons travel faster than light, and a photon couldn't confine them (unless an electromagnetic field contains so many photons that the tachyon will bump into a photon more often than not).
If we could manipulate gravitational fields, we might use those to contain our tachyons. After all, the 'action-at-a-distance' behavior of gravity implies a faster speed than c.
So we want to 'cloak' our spaceship in tachyonic matter, disappear to the spacetime world, and trick hyperspace into admitting us onto the c' superhighway.
Good Luck!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Otherwise, tachyons travel faster than light, and a photon couldn't confine them (unless an electromagnetic field contains so many photons that the tachyon will bump into a photon more often than not).
If we could manipulate gravitational fields, we might use those to contain our tachyons. After all, the 'action-at-a-distance' behavior of gravity implies a faster speed than c.
So we want to 'cloak' our spaceship in tachyonic matter, disappear to the spacetime world, and trick hyperspace into admitting us onto the c' superhighway.
Good Luck!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Ray,
Bingo! Consider this creative thinking. Have you ever heard of virtual computers? If a faster Pentium 4 processor can mimic the information capabilities of a 486 processor (from the early 1990's), it's only reasonable to wonder if a c'-brane can represent the entire spaceship, crew and contents as a c'-manifestation. I am counting on the No Clone of Quantum States theorem to protect us from duplication. Obviously, I also expect mechansistic processes to proceed without disruption. The translation process has to be thermodynamically observant. I just want to make sure that the field and field generator don't jump to hyperspace, but leave the rest of the spaceship behind. Remember that quantum entanglement has instantaneous-ness built into it.
OK, maybe that sounds a bit magical. But we need to look at it this way, it will help us to figure out what the real issues are, what questions we need to ask, and what experiments we need to conduct.
Pions are unstable because of weak forces, but they give off neutrinos and muons. I think some amount of dark matter is considered to be neutrinos. Neutrinos might be confined to the space-brane, or they might intermingle with a c'-brane as well. There is still a lot we don't know about them since their coupling is so minimal.
If tachyons are just c' particles, then they can be bound with c' electro-magnetic forces/fields. I just don't know if c' electric/magnetic fields/charges are related to each other. I'm hoping that they belong to the same set of something more generalized. A space brane and a c' brane have to share some common ancestry, something in common.
report post as inappropriate
Bingo! Consider this creative thinking. Have you ever heard of virtual computers? If a faster Pentium 4 processor can mimic the information capabilities of a 486 processor (from the early 1990's), it's only reasonable to wonder if a c'-brane can represent the entire spaceship, crew and contents as a c'-manifestation. I am counting on the No Clone of Quantum States theorem to protect us from duplication. Obviously, I also expect mechansistic processes to proceed without disruption. The translation process has to be thermodynamically observant. I just want to make sure that the field and field generator don't jump to hyperspace, but leave the rest of the spaceship behind. Remember that quantum entanglement has instantaneous-ness built into it.
OK, maybe that sounds a bit magical. But we need to look at it this way, it will help us to figure out what the real issues are, what questions we need to ask, and what experiments we need to conduct.
Pions are unstable because of weak forces, but they give off neutrinos and muons. I think some amount of dark matter is considered to be neutrinos. Neutrinos might be confined to the space-brane, or they might intermingle with a c'-brane as well. There is still a lot we don't know about them since their coupling is so minimal.
If tachyons are just c' particles, then they can be bound with c' electro-magnetic forces/fields. I just don't know if c' electric/magnetic fields/charges are related to each other. I'm hoping that they belong to the same set of something more generalized. A space brane and a c' brane have to share some common ancestry, something in common.
report post as inappropriate
In your paper "A Case Study" you do have a table with what might be called chromo-tachyons. I am not exactly sure what these color indices refer to. in your hypercolor paper you have the 7-fold g_2 color diagram. As I have been indicating, the centralizers g_2 and f_4 act in a sort of cojoined fashion, where the F_4 contains the gravitational content. Closed strings approach the region of enormous tidal forces in a black hole interior and transform into open strings. The gravitational modes in a left/right setting are transformed into tachyons. In this setting with the G_2 holonomy, these tachyons would become a sort of technicolored tachon. The condensate of these open strings on the M_2 brane would then have a form similar to a quanrk-gluon plasma.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
As I understand the quantum numbers, these chromo-tachyons may exchange (massless?) gluons with each other. This isn't technicolor.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Sorry for calling them technicolor. I previously wrote a post about technicolor and had that topic on mind. Yet these are SU(n) gauged particles (n = 3) and this seems to reflect a possible connection between gravitation and QCD or conformal QCD-like physics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
You said: "As I have been indicating, the centralizers g_2 and f_4 act in a sort of cojoined fashion, where the F_4 contains the gravitational content. "
What do you mean by "gravitational content"? Do you mean that F4 contains what gravity attracts? Or do you mean that F4 is the gravitational attractor?
report post as inappropriate
You said: "As I have been indicating, the centralizers g_2 and f_4 act in a sort of cojoined fashion, where the F_4 contains the gravitational content. "
What do you mean by "gravitational content"? Do you mean that F4 contains what gravity attracts? Or do you mean that F4 is the gravitational attractor?
report post as inappropriate
It means that F_4 is the largest group which defines the 24-cell or tetrahedrachoron. F_4 in a quotient with D_4 ~ SO(8) and B_4 ~ SO(9), defines some of the structure of the Fano plane. Further SO(8) is contained in SO(9), of 28 and 36 dimensions respectively, out of the 52 in F_4. SO(8) contains SU(4) in a Clifford basis (look at what I wrote onClifford algebras yesterday and today. Indeed SO(6) ~ SU(4) and in a Wick rotated system we then have SU(3,1) or SU(2,2) ~ SO(4,2), where we in the second case have twistor structure and AdS_5 spacetime.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
Solid state uses arrays of atoms to provide the repeating pattern of wavefunctions necessary to derive conduction bands, etc. Yes, of course we know all that. You did the very same thing with tetrahedrachorons to construct 4D space-time. I find it ironic that while the Scwartzchilde sphere may never be observed, you have, in effect, created an aether using wavefunctions, that is space-time compatible. I know you don't like to look at it that way. However, I find that to be very beautiful. It has been something I've been looking for. Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Solid state uses arrays of atoms to provide the repeating pattern of wavefunctions necessary to derive conduction bands, etc. Yes, of course we know all that. You did the very same thing with tetrahedrachorons to construct 4D space-time. I find it ironic that while the Scwartzchilde sphere may never be observed, you have, in effect, created an aether using wavefunctions, that is space-time compatible. I know you don't like to look at it that way. However, I find that to be very beautiful. It has been something I've been looking for. Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
You said "Yet these are SU(n) gauged particles (n = 3) and this seems to reflect a possible connection between gravitation and QCD or conformal QCD-like physics."
I agree that these tachyons have a foundation in the behavior of quantum gravity. I have all four "colors": red, green, blue and white (plus anti-colors) which mimics the quantum numbers of quarks and leptons - with different electric charges and improperly defined intrinsic spin.
I know you are looking for a triality symmetry for your E8's. I don't think this is it. I think your E8's are more closely involved with gravity and/ or supersymmetry.
Dear Jason,
In my models, hyperspace behaves like a crystalline "Solid State" structure. Does this imply an aether? I never thought about it that way...
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
You said "Yet these are SU(n) gauged particles (n = 3) and this seems to reflect a possible connection between gravitation and QCD or conformal QCD-like physics."
I agree that these tachyons have a foundation in the behavior of quantum gravity. I have all four "colors": red, green, blue and white (plus anti-colors) which mimics the quantum numbers of quarks and leptons - with different electric charges and improperly defined intrinsic spin.
I know you are looking for a triality symmetry for your E8's. I don't think this is it. I think your E8's are more closely involved with gravity and/ or supersymmetry.
Dear Jason,
In my models, hyperspace behaves like a crystalline "Solid State" structure. Does this imply an aether? I never thought about it that way...
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Four colors would imply an SU(4) group, or extended QCD. Quarks and gluons come from the fundamental 3 representation and the adjoint 8 representation of SU(3). I was thinking primarily of SU(3), which is the maximal subgroup of G_2 and decomposes as SU(3) + 3 + bar-3. I suppose one could consider this with SU(4) for the 4-irrep for quarks and an adjoint 15 for the gluon (like) fields
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
I'm sorry - I don't mean to confuse the issue. "Color" is a phenomenon based on the rank-2 groups: SU(3) and G2. "Hypercolor" is the 2-dimensional triangular lattice defined by these gluons, quarks and SUSY partners.
If you study my Georgi-Glashow SU(5)/ Tertrahedral Conjugacy symmetries, you realize that the X and Y bosons of Georgi-Glashow can be represented by three dimensional vectors that connect the 4 points of a tetrahedron, where one traingular face of the tetrahedron is the SU(3) (red, green, blue) triangular lattice mentioned above. I call the 4th point in the tetrahedron "white". Pati-Salam Weak uses a new color "violet". I'm not certain which designation is more appropriate. This four-fold color symmetry is only valid at high enough energies (low enough X and Y masses). Please see Table 10 of the "A Case Study" paper for more details.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I'm sorry - I don't mean to confuse the issue. "Color" is a phenomenon based on the rank-2 groups: SU(3) and G2. "Hypercolor" is the 2-dimensional triangular lattice defined by these gluons, quarks and SUSY partners.
If you study my Georgi-Glashow SU(5)/ Tertrahedral Conjugacy symmetries, you realize that the X and Y bosons of Georgi-Glashow can be represented by three dimensional vectors that connect the 4 points of a tetrahedron, where one traingular face of the tetrahedron is the SU(3) (red, green, blue) triangular lattice mentioned above. I call the 4th point in the tetrahedron "white". Pati-Salam Weak uses a new color "violet". I'm not certain which designation is more appropriate. This four-fold color symmetry is only valid at high enough energies (low enough X and Y masses). Please see Table 10 of the "A Case Study" paper for more details.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
That makes a bit more sense. You can read the first part of my essay paper and read the argument about the transition from closed to open strings. In there I argue for there being tachyon condensates, which as you indicate are chromo-tachyons. If so then maybe a simple demonstration of G_2 physics can be made with the aut(O) and F_4. Then the M2-brane is a sort of dual system to quark-gluon plasmas. It sounds as if a paper could be written up on this which is sufficiently focued on this physics. It could be done probably in a month's time.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Neutrinos, among other things, allow a neutron to assemble from a proton & electron. Protons and neutrons have charges and are capable of engaging the
V(r) term of the Schrodinger equation; neutrinos cannot. Photons have built in eletromagnetic fields which allow them to become solutions to the Schrodinger equation, neutrinos do not; are neutrinos fundamentally incompatible with the Schrodinger equation? Yet they have spin. If they have spin of 1/2, thus they are fermions. If they have spin, they have to be electromagnetically interactive. There can't be solutions to the Schrodinger equation. What QM equation are they solutions to?
report post as inappropriate
V(r) term of the Schrodinger equation; neutrinos cannot. Photons have built in eletromagnetic fields which allow them to become solutions to the Schrodinger equation, neutrinos do not; are neutrinos fundamentally incompatible with the Schrodinger equation? Yet they have spin. If they have spin of 1/2, thus they are fermions. If they have spin, they have to be electromagnetically interactive. There can't be solutions to the Schrodinger equation. What QM equation are they solutions to?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
Neutrons and neutrinos are both electrically neutral. A neutron is composed of two down quarks (charge -e/3) and one up quark (charge 2e/3), so a small variable dipole-like electromagnetic field might exist in principle.
The neutrino is color neutral (net color "white") and electrically neutral (net charge 0e), but does react via the Weak nuclear force (its how we can detect them at all) and probably via Gravity (which might allow neutrino oscillation from muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos and vice versa, although there may be a question about magnetic interactions).
If right-handed neutrinos exist (as neutrino oscillations and a non-zero neutrino mass might imply), then we can use Dirac's equation to describe neutrinos. If neutrinos are strictly left-handed, then we can use the simpler Majorana equation.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Neutrons and neutrinos are both electrically neutral. A neutron is composed of two down quarks (charge -e/3) and one up quark (charge 2e/3), so a small variable dipole-like electromagnetic field might exist in principle.
The neutrino is color neutral (net color "white") and electrically neutral (net charge 0e), but does react via the Weak nuclear force (its how we can detect them at all) and probably via Gravity (which might allow neutrino oscillation from muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos and vice versa, although there may be a question about magnetic interactions).
If right-handed neutrinos exist (as neutrino oscillations and a non-zero neutrino mass might imply), then we can use Dirac's equation to describe neutrinos. If neutrinos are strictly left-handed, then we can use the simpler Majorana equation.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
Thank you. I'm looking at this stuff right now. Neutrinos lead to the Majorana equation, which leads to spinors, which leads to Clifford Algebra. I remember Lawrence mentioning Clifford algebra.
Everyone,
Have a joyous and Happy Thanksgiving!
report post as inappropriate
Thank you. I'm looking at this stuff right now. Neutrinos lead to the Majorana equation, which leads to spinors, which leads to Clifford Algebra. I remember Lawrence mentioning Clifford algebra.
Everyone,
Have a joyous and Happy Thanksgiving!
report post as inappropriate
Yep, Happy T-day. Ray, I think this issue of chromo-tachyons in the case of a condensate on an M2-brane this is dual to a QCD quark-gluon plasma. This might be a route to extra large dimensions and the production of "soft black holes" at high energy. Signatures of this have been reported by the RHIC.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
I think Clifford algebras are relevant. Even though Cl(8) seems huge, it does have some symmetries that should be interesting to M-theory.
Dear Lawrence,
Interesting idea. I originally thought of them as quark-like chromo-tachyons, but they might be lattice defects in Spacetime that are dual to Spacetime. These tachyons are weird because they aren't properly defined in 4-D Spacetime.
Chez Ray is in the kitchen!
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
I think Clifford algebras are relevant. Even though Cl(8) seems huge, it does have some symmetries that should be interesting to M-theory.
Dear Lawrence,
Interesting idea. I originally thought of them as quark-like chromo-tachyons, but they might be lattice defects in Spacetime that are dual to Spacetime. These tachyons are weird because they aren't properly defined in 4-D Spacetime.
Chez Ray is in the kitchen!
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Yeah, think about it. Are soft black holes and extra dimensions a manifestation of a duality between chromo-tachyons on an M2-brane and QCD. This would then put symmetries on the black hole complementarity between outside and inside S-matrix configurations.
The LHC appears to be up and running with Tevatron energies by year's end. New physics is coming!
I am about to go shopping now, We have invited a couple of people, so we are going to do an impromptu menu tonight.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The LHC appears to be up and running with Tevatron energies by year's end. New physics is coming!
I am about to go shopping now, We have invited a couple of people, so we are going to do an impromptu menu tonight.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I found an article that seems to explain what soft black holes are:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/14/is-everything-ma
de-of-mini-black-holes/
Chromo-tachyons sound like particles that can bind with protons/neutrons. I'm tempted to assume that these are the particles necessary to generate an FTL field, a possible way to interact with a c'-brane. Can they be used that way?
report post as inappropriate
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/14/is-everything-ma
de-of-mini-black-holes/
Chromo-tachyons sound like particles that can bind with protons/neutrons. I'm tempted to assume that these are the particles necessary to generate an FTL field, a possible way to interact with a c'-brane. Can they be used that way?
report post as inappropriate
I hope that the LHC finds a Higgs and quiets the nay-sayers, the new-mini-big-bang theorists and the non-causality theorists. At first, we might not be sure if we have found the SM Higgs or the lightest Higgs of MSSM. I would love to find the lightest Higgs of the MSSM because that would ensure another fruitful generation of Supercollider experiments.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
I've been interpreting mass as some kind of a "lag time" associated with the speed of light; as if the laws of motion are implemented with light somehow. To me, the speed of light is like a CPU processor speed, and the interacting particles are sort of like subroutines, the mass would be the number of clock cycles, all metaphorically speaking. However, if they find any of the Higgs particle, doesn't that shoot down my "lag time" theory? If they find it, so be it. I'm just not sure if their Higgs field theory, and my "lag time" theory are mutually exclusive.
report post as inappropriate
I've been interpreting mass as some kind of a "lag time" associated with the speed of light; as if the laws of motion are implemented with light somehow. To me, the speed of light is like a CPU processor speed, and the interacting particles are sort of like subroutines, the mass would be the number of clock cycles, all metaphorically speaking. However, if they find any of the Higgs particle, doesn't that shoot down my "lag time" theory? If they find it, so be it. I'm just not sure if their Higgs field theory, and my "lag time" theory are mutually exclusive.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
If they are "particles", we should be able to bind these chromo-tachyons to pions. But if they are lattice defects that are "dual" to Spacetime, they may behave like some strange soliton state.
I think mass and gravity originate in hyperspace and are weakly communicated to our Spacetime via geometry. This might explain: 1) why mass doesn't seem to be quantized (I think mass quantum numbers are quantized in hyperspace, but we see a distorted projection into Spacetime), 2) why Gravity is so weak (I think WIMP-Gravity is stronger on the WIMP-Gravity-brane but few of these field lines extend out into our Spacetime. Gravity is weak because it is spread out over 11 or 12 dimensions, whereas electromagnetism is only spread out over 4 dimensions).
I need to think on the meaning of "lag time".
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
If they are "particles", we should be able to bind these chromo-tachyons to pions. But if they are lattice defects that are "dual" to Spacetime, they may behave like some strange soliton state.
I think mass and gravity originate in hyperspace and are weakly communicated to our Spacetime via geometry. This might explain: 1) why mass doesn't seem to be quantized (I think mass quantum numbers are quantized in hyperspace, but we see a distorted projection into Spacetime), 2) why Gravity is so weak (I think WIMP-Gravity is stronger on the WIMP-Gravity-brane but few of these field lines extend out into our Spacetime. Gravity is weak because it is spread out over 11 or 12 dimensions, whereas electromagnetism is only spread out over 4 dimensions).
I need to think on the meaning of "lag time".
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
By "lag time", I don't mean time. In a scattering event, the laws of motion work as fast as they can, to exert all of the necessary forces to change the vectors of the particles. A more massive particle is an indication that their is more "to get done"; if the speed of light were faster, the change in direction could occur more easily. Does that sort of make sense?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Ray said, " think mass and gravity originate in hyperspace and are weakly communicated to our Spacetime via geometry."
I had considered the possibility that wave functions might be FTL in nature, but are required to slow down to the speed of light to properly interact with the laws of motion. I guess that's another way to say what you just said: project from hyperspace into space-time OR forced to slow down to properly interact with the laws of motion. Not a huge difference...
report post as inappropriate
I had considered the possibility that wave functions might be FTL in nature, but are required to slow down to the speed of light to properly interact with the laws of motion. I guess that's another way to say what you just said: project from hyperspace into space-time OR forced to slow down to properly interact with the laws of motion. Not a huge difference...
report post as inappropriate
The tachyon can't exist as a free particle, but must be confined in some ways. In a condensate the tachyon strings have open ends attached to a M2-brane and are then "confined." There is a QCD-like logic to this with confinement = no free quarks.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
In one of the earlier blogs, I said that I needed to generate a field/shell/bubble that would contain the spaceship inside of regular space-time, and allow thrust to be converted to a c'-brane. I needed to use some kind of material that has components of both regular space-time and also components of a c'-brane/hyperspace. It sounds like a chromo-tachyon would allow me to do this by creating protons/neutrons with tachyonic properties. I could have tachyonic-iron, for example. I don't need free quarks, I need a way to interface between space-time and hyperspace.
I'm a little concerned that they require an M2-brane which sounds an awful lot like an event horizon to a black hole. Do M2-branes ALWAYS accompany black holes?
report post as inappropriate
I'm a little concerned that they require an M2-brane which sounds an awful lot like an event horizon to a black hole. Do M2-branes ALWAYS accompany black holes?
report post as inappropriate
Hi dear Friends ,
Happy to see this thread which continues .
Jason ,sorry I haven't seen your answer at this moment ,the 17 august .In all case it is cool your extrapolations .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Happy to see this thread which continues .
Jason ,sorry I haven't seen your answer at this moment ,the 17 august .In all case it is cool your extrapolations .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
These chromo-tachyons cannot have free quarks. They must be bound into colorless mesons or baryons. If we had a "pion" or "proton" or "iron nucleus" composed entirely of chromo-tachyons, it would immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole (unless we could confine it electromagnetically or gravitationally). I was hoping we could manufacture tachyonic pions at a supercollider and slam them into tardonic pions and hope for a meson or baryon that had chromo-tachyons and regular quarks. This is pure speculation.
If Lawrence is correct about black holes converting closed strings into open strings and producing tachyons, then we may have to travel to a black hole to find our chromo-tachyons. This sounds similar to my ideas from last week when I said that there must be a serious "plug" that prevents Spacetime and Hyperspace from merging. One of these "plugs" could be a black hole singularity.
I baked four chocolate-rum-pecan pies last night, and I'm eating Thanksgiving dinner at my mom's with 28 other family members. Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
These chromo-tachyons cannot have free quarks. They must be bound into colorless mesons or baryons. If we had a "pion" or "proton" or "iron nucleus" composed entirely of chromo-tachyons, it would immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole (unless we could confine it electromagnetically or gravitationally). I was hoping we could manufacture tachyonic pions at a supercollider and slam them into tardonic pions and hope for a meson or baryon that had chromo-tachyons and regular quarks. This is pure speculation.
If Lawrence is correct about black holes converting closed strings into open strings and producing tachyons, then we may have to travel to a black hole to find our chromo-tachyons. This sounds similar to my ideas from last week when I said that there must be a serious "plug" that prevents Spacetime and Hyperspace from merging. One of these "plugs" could be a black hole singularity.
I baked four chocolate-rum-pecan pies last night, and I'm eating Thanksgiving dinner at my mom's with 28 other family members. Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
The tachyons might be similar to quarks in a chromo-dynamic sense. They would also be confined in black holes, or the M2-brane as the quantized singularity of a BH. There is then some possible aspect of black hole complementarity here. The observer who measures a string falling to a black hole from a distance observes a different set of physics from the observer who falls in with the string. The string from the perspective of the distant observer will slow down and red shift is observable transverse modes, while the longitudinal modes grow so the string covers over the horizon. The string according to the infalling observer displays nothing usual in its dynamics until it approaches the singularity. There an string is observed to stretch and transform into an open string. The gravitons modes in the so(24) symmetry transform into tachyon modes, and these open string connect to an M2-brane.
These two views of the string are analgous to performing spin measurements with a Stern Gerlach apparatus along different directions. The S-matrix description of the string in the two configurations involves incommensurate observables that are not simultaneously diagonalizable.
The QCD-like nature of a colored tachyon may then be some duality to QCD. The possible observation of AdS-black hole like physics at the RHIC might then reflect how chromo-dynamics can exhibt this duality.
Happy T-day
LC
report post as inappropriate
These two views of the string are analgous to performing spin measurements with a Stern Gerlach apparatus along different directions. The S-matrix description of the string in the two configurations involves incommensurate observables that are not simultaneously diagonalizable.
The QCD-like nature of a colored tachyon may then be some duality to QCD. The possible observation of AdS-black hole like physics at the RHIC might then reflect how chromo-dynamics can exhibt this duality.
Happy T-day
LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
Did you want to know if I think that rotation causes gravity? I know about gravitons and I've heard about these mini-black holes. In truth, I'm not exactly sure why large accumulations of mass-energy would cause an attractive force that we call gravity. Rotation is a kind of angular-energy, and if large enough, would contribute to gravity; although realistically, I can't think of anything that could spin fast enough to generate a gravity field; anything spinning that fast would overcome F=mv^2/r and fly apart. If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me.
Ray,
We're not having pecan pie; I am so jealous. Make sure you save room for turkey.
I was always taught that quarks come in groups of three (5), never ever by themselves. What I really wanted to do was mix in chromo-tachyons to create hybrid hadrons (mesons and baryons) that would not fly off to infinity. But there is a slight problem with our plan. I need a tachyonic lepton if I want to generate some kind of an interface field. Leptons (e.g. electrons) are used to generate electromagnetic fields complete with virtual photons. I would need a lepto-tachyon to generate FTL virtual photons. Didn't you mention something about that?
As for generating chromo-tachyons or lepto-tachyons, I am hoping we'll eventually be able find these occuring naturally. I hope we don't have to pull them out of black holes; I'm kind of hoping we'll find them in abundance in hyperspace. Perhaps initially, we'll need to use proton colliders to create them.
report post as inappropriate
Did you want to know if I think that rotation causes gravity? I know about gravitons and I've heard about these mini-black holes. In truth, I'm not exactly sure why large accumulations of mass-energy would cause an attractive force that we call gravity. Rotation is a kind of angular-energy, and if large enough, would contribute to gravity; although realistically, I can't think of anything that could spin fast enough to generate a gravity field; anything spinning that fast would overcome F=mv^2/r and fly apart. If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me.
Ray,
We're not having pecan pie; I am so jealous. Make sure you save room for turkey.
I was always taught that quarks come in groups of three (5), never ever by themselves. What I really wanted to do was mix in chromo-tachyons to create hybrid hadrons (mesons and baryons) that would not fly off to infinity. But there is a slight problem with our plan. I need a tachyonic lepton if I want to generate some kind of an interface field. Leptons (e.g. electrons) are used to generate electromagnetic fields complete with virtual photons. I would need a lepto-tachyon to generate FTL virtual photons. Didn't you mention something about that?
As for generating chromo-tachyons or lepto-tachyons, I am hoping we'll eventually be able find these occuring naturally. I hope we don't have to pull them out of black holes; I'm kind of hoping we'll find them in abundance in hyperspace. Perhaps initially, we'll need to use proton colliders to create them.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
What do we need to generate an M2 brane? Please don't say "a black hole".
report post as inappropriate
What do we need to generate an M2 brane? Please don't say "a black hole".
report post as inappropriate
Well, the only way might be to generate a black hole! Now these quark-gluon plasmas at RHIC might have some black hole amplitudes, so there are maybe some small implitudes for M2-brane behavior. An analogue of an M2-brane can be found in systems such as graphene which has quantum Hall physics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
Sorry to intrude on your discussion but you said,
"If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me."
Which I can not leave un-addressed. Especially since I have already spoken to you about this not long ago.
Energy is change in spatial position within quaternion space, nothing else.It is change in position along the 4th spatio energetic...
view entire post
Sorry to intrude on your discussion but you said,
"If there is a connection between rotating spheres and mass, it escapes me."
Which I can not leave un-addressed. Especially since I have already spoken to you about this not long ago.
Energy is change in spatial position within quaternion space, nothing else.It is change in position along the 4th spatio energetic...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
I also have lepto-tachyons, but those should immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole - unless we can confine them with electromagnetic fields - I'm skeptical of this part because tachyons travel faster than photons, unless we can temporarily confine the tachyon with a large number of photons that the tachyon must bump into as it makes its escape.
Color theory works like this - we have three colors: red, green and blue; and their anti-colors: cyan, magenta and yellow. All "colorless" or "white" combinations of colors are stable. This includes baryons which are three quarks of different colors (red, green & blue) or different anti-colors (cyan, magenta & yellow) or mesons which are a quark and its anti-quark (red & cyan) or (green & magenta) or (blue & yellow).
If we had a normal pion made of a red up quark and a cyan anti-up quark, and slammed a tachyonic pion made of a red tachyon and a cyan anti-tachyon into it, we might be able to manufacture two hybrid pions made of 1) a red tachyon and a cyan anti-up quark, and 2) a red up quark and a cyan anti-tachyon. I still think our best bet is a black hole.
Yes - We had turkey and lots of side dishes and desserts.
Dear Steve and Georgina,
I don't think that rotation has much to do with Gravity. The graviton has intrinsic spin of 2, and a spinning black hole has a modified horizon (versus a non-rotating one) because centrifugal acceleration affects the net acceleration produced by the black hole. We don't understand all of the root causes of Gravity, but I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I also have lepto-tachyons, but those should immediately fly off to infinity or the nearest black hole - unless we can confine them with electromagnetic fields - I'm skeptical of this part because tachyons travel faster than photons, unless we can temporarily confine the tachyon with a large number of photons that the tachyon must bump into as it makes its escape.
Color theory works like this - we have three colors: red, green and blue; and their anti-colors: cyan, magenta and yellow. All "colorless" or "white" combinations of colors are stable. This includes baryons which are three quarks of different colors (red, green & blue) or different anti-colors (cyan, magenta & yellow) or mesons which are a quark and its anti-quark (red & cyan) or (green & magenta) or (blue & yellow).
If we had a normal pion made of a red up quark and a cyan anti-up quark, and slammed a tachyonic pion made of a red tachyon and a cyan anti-tachyon into it, we might be able to manufacture two hybrid pions made of 1) a red tachyon and a cyan anti-up quark, and 2) a red up quark and a cyan anti-tachyon. I still think our best bet is a black hole.
Yes - We had turkey and lots of side dishes and desserts.
Dear Steve and Georgina,
I don't think that rotation has much to do with Gravity. The graviton has intrinsic spin of 2, and a spinning black hole has a modified horizon (versus a non-rotating one) because centrifugal acceleration affects the net acceleration produced by the black hole. We don't understand all of the root causes of Gravity, but I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Ray,
You said "I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path."
and I agree with that. I am not confusing them. Propulsion based on the manipulation of tachyons or generation of "black holes" doesn't sound likely to be very fruitful either. Though the various desserts may have been.
report post as inappropriate
You said "I think that confusing gravity and rotation is not a fruitful path."
and I agree with that. I am not confusing them. Propulsion based on the manipulation of tachyons or generation of "black holes" doesn't sound likely to be very fruitful either. Though the various desserts may have been.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Please forgive me. Just to visualize a single quaternion dimension requires many hours of prayer and meditation. To be able to visualize and understand what you are describing, I would have to call upon powerful arcane forces. Most likely, I would have to sacrifice a goat in a ritual to summon the cthulhu gods from the deep. Then, I would have to command dark and dangerous powers to reveal quaternion realities to my consciousness. If I do not go insane, and if my magical defenses are not defeated whereupon I would be dragged into the darkness to be devoured by ancient demoniac lifeforms, then perhaps I would be allowed to experience and understand quaternion 4th dimensional hyperrealities.
Dear Ray,
There are some issues with the hyperdrive I have to work out. Unfortunately, I have to run off to meet my girlfriend for Black Friday shopping. I hate shopping.
report post as inappropriate
Please forgive me. Just to visualize a single quaternion dimension requires many hours of prayer and meditation. To be able to visualize and understand what you are describing, I would have to call upon powerful arcane forces. Most likely, I would have to sacrifice a goat in a ritual to summon the cthulhu gods from the deep. Then, I would have to command dark and dangerous powers to reveal quaternion realities to my consciousness. If I do not go insane, and if my magical defenses are not defeated whereupon I would be dragged into the darkness to be devoured by ancient demoniac lifeforms, then perhaps I would be allowed to experience and understand quaternion 4th dimensional hyperrealities.
Dear Ray,
There are some issues with the hyperdrive I have to work out. Unfortunately, I have to run off to meet my girlfriend for Black Friday shopping. I hate shopping.
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
That won't be necessary. Just accepting the unreality of time is the first step, which I think you have already tentatively taken.
report post as inappropriate
That won't be necessary. Just accepting the unreality of time is the first step, which I think you have already tentatively taken.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
I guess I misunderstood you about gravity and rotations. I think I understood Steve properly though. I don't understand the reality or unreality of time. Relativity implies that space and time are inter-woven, so changing the concept of time will also change Relativity. My 12 dimensional model might even have imaginary time. Jason and I are throwing around 'crazy' ideas to make sure that we haven't overlooked any FTL ideas.
Dear Jason,
Because of my retail background, I don't even like shopping or 'Black Friday'. I have treated this entire month like 'Black November' - it has been better than October was. My wife and daughter usually spend every Black Friday buying new Christmas ornaments at the local Art Gallery.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
I guess I misunderstood you about gravity and rotations. I think I understood Steve properly though. I don't understand the reality or unreality of time. Relativity implies that space and time are inter-woven, so changing the concept of time will also change Relativity. My 12 dimensional model might even have imaginary time. Jason and I are throwing around 'crazy' ideas to make sure that we haven't overlooked any FTL ideas.
Dear Jason,
Because of my retail background, I don't even like shopping or 'Black Friday'. I have treated this entire month like 'Black November' - it has been better than October was. My wife and daughter usually spend every Black Friday buying new Christmas ornaments at the local Art Gallery.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Rotation is related to gravity through the equivalence principle. The pseudo-force or centrifugal force is equivalent to nongeodesic motion in a gravity field. Combining the two is complicated. Orbital motion by Newtonian mechanics equates the centripetal force with gravity. For a relativistic case the centripetal force becomes complicated, and in face is reduced as one approaches r = 3m. At r = 3m the centripetal force disappears, and this is the photon sphere. This is a radius at which a photon can exist in an orbit around the BH. For r < 3m, but greater than 2m the centripetal force is no longer inwards but out. This means that in order to maintain a circular orbit in this region some additional force is required. There are no stable orbits in this region, and if you have rocket power you had better turn it on. Of course beneath r = 2m you are sunk.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The business of time not existing is a bit strange. If we go back to Newton's second law you have F = ma telling us that a dynamical quantity (force) equals a kinematic quantity (mass) times a geometric one (acceleration). The equation is then a bit odd, for the two sides of the equation involve quantities which are not existentially or ontologically equivalent. Physics has been stuck with this issue ever since. So what do we do? We stick with it, and the acceleration d^2r/dt^2 is a second order ratio of geometric quantities, length and time. We can measure these with rods and clocks. We don't however hold a clock interval in the same way we can hold a rod which codifies a length. So time seems a bit stranger still. Yet we have velocity, and in particular the speed of light which permits us to convert between length and time intervals. This also provides a symmetry principle which transforms between length and time depending on transformation between frames.
The ADM approach to general relativity slices spacetime into space plus time, and spacetime is foliated by spatial surfaces. The Lagrangian is NH = 0, for H dependent on extrinsic curvature terms on the spatial surface. The quantum version of this is similar to a Schrodinger equation without the time derivative. This is a part of the motivation by Barbour to say that time does not exist. Yet this apparent lack of time is due to the inability to equate diffeomorphisms of spatial surfaces with a time in a consistent way. Hawking’s sum over geometries or spacetimes involves these notions, but many mathematicians have difficulty seeing this as firmly established.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The ADM approach to general relativity slices spacetime into space plus time, and spacetime is foliated by spatial surfaces. The Lagrangian is NH = 0, for H dependent on extrinsic curvature terms on the spatial surface. The quantum version of this is similar to a Schrodinger equation without the time derivative. This is a part of the motivation by Barbour to say that time does not exist. Yet this apparent lack of time is due to the inability to equate diffeomorphisms of spatial surfaces with a time in a consistent way. Hawking’s sum over geometries or spacetimes involves these notions, but many mathematicians have difficulty seeing this as firmly established.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
You said "The business of time not existing is a bit strange." Possibly true but that depends on how you choose to think about it.
I think...
Force is the capacity to do work, that is change position of matter or particle within space. Inertial mass is the result of the bodies current trajectory through (quaternion 4D) space. Acceleration is the change in that trajectory.
Why is it multiplied? The change is not just change in 3D vector trajectory that can be added or subtracted from current vector motion but incorporates change in the relationship of 3D motion to (spatio-energetic) 4th dimensional change in position.
I sometimes try to use the concept of nested spherical spacial surfaces or planes. Though I actually think the space is continuous just as it is within 3D space and not physically divided up. The different surfaces just representing different energy levels, not different times. It is the energy difference that makes these other spatial planes inaccessible not any problems of time paradox or causality. The 4th dimension is then just the dimension in which the stacking exists. It is not within 3D space because that (3D space) is just one of the stacked surfaces.
I took a quick glance at ADM on Wikipedia. You are a veritable mine of information!
report post as inappropriate
You said "The business of time not existing is a bit strange." Possibly true but that depends on how you choose to think about it.
I think...
Force is the capacity to do work, that is change position of matter or particle within space. Inertial mass is the result of the bodies current trajectory through (quaternion 4D) space. Acceleration is the change in that trajectory.
Why is it multiplied? The change is not just change in 3D vector trajectory that can be added or subtracted from current vector motion but incorporates change in the relationship of 3D motion to (spatio-energetic) 4th dimensional change in position.
I sometimes try to use the concept of nested spherical spacial surfaces or planes. Though I actually think the space is continuous just as it is within 3D space and not physically divided up. The different surfaces just representing different energy levels, not different times. It is the energy difference that makes these other spatial planes inaccessible not any problems of time paradox or causality. The 4th dimension is then just the dimension in which the stacking exists. It is not within 3D space because that (3D space) is just one of the stacked surfaces.
I took a quick glance at ADM on Wikipedia. You are a veritable mine of information!
report post as inappropriate
I don't think physics is in the business of telling us whether something like time exists. Time is BTW analogous to the electric field in electromagnetism. Similarly with fields in general we don't directly measure them, but infer them through how we measure the motion of particles. Fields as well as space and time are geometric elements we think according to. A good working model involving time and space, such as relativity, does give us a sense that what we are working with are not figments of our imagination. In a sense we can say they are real enough, even if we can't directly measure them, but only infer them through comparisons with rods and clocks. In a sense that approach works well enough.
Force is a dynamical quantity, and it is related to energy through the work theorem W = ∫F*dx. These are more dynamical, though curiously we measure the influence of a force geometrically. The weight of a body is found by how it distends a spring, so that length of distention is a measure of weight = force = mg. There are similar funny aspects to physics, and physics will probably never be as purely self consistent as mathematics. After all mathematics involves relationships between abstract objects, while physics does tell us something about how the world will behave if we tweak it in some way.
I gave thought to the idea of time not existing, or that it is an emergent property on a large scale. The problem is that for this to be the case we also have to say the same thing about space. It makes no sense to me to say time has no existential aspect to it while space does. I also think that the ideology of time not existing is a sort of interpretation of physics, juxtaposed with other interpretations such as block time. Relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics have various interpretations. Yet none of these rises to the level of being a real theory which tells us something definitive about the world. As theories they are really ineffective. So I can’t seriously entertain notions of time not existing, just as I think block time is a sort of interpretation which should not be upheld as a theory which can be supported by empirical evidence.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Force is a dynamical quantity, and it is related to energy through the work theorem W = ∫F*dx. These are more dynamical, though curiously we measure the influence of a force geometrically. The weight of a body is found by how it distends a spring, so that length of distention is a measure of weight = force = mg. There are similar funny aspects to physics, and physics will probably never be as purely self consistent as mathematics. After all mathematics involves relationships between abstract objects, while physics does tell us something about how the world will behave if we tweak it in some way.
I gave thought to the idea of time not existing, or that it is an emergent property on a large scale. The problem is that for this to be the case we also have to say the same thing about space. It makes no sense to me to say time has no existential aspect to it while space does. I also think that the ideology of time not existing is a sort of interpretation of physics, juxtaposed with other interpretations such as block time. Relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics have various interpretations. Yet none of these rises to the level of being a real theory which tells us something definitive about the world. As theories they are really ineffective. So I can’t seriously entertain notions of time not existing, just as I think block time is a sort of interpretation which should not be upheld as a theory which can be supported by empirical evidence.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
It's hard to imagine that time does not exist because I also seem to be bound by it. I can never accomplish everything that I need to as fast as I'd like to. I spend many hours at a job, thank goodness, and then many hours doing other things that I wish I didn't have to do.
As for rods and clocks, what happens if we measure everything with lasers and points light sources? We can always calculate red shift/blue shift to determine velocities; we can always calculate light intensity to determine distance. For more exotic physics such as black holes, gravity, FTL events, I trust lasers and light sources more than I trust rulers and clocks. Since I know I can always modulate lasers and light sources, I know I can discover overlooked areas of physics by asking what happens to the information content of a modulated stream (a song, a video, etc..). For example, I can have a buoy or satellite in a decaying orbit around a black hole. Let's say it has equipment that can receive RF signals I send it, record them, then transmit them back to me at some safe distance. In whatever way I transmit my favorite song to the bouoy/satellite, I suspect the frequencies will be shifted as the RF waves arrive at the buouy which is deep in the gravity well; that will probably distort the signal causing information loss. When the song I transmitted is transmitted from the buouy, there will be more frequency shifting, which will distort the signal even more. Does this constitute loss of information content? Probably not. But it's worth considering.
report post as inappropriate
As for rods and clocks, what happens if we measure everything with lasers and points light sources? We can always calculate red shift/blue shift to determine velocities; we can always calculate light intensity to determine distance. For more exotic physics such as black holes, gravity, FTL events, I trust lasers and light sources more than I trust rulers and clocks. Since I know I can always modulate lasers and light sources, I know I can discover overlooked areas of physics by asking what happens to the information content of a modulated stream (a song, a video, etc..). For example, I can have a buoy or satellite in a decaying orbit around a black hole. Let's say it has equipment that can receive RF signals I send it, record them, then transmit them back to me at some safe distance. In whatever way I transmit my favorite song to the bouoy/satellite, I suspect the frequencies will be shifted as the RF waves arrive at the buouy which is deep in the gravity well; that will probably distort the signal causing information loss. When the song I transmitted is transmitted from the buouy, there will be more frequency shifting, which will distort the signal even more. Does this constitute loss of information content? Probably not. But it's worth considering.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
I agree that relativity is a good working model. However it does also leave a lot of foundational questions unanswered. So I will say that whether it is good enough depends on whether you are satisfied with leaving those questions unanswered or not. Accepting that the universe works according to God's will works well enough, if you are fully satisfied with that explanation.
We can observe the amount space that an object occupies, that is its volume. Therefore it is scientific to use the concept of space in a model. Everything that we think of as time passing is the change in position of matter in space. The moving of the celestial bodies, growth and ageing of living organisms, the moving of the hands on the clock and the swinging of the pendulum. It is all spatial change experienced as time. Changes in spatial position are energy changes and vice versa. These can be interpreted as time passing but time has no independent existence outside of that. There is no need for time in the model. Space and change in position, which is an energy change, is all that is required. Though to correspond with relativity and explain gravity it is necessary to have a 4th dimension. Which is not time itself.
Time as currently used is more than just a geometric element. It is a muddle of a number of different mental concepts. That is why it leads to strange, paradoxical, nonsensical, and to me wholly unacceptable, interpretations. These interpretations amount to fantasy not science. The arrow of time, causality and non reversal of time can all be accounted for by 4th dimensional change in spatial position, which is a continuous energy change. In the context of this explanation I do not think it strange that force can be measured geometrically. The meaning of dynamic is altered together with the alteration in perception of time.
report post as inappropriate
I agree that relativity is a good working model. However it does also leave a lot of foundational questions unanswered. So I will say that whether it is good enough depends on whether you are satisfied with leaving those questions unanswered or not. Accepting that the universe works according to God's will works well enough, if you are fully satisfied with that explanation.
We can observe the amount space that an object occupies, that is its volume. Therefore it is scientific to use the concept of space in a model. Everything that we think of as time passing is the change in position of matter in space. The moving of the celestial bodies, growth and ageing of living organisms, the moving of the hands on the clock and the swinging of the pendulum. It is all spatial change experienced as time. Changes in spatial position are energy changes and vice versa. These can be interpreted as time passing but time has no independent existence outside of that. There is no need for time in the model. Space and change in position, which is an energy change, is all that is required. Though to correspond with relativity and explain gravity it is necessary to have a 4th dimension. Which is not time itself.
Time as currently used is more than just a geometric element. It is a muddle of a number of different mental concepts. That is why it leads to strange, paradoxical, nonsensical, and to me wholly unacceptable, interpretations. These interpretations amount to fantasy not science. The arrow of time, causality and non reversal of time can all be accounted for by 4th dimensional change in spatial position, which is a continuous energy change. In the context of this explanation I do not think it strange that force can be measured geometrically. The meaning of dynamic is altered together with the alteration in perception of time.
report post as inappropriate
Newton's first law tells us that a body in free space and not subjected to a force remains in a constant state of motion. This tells us a couple of things. The first is that inertial frames are the optimal choice for observing physics. If you are on an accelerated frame you will not observe the mass to remain on a constant state of motion, or moving along a line. The other is that since the momentum (p = mv) is constant and F = 0 then the energy change or work done on the system is zero E = ∫F*dx = 0. So energy change is not necessarily germane to the issue of motion. The body at a constant velocity does have a constant energy E = 1/2mv^2, dE = mvdv, and for constant velocity dv = 0 and dx = vdt.
Energy and time are related to each other as conjugate variables, just as momentum and position. In the latter case this is known with the Hamiltonian formalism of classical mechanics. It also applies for both these cases with wave mechanics and Fourier transforms.
Time is something which is built all around us. Even the structure of language is very much built around time, present, past, future, plus perfect and so forth. Time is an odd quantity for we can’t hold it in our hands as such. Yet we can demark it with clocks and organize activity according to time. As such time is at least “real enough.”
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Energy and time are related to each other as conjugate variables, just as momentum and position. In the latter case this is known with the Hamiltonian formalism of classical mechanics. It also applies for both these cases with wave mechanics and Fourier transforms.
Time is something which is built all around us. Even the structure of language is very much built around time, present, past, future, plus perfect and so forth. Time is an odd quantity for we can’t hold it in our hands as such. Yet we can demark it with clocks and organize activity according to time. As such time is at least “real enough.”
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
you said "So energy change is not necessarily germane to the issue of motion." I do not agree with that statement. Energy change is completely tied into motion. Motion requires a change in spatial position. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. As motion is occurring within 3D space and occurs "over time", there is both 3D and 4th dimensional component to that motion. Everything is in continuous motion. Even a body "at rest" has energy because of changing quaternion spatial position. Even when there appears to be no net energy change there is still energy change along the 4th dimension which is a continuous loss of potential.(That is the energy input that drives the increasing development of the universe.)
Energy is nothing but changing quaternion spatial position.It is the "how much" measurement of that quaternion spatial change.
Time has been built into mathematics. That is not a problem so long as there is acknowledgement of what that time component actually represents in objective physical rather than subjective(experiential)terms. The use of time is required because there can be no direct 4th dimensional measurement. So a continuous regular change observed in 3D space can be used to represent it. It is an approximation. There can be minuscule variation from that regular change which leads to observed time dilation. It can be hypothesised that when huge energetic events occur there can be correspondingly large variation from the expected regular change. So astronomical bodies may sometimes not be calculated to exist in the positions expected from steady evolution over time. It is the energy change that is significant though it is interpreted as a temporal effect or anomaly.
Social convention and linguistic traditions should not determine how science objectively models reality. If everyday language is inadequate then new terms and their definitions are required. Just as if current mathematics is inadequate then new mathematical forms are required. Everyday usage of the term time is a problem because it is not scientific usage but a muddle of different concepts explaining subjective experience and held as common knowledge. That gives rise to explanatory frameworks that are limited by this misconception.
report post as inappropriate
you said "So energy change is not necessarily germane to the issue of motion." I do not agree with that statement. Energy change is completely tied into motion. Motion requires a change in spatial position. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. As motion is occurring within 3D space and occurs "over time", there is both 3D and 4th dimensional component to that motion. Everything is in continuous motion. Even a body "at rest" has energy because of changing quaternion spatial position. Even when there appears to be no net energy change there is still energy change along the 4th dimension which is a continuous loss of potential.(That is the energy input that drives the increasing development of the universe.)
Energy is nothing but changing quaternion spatial position.It is the "how much" measurement of that quaternion spatial change.
Time has been built into mathematics. That is not a problem so long as there is acknowledgement of what that time component actually represents in objective physical rather than subjective(experiential)terms. The use of time is required because there can be no direct 4th dimensional measurement. So a continuous regular change observed in 3D space can be used to represent it. It is an approximation. There can be minuscule variation from that regular change which leads to observed time dilation. It can be hypothesised that when huge energetic events occur there can be correspondingly large variation from the expected regular change. So astronomical bodies may sometimes not be calculated to exist in the positions expected from steady evolution over time. It is the energy change that is significant though it is interpreted as a temporal effect or anomaly.
Social convention and linguistic traditions should not determine how science objectively models reality. If everyday language is inadequate then new terms and their definitions are required. Just as if current mathematics is inadequate then new mathematical forms are required. Everyday usage of the term time is a problem because it is not scientific usage but a muddle of different concepts explaining subjective experience and held as common knowledge. That gives rise to explanatory frameworks that are limited by this misconception.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
If we drop "social convention and linquistic traditions", we hobble science in two ways. First, the public loses touch with the importance of physics, so they won't bother buying books or thinking about it. This has the effect of making it harder to ask politicians to vote for funding for important experiments. Second, it makes it that much harder for physicists to match up physics with "reality". There is already a problem with physicists not being able to comprehend the physics or relate it to common experience. That's why some people can't tell the difference between FTL and time travel. If you remove time completely from physics, it becomes nothing more than a meaningless Rubick's cube of pretty symbols. Another example of this is the "Holographic Universe". It sounds like such a cool and mysterious concept. It means that physical matter can be represented as information content on the surface area of a blackhole, hypothetical or real. Can anybody really tell me what "information content" is?
Let's do a better job at tying physics to reality and everyday experience before we remove the very experiences, like time, that people understand.
report post as inappropriate
If we drop "social convention and linquistic traditions", we hobble science in two ways. First, the public loses touch with the importance of physics, so they won't bother buying books or thinking about it. This has the effect of making it harder to ask politicians to vote for funding for important experiments. Second, it makes it that much harder for physicists to match up physics with "reality". There is already a problem with physicists not being able to comprehend the physics or relate it to common experience. That's why some people can't tell the difference between FTL and time travel. If you remove time completely from physics, it becomes nothing more than a meaningless Rubick's cube of pretty symbols. Another example of this is the "Holographic Universe". It sounds like such a cool and mysterious concept. It means that physical matter can be represented as information content on the surface area of a blackhole, hypothetical or real. Can anybody really tell me what "information content" is?
Let's do a better job at tying physics to reality and everyday experience before we remove the very experiences, like time, that people understand.
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
People in general do not understand time. My experience tells me that -most- people don't think about -what- it is at all. I have previously given terms for the different concepts of time that are currently muddled together in common usage.
Science is not (and should not ever be) just about entertaining the public, selling books and journals and getting "political" approval and funding. Just because something is appreciated and "understood" by the masses does not mean that it is closer to the objective truth or more scientifically valid. All sciences have particular terms for specific meanings that can be translated into everyday language for wider comprehension. So that is not a problem.
I am not talking at all about removing experience of time or the use of time either in everyday life or within scientific investigation. Just using it in a way the recognises what time -represents- within physics rather than the current misconceptions.
report post as inappropriate
People in general do not understand time. My experience tells me that -most- people don't think about -what- it is at all. I have previously given terms for the different concepts of time that are currently muddled together in common usage.
Science is not (and should not ever be) just about entertaining the public, selling books and journals and getting "political" approval and funding. Just because something is appreciated and "understood" by the masses does not mean that it is closer to the objective truth or more scientifically valid. All sciences have particular terms for specific meanings that can be translated into everyday language for wider comprehension. So that is not a problem.
I am not talking at all about removing experience of time or the use of time either in everyday life or within scientific investigation. Just using it in a way the recognises what time -represents- within physics rather than the current misconceptions.
report post as inappropriate
The matters I wrote about this morning with respect to energy and dynamics are pretty elementary aspects of physics. These concepts are generally taught in Freshman level courses in physics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The relationship between energy and momentum (or motion) are well understood. A particle moving in free space does not change its energy. For that matter the orbit of a particle in a gravity field does not change the total energy of a particle. These matter are in a way physics 101 type of problems.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
with respect. Understanding that which is taught and considered basic is not necessarily the same as unconditionally accepting its validity.In order to answer the foundational questions some foundational changes must be made, however inconvenient.Just sliding the same old tiles around every which way will not solve the puzzle.
It is space and energy that are intimately and inextricably woven together not space and time. This can be represented by a quaternion arrangement of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. There can be no change in spatial position without a change in energy because these are the same phenomenon.Just as when using space-time there can be not change in spatial position without a time interval in which that change occurred. That is why you said "A particle moving in free space does not change its energy".You are not taking into account energy change along the 4th dimension because you are substituting for it with time.
A gravitational field can be regarded as an increase in universal potential energy gradient which gives an aforeward ("forward" but not along a vector dimension) change in spatial position along the 4th dimension. Time dilation also occurs because time is being used for measurement. It is telling us that there is a change in the gradient of loss of energy. That it is not constant through out space but varies according to the distribution of mass. It is not telling us about the stretchiness of time.In my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
with respect. Understanding that which is taught and considered basic is not necessarily the same as unconditionally accepting its validity.In order to answer the foundational questions some foundational changes must be made, however inconvenient.Just sliding the same old tiles around every which way will not solve the puzzle.
It is space and energy that are intimately and inextricably woven together not space and time. This can be represented by a quaternion arrangement of 4 spatio-energetic dimensions. Every change in spatial position is an energy change. There can be no change in spatial position without a change in energy because these are the same phenomenon.Just as when using space-time there can be not change in spatial position without a time interval in which that change occurred. That is why you said "A particle moving in free space does not change its energy".You are not taking into account energy change along the 4th dimension because you are substituting for it with time.
A gravitational field can be regarded as an increase in universal potential energy gradient which gives an aforeward ("forward" but not along a vector dimension) change in spatial position along the 4th dimension. Time dilation also occurs because time is being used for measurement. It is telling us that there is a change in the gradient of loss of energy. That it is not constant through out space but varies according to the distribution of mass. It is not telling us about the stretchiness of time.In my opinion.
report post as inappropriate
I can only advise that you take some time to learn basic physics. A body moving free of any force has a constant energy. I am not talking about quantum mechanics where there can be fluctuations in the motion of a particle around a straight line and associated quantum fluctuations in energy. In basic classical mechanics a bovy moving with v = constant has also constant energy.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
I was watching some videos about dark matter and dark energy last night. They do a very good job at explaining what is happening. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. We've discussed all this stuff before, including the "expaning balloon" metaphor. Do you have any thoughts on dark energy?
report post as inappropriate
I was watching some videos about dark matter and dark energy last night. They do a very good job at explaining what is happening. Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. We've discussed all this stuff before, including the "expaning balloon" metaphor. Do you have any thoughts on dark energy?
report post as inappropriate
Dark energy is a constant Ricci curvature on a spacetime, which is associated with the cosmological constant. It is frequently interpreted as due to the vacuum energy and negative pressure from quantum fields. It then describes the constant stretching of spatial surfaces by sliding points on those surfaces apart. This can apply to a flat spatial surface as well, and for various reasons this is the optimal spacetime. The flat space or k = 0 model obeys holographic principles. This dark energy is also what drove the inflationary period of the universe, but where the inflationary parameter Λ was adjusted or renormalized to a smaller value with the end of inflation, and is now what we call the cosmological constant. If you look at my essay I sketch how this process is potentially due to a quantum phase transition associated with a quantum critical point. We are now in this latent phase with a form of what might be called eternal inflation.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Based on current theories, or hypotheses which are not as yet well tested, dark matter is likely to be the supersymmetric partners of known elementary particles. The lowest mass particle is the neutralino. This is a condensate of the super partners of the photon, Higgs and Z particles. Data from Fermi and PAMELA indicates the production of gamma rays from near the galaxy center, where dark matter may be most present. This would then be potentially due to neutralino annihilations. The data suggests the source of these gamma rays may be particles in the ~ TeV range of mass-energy. If so these should then appear in the LHC as it ramps above the 10TeV beam energy.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
I wonder why these superpartners would be invisible? I would have guessed that dark matter, which has no electromagnetic interaction at all, would have to be completely chargeless as well as unmoved by electric/magnetic fields. As such, they shouldn't even have spin because spin makes them magnetically interactive.
report post as inappropriate
I wonder why these superpartners would be invisible? I would have guessed that dark matter, which has no electromagnetic interaction at all, would have to be completely chargeless as well as unmoved by electric/magnetic fields. As such, they shouldn't even have spin because spin makes them magnetically interactive.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
The Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) is expected to be a Neutralino - a neutrally-charged mixed quantum state of the spin-1/2 photino, Zino and Higgsinos. Thus, we expect it to interact in Electro-Weak interactions. Perhaps its interaction is comparable to a neutrino - mostly neutral but it still counts as mass, momentum and energy. We expect conservation of 'R-Parity', and thus the LSP is expected to be stable (unless it annihilates with another supersymmetric particle).
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
The Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) is expected to be a Neutralino - a neutrally-charged mixed quantum state of the spin-1/2 photino, Zino and Higgsinos. Thus, we expect it to interact in Electro-Weak interactions. Perhaps its interaction is comparable to a neutrino - mostly neutral but it still counts as mass, momentum and energy. We expect conservation of 'R-Parity', and thus the LSP is expected to be stable (unless it annihilates with another supersymmetric particle).
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Hi Ray,
I'm confused by dark matter. If it were dust and debris, wouldn't it be so thick that it would cause orbits of planets around stars to decay? But then, wouldn't this dust radiate black body radiation? Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?
I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?
But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?
Please let me know if I am running amuck.
report post as inappropriate
I'm confused by dark matter. If it were dust and debris, wouldn't it be so thick that it would cause orbits of planets around stars to decay? But then, wouldn't this dust radiate black body radiation? Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?
I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?
But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?
Please let me know if I am running amuck.
report post as inappropriate
I looked up spin in wikipedia. Spin just represents quantized angular momentum. I was incorrectly assuming it represented a magnetic dipole. Although, if spin does not ALWAYS represent a magnetic dipole, then how can spin be exchanged if there is no coupling? In other words, if a particle is created that has spin, but no charge, how can it ever introduce that spin into another reaction if there is no way to exchange the spin?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
A charged spinning particle has a magnetic dipole. There is a quantum result on something called the g-factor where g = 2.0. Quantum electrodynamics refines this prediction further due to something called a Lamb shift, so g = 2.002... or so.
The neutralino would appear to be a sort of massive neutrino. It is a condensate with the Z-particle, which is the electrically neutral but carries the equivalent of a charge for weak interactions. This is because the weak interaction is non abelian. The supersymmetric partner also carries the weak charge.
There should also be super partners to the gluon, or the QCD vector boson, called a gluino. So glue-balls of gluons in a colorless plasma should also have superpartners as well. These will be very massive and probably unstable.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The neutralino would appear to be a sort of massive neutrino. It is a condensate with the Z-particle, which is the electrically neutral but carries the equivalent of a charge for weak interactions. This is because the weak interaction is non abelian. The supersymmetric partner also carries the weak charge.
There should also be super partners to the gluon, or the QCD vector boson, called a gluino. So glue-balls of gluons in a colorless plasma should also have superpartners as well. These will be very massive and probably unstable.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
I do not need to be reminded of basic physics. I am actually thinking about what the science means at a foundational level, rather than just mindlessly regurgitating dogma. There is a difference. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I consider our conversation at an end. Farewell.
report post as inappropriate
I do not need to be reminded of basic physics. I am actually thinking about what the science means at a foundational level, rather than just mindlessly regurgitating dogma. There is a difference. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I consider our conversation at an end. Farewell.
report post as inappropriate
@ Jason - "I'm confused by dark matter. If it were dust and debris, wouldn't it be so thick that it would cause orbits of planets around stars to decay? But then, wouldn't this dust radiate black body radiation?" Yes, if we pulverize normal 'baryonic' matter into dust, we still have atoms with electron orbitals. If you excite an electron with solar radiation, it will absorb and emit characteristic atomic spectra. And yes, any substantial 'unseen' mass within the planetary orbits can cause 'drag' that affects the planetary orbitals.
@ Jason - "Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?" Possible Dark Matter candidates are Brown Dwarfs (like Jupiter), the LSP (like a massive neutrino that interacts via the Weak and Gravitational forces), WIMP's (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles - recall I had a WIMP-Gravity), and MACHO's (Massive Compact Halo Objects). I would recommend that you read Gordon Kane's essay and PAMELA references. A few years ago, Prof. Kane hired an old friend (and grad school office mate) of mine, Mike Brhlik. Mike and my doctoral thesis advisor, Howard Baer, worked on the phenomenology of the LSP as Dark Matter. Quite frankly, until we understand Quantum Gravity and the Cosmological Constant, we may not 'know' as much about Dark Matter and Dark Energy as we think we know.
@ Jason - "I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?" I might agree to electrically neutral - I'm not sure you can make the generalization of zero spin (Jupiter doesn't have zero spin).
@ Jason - "But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?" If you are obtaining this result based on Classical Electrodynamics, consider that we may need to apply both Quantum Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics. I think Bryce DeWitt made the argument that a spinning electron should interact with the curvature of the Universe, and this might allow interactions between photons and gravitons. Also, my Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson treats photons and gravitons as separate quantum states, so perhaps conversions of one propagating boson into another is possible.
@ Jason - "Please let me know if I am running amuck." We don't know enough yet. We might all be running amuck.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
@ Jason - "Is it possible that 26% of the total gravitational mass of the universe is just dirt/dust/debris and ordinary matter that just doesn't put out enough light for us to be able to distinguish it from the stars at the center of galaxies?" Possible Dark Matter candidates are Brown Dwarfs (like Jupiter), the LSP (like a massive neutrino that interacts via the Weak and Gravitational forces), WIMP's (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles - recall I had a WIMP-Gravity), and MACHO's (Massive Compact Halo Objects). I would recommend that you read Gordon Kane's essay and PAMELA references. A few years ago, Prof. Kane hired an old friend (and grad school office mate) of mine, Mike Brhlik. Mike and my doctoral thesis advisor, Howard Baer, worked on the phenomenology of the LSP as Dark Matter. Quite frankly, until we understand Quantum Gravity and the Cosmological Constant, we may not 'know' as much about Dark Matter and Dark Energy as we think we know.
@ Jason - "I guess my confusion is this: either dark matter is just too dim to be observeable, or else it really is electromagnetically invisible at all frequencies. If it's really invisible at all freqeuncies, then it has to carry zero charge and zero spin for that matter. Right?" I might agree to electrically neutral - I'm not sure you can make the generalization of zero spin (Jupiter doesn't have zero spin).
@ Jason - "But for that matter, a graviton has spin 2. Doesn't that mean that gravitational fields, if they really are implemented by gravitons, should emit light in the presense of a magnetic field?" If you are obtaining this result based on Classical Electrodynamics, consider that we may need to apply both Quantum Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics. I think Bryce DeWitt made the argument that a spinning electron should interact with the curvature of the Universe, and this might allow interactions between photons and gravitons. Also, my Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson treats photons and gravitons as separate quantum states, so perhaps conversions of one propagating boson into another is possible.
@ Jason - "Please let me know if I am running amuck." We don't know enough yet. We might all be running amuck.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dark matter can't be dust. The observation of planetary disks indicates this. They are far more luminous than compact bodies like planets. Dust scatters light very effectively, called Mie scattering.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
So it sounds like dark matter is not expected to be baryons or leptons; instead, it's expected to be super symmetry partners: WIMPs MACHOs, photinoes, etc. I'm not sure I believe that brown dwarfs can make up a significant amount of dark matter. The center of galaxies are very dense places. If there were brown dwarfs there, it wouldn't be long until they crashed into a star. or were ripped apart by gravitational "rip tides". They really wouldn't be able to maintain nice stable elliptical orbits for billions of years because there is so much to run into. They would either be absorbed into a star/blackhole, or in any event, they would be ripped apart into a gaseous cloud.
In the search for a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps we could also say that we are looking for a theory of quantum-space. When I contemplate this, I keep running into the question: what are forces? Then, I notice something funny:
Charges: opposites attract/like charges repel.
Mass/Gravity: like masses attract/opposites (if they exist), should repel.
Charges use quantum waves (photons) to achieve attraction/repulsion. However, mass/gravity uses curvature of space (time) to achieve attraction (repulsion). It looks like space itself and wave-functions should share some fundamental relationship, like lions and cats.
report post as inappropriate
In the search for a theory of quantum gravity, perhaps we could also say that we are looking for a theory of quantum-space. When I contemplate this, I keep running into the question: what are forces? Then, I notice something funny:
Charges: opposites attract/like charges repel.
Mass/Gravity: like masses attract/opposites (if they exist), should repel.
Charges use quantum waves (photons) to achieve attraction/repulsion. However, mass/gravity uses curvature of space (time) to achieve attraction (repulsion). It looks like space itself and wave-functions should share some fundamental relationship, like lions and cats.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
The centers of galaxies normally are very dense, and many could be black holes. Outside of these galactic centers, we often look for cold exotic matter (WIMP's/LSP) to explain the 'unseen' mass.
What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space? See - I can ask a lot of funny questions also. In my model, force charges relate to dimensions. We only see 3+1 dimensions because of spontaneous symmetry breaking and dimensional collapse. We cannot directly observe Quantum Gravity because of broken symmetries and dimensional collapse, thus Gravity is transmitted from Hyperpace (where it is strongest) to our Spacetime via broken geometry. I do wonder if there is a repulsive gravity. This might be possible for WIMP-Gravity. In some respects, anti-matter is most consistent if it has negative mass (and then we would use E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, not E=mc^2), but I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. I don't think it is coincidence that we only have a reasonable understanding of four force charges: Strong g_3, Strong g_8, hypercharge, and weak isospin; and four dimensions. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
The centers of galaxies normally are very dense, and many could be black holes. Outside of these galactic centers, we often look for cold exotic matter (WIMP's/LSP) to explain the 'unseen' mass.
What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space? See - I can ask a lot of funny questions also. In my model, force charges relate to dimensions. We only see 3+1 dimensions because of spontaneous symmetry breaking and dimensional collapse. We cannot directly observe Quantum Gravity because of broken symmetries and dimensional collapse, thus Gravity is transmitted from Hyperpace (where it is strongest) to our Spacetime via broken geometry. I do wonder if there is a repulsive gravity. This might be possible for WIMP-Gravity. In some respects, anti-matter is most consistent if it has negative mass (and then we would use E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2, not E=mc^2), but I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. I don't think it is coincidence that we only have a reasonable understanding of four force charges: Strong g_3, Strong g_8, hypercharge, and weak isospin; and four dimensions. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
I agree that gravity should be stronger in hyperspace. I'll give you my reasons if you give me yours. That might help explain more of the overall picture.
You said: "...I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. ". The universe is expanding because of dark energy. How is dark energy not equivalent to gravitational repulsion? Gravitational repulsion has been observed indirectly. It is true that anti-gravity has not been observed; is that what you meant?
You said: "What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space?" Those are the kinds of funny questions that we all need to be asking. You choose to work with higher dimensions and symmetry breaking. I think Michelson/Morley poisoned the whole idea that the laws of physics are implemented via some medium. So now, we have to use strange words like p-brane to talk about what we all suspect: that light is an oscillation in some kind of undulating medium. The laws of motion are subordinate to this motion; but the connectivity is accomplished by the absolute velocity of photon wavefunctions that create a space-time matrix; like a GPS system with 10^100 sattelites. I don't know what causes the photons to always travel at a velocity c, or what is ultimately causing them at all. But let's set that aside for the moment. We do know that whatever gravity is, it tugs and distorts this space-time 'matrix', and causes time to run slow in some places. My point is that we need to set aside our anxieties about aethers, and figure out the properties of "quantum-space". If you say that symmetry breaking is an obstacle to testing these other dimensions that make up "space", then I request: can you explain to me your understanding of what (spontaneous) symmetry breaking is?
report post as inappropriate
I agree that gravity should be stronger in hyperspace. I'll give you my reasons if you give me yours. That might help explain more of the overall picture.
You said: "...I don't think gravitational repulsion has ever been observed. ". The universe is expanding because of dark energy. How is dark energy not equivalent to gravitational repulsion? Gravitational repulsion has been observed indirectly. It is true that anti-gravity has not been observed; is that what you meant?
You said: "What are forces? What are dimensions? What is space?" Those are the kinds of funny questions that we all need to be asking. You choose to work with higher dimensions and symmetry breaking. I think Michelson/Morley poisoned the whole idea that the laws of physics are implemented via some medium. So now, we have to use strange words like p-brane to talk about what we all suspect: that light is an oscillation in some kind of undulating medium. The laws of motion are subordinate to this motion; but the connectivity is accomplished by the absolute velocity of photon wavefunctions that create a space-time matrix; like a GPS system with 10^100 sattelites. I don't know what causes the photons to always travel at a velocity c, or what is ultimately causing them at all. But let's set that aside for the moment. We do know that whatever gravity is, it tugs and distorts this space-time 'matrix', and causes time to run slow in some places. My point is that we need to set aside our anxieties about aethers, and figure out the properties of "quantum-space". If you say that symmetry breaking is an obstacle to testing these other dimensions that make up "space", then I request: can you explain to me your understanding of what (spontaneous) symmetry breaking is?
report post as inappropriate
I just looked up 'symmetry breaking' in Wikipedia.com. Originally, I thought it referred to the emergence of particles from a field. However, the definition I read talks about either (a) background noise, or (b) non-invariance of the system/background contributing to effect of creating fewer possible outcomes, in effect, determining the outcome or creating an "orderly" condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
It's
probably something I need to learn more about.
report post as inappropriate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
It's
probably something I need to learn more about.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
Yes - Gravitational replulsion is the most common interpretation of an accelerating Universal expansion (Dark Energy). I wasn't thinking! I have my own 'crazy' ideas in Variable Coupling Theory (my book), but I need to consider 'Einstein's mistake' more seriously - Lawrence is pretty serious about it, and I should be.
I think symmetry-breaking is relevant. Certain SU(N) algebras have interesting properties and crystalline analogies, such as SU(5), SU(7) and SU(11). While in graduate school, about 15 years ago, I told many of my friends that I was working on a SUSY SU(11). I was playing with Quaternions and Octonions as well. I just never took it seriously that these higher-ranked algebras implied more dimensions. I think other important SU(N) algebras include SU(15), SU(19) and SU(29) (with minor interest in SU(9), SU(13) and SU(27)). If rank and dimension are equivalent, then the most interesting numbers of dimensions are: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 26, 28, etc. We need to understand how these symmetries break (such as Higgs mechanism), and how these dimensions collapse (such as numbers of dimensions and geometries). Now we are full-circle back to the infamous aether - only we have 'unseen dimensions' rather than an 'unseen medium'.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Yes - Gravitational replulsion is the most common interpretation of an accelerating Universal expansion (Dark Energy). I wasn't thinking! I have my own 'crazy' ideas in Variable Coupling Theory (my book), but I need to consider 'Einstein's mistake' more seriously - Lawrence is pretty serious about it, and I should be.
I think symmetry-breaking is relevant. Certain SU(N) algebras have interesting properties and crystalline analogies, such as SU(5), SU(7) and SU(11). While in graduate school, about 15 years ago, I told many of my friends that I was working on a SUSY SU(11). I was playing with Quaternions and Octonions as well. I just never took it seriously that these higher-ranked algebras implied more dimensions. I think other important SU(N) algebras include SU(15), SU(19) and SU(29) (with minor interest in SU(9), SU(13) and SU(27)). If rank and dimension are equivalent, then the most interesting numbers of dimensions are: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 26, 28, etc. We need to understand how these symmetries break (such as Higgs mechanism), and how these dimensions collapse (such as numbers of dimensions and geometries). Now we are full-circle back to the infamous aether - only we have 'unseen dimensions' rather than an 'unseen medium'.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
If you have two masses m and -m (positive and negative) you have a curious situation. For the positive mass the Newton's second law gives
ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,
so the positive mass is accelerated away from the negative mass by
a = Gm/r^2.
Now for the negative mass you have
-ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,
and so the negative mass is accelerated towards the positive mass by
a = -Gm/r^2.
This is because the "charge" for gravity, which is mass, is also in the F(m) = ma. So the -m and +m will fly away with an acceleration and maintain a constant distance from each other. This sounds somewhat paradoxical, yet in a way since the total mass is m - m = 0 there is a net nothing accelerating away.
Anti-particles are negative mass-energy states E = -mc^2 that fill the Dirac sea. If you give a state in that "sea" 2mc^2 amounts of energy you create a positive mass anti-particle, with opposite quantum numbers such as charge. So it is not expected that anti-particles which are created in the lab have negative mass.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,
so the positive mass is accelerated away from the negative mass by
a = Gm/r^2.
Now for the negative mass you have
-ma = -G(-m^2)/r^2,
and so the negative mass is accelerated towards the positive mass by
a = -Gm/r^2.
This is because the "charge" for gravity, which is mass, is also in the F(m) = ma. So the -m and +m will fly away with an acceleration and maintain a constant distance from each other. This sounds somewhat paradoxical, yet in a way since the total mass is m - m = 0 there is a net nothing accelerating away.
Anti-particles are negative mass-energy states E = -mc^2 that fill the Dirac sea. If you give a state in that "sea" 2mc^2 amounts of energy you create a positive mass anti-particle, with opposite quantum numbers such as charge. So it is not expected that anti-particles which are created in the lab have negative mass.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Can spontaneous symmetry breaking cause the system's entropy to go down?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I don't know of any way to make an enclosed system's entropy decrease. In the case of something like a Higgs mechanism breaking something like my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (in my book), we increase entropy by breaking the original Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) bosons into their various quantum states: gluons, photons, W's, Z's, gravitons, etc. - we have less order, less unity.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
"Entropy" and "Information content" are two concepts that emerge over and over in physics, but are not well understood by me and probably many others.
Let's imagine that you and I are playing poker (or whatever your favorite card game is). Let's pretend that you win with a Royal Flush that beats my Full house. So we both throw down our cards. Then, the dealer scoops up all the cards before shuffling them.
From a black hole perspective, I believe that the total number of cards is the entropy that is associated with blachole surface area. The fact that the Royal Flush and Full house have becomes shuffled (loss of pattern) is irrelevant to physicists. A black hole just scoops up more stuff which gives it more possible arrangements (more cards). In other words, when a physicist says that information content is never lost, they mean that "cards" are never lost; however, patterns of cards are completey destroyed and irrecoverably lost forever. If a spaceship falls into a black hole, all of the possible vibrational modes are conserved, but the spaceship is completely destroyed.
This is important because we associate age/average failure rate/senility/disease/death as increases in entropy. The fact that systems fall apart is not an indication of increasing entropy. Yes, of course the pattern is getting wornout (randomized), but that has nothing to do with black hole entropy. Black hole entropy is proportional to surface area, which is determined by the mass of the black hole. In effect, black hole entropy is really just mass (surface area). For biological systems, improvement to the pattern can occur without any regard or consideration of "increasing entropy".
I think I might be confusing black hole entropy (= how many degrees of freedeom), with a disorderly pattern (not the pattern I wanted, but a poor variation of it). Can someone set me straight?
report post as inappropriate
"Entropy" and "Information content" are two concepts that emerge over and over in physics, but are not well understood by me and probably many others.
Let's imagine that you and I are playing poker (or whatever your favorite card game is). Let's pretend that you win with a Royal Flush that beats my Full house. So we both throw down our cards. Then, the dealer scoops up all the cards before shuffling them.
From a black hole perspective, I believe that the total number of cards is the entropy that is associated with blachole surface area. The fact that the Royal Flush and Full house have becomes shuffled (loss of pattern) is irrelevant to physicists. A black hole just scoops up more stuff which gives it more possible arrangements (more cards). In other words, when a physicist says that information content is never lost, they mean that "cards" are never lost; however, patterns of cards are completey destroyed and irrecoverably lost forever. If a spaceship falls into a black hole, all of the possible vibrational modes are conserved, but the spaceship is completely destroyed.
This is important because we associate age/average failure rate/senility/disease/death as increases in entropy. The fact that systems fall apart is not an indication of increasing entropy. Yes, of course the pattern is getting wornout (randomized), but that has nothing to do with black hole entropy. Black hole entropy is proportional to surface area, which is determined by the mass of the black hole. In effect, black hole entropy is really just mass (surface area). For biological systems, improvement to the pattern can occur without any regard or consideration of "increasing entropy".
I think I might be confusing black hole entropy (= how many degrees of freedeom), with a disorderly pattern (not the pattern I wanted, but a poor variation of it). Can someone set me straight?
report post as inappropriate
Symmetry breaking does change the entropy of a system, but how? Entropy in standard thermodynamics is dQ = -SdT, for Q the thermal energy. So we write the SdT = d(ST) - TdS, and in this closed setting we then have dS = dQ/T. For dQ = cdT, where c is a heat capacity (at constant pressure) then
'>
So entropy increases with rising temperatures. Symmetry breaking is associated with the lowering of temperature of a system. In particle physics this is lower energy, or what might be thought according to the equipartition theorem E = kT The symmetry of magnetization domain direction in a paramagnetic system is broken as temperature is lowed past the Curie temperature. Another way of looking at this is the density of states defines a volume the system can occupy, call that W. The entropy of a system is then S = k*ln(W). Therefore, as the symmetry of the system is broken the W is reduced and so the entropy is reduced.
So what is going on here? We tend to think of the world as having an increase in entropy. The universe stared out with some very low entropy and that increased with time. After all the second law of thermodynamics is dS/dt >= 0. The above theory with entropy and the argument with symmetry breaking pertains to a system close to equilibrium which heat up their environment and have their temperatures lowered. So there is an environment to consider, and there is the fact this produces a statistical ensemble of possible symmetry breaking outcomes. In the ferromagnetization case there are many domains of magnetization in many directions produced by heating up the environment. Symmetry breaking for first order phase transitions also involves the generation of latent heat, which increases the entropy of the surrounding environment of the system who’s entropy is lowered.
It could also be seen that this is one reason for inflation. The relationship between the inflaton particle and the Higgs field is not completely clear. However, the breaking of a certain symmetry condition effectively dumps “heat” onto the environment. The temperature lowering of gauge fields is accompanied by the expansion of spacetime and the stretching out of the cosmological horizon. Here the temperature is lowered, but with spacetime the effective heat capacity is negative, so lower temperature means higher entropy. This is contrary to most systems in statistical thermodynamics. This is why large cold black holes have greater entropy than small quantum black holes with a hot black body temperature. So when it comes to the entire universe the breaking of symmetry is then involved with a net entropy increase for the universe as a whole.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
'>
So entropy increases with rising temperatures. Symmetry breaking is associated with the lowering of temperature of a system. In particle physics this is lower energy, or what might be thought according to the equipartition theorem E = kT The symmetry of magnetization domain direction in a paramagnetic system is broken as temperature is lowed past the Curie temperature. Another way of looking at this is the density of states defines a volume the system can occupy, call that W. The entropy of a system is then S = k*ln(W). Therefore, as the symmetry of the system is broken the W is reduced and so the entropy is reduced.
So what is going on here? We tend to think of the world as having an increase in entropy. The universe stared out with some very low entropy and that increased with time. After all the second law of thermodynamics is dS/dt >= 0. The above theory with entropy and the argument with symmetry breaking pertains to a system close to equilibrium which heat up their environment and have their temperatures lowered. So there is an environment to consider, and there is the fact this produces a statistical ensemble of possible symmetry breaking outcomes. In the ferromagnetization case there are many domains of magnetization in many directions produced by heating up the environment. Symmetry breaking for first order phase transitions also involves the generation of latent heat, which increases the entropy of the surrounding environment of the system who’s entropy is lowered.
It could also be seen that this is one reason for inflation. The relationship between the inflaton particle and the Higgs field is not completely clear. However, the breaking of a certain symmetry condition effectively dumps “heat” onto the environment. The temperature lowering of gauge fields is accompanied by the expansion of spacetime and the stretching out of the cosmological horizon. Here the temperature is lowered, but with spacetime the effective heat capacity is negative, so lower temperature means higher entropy. This is contrary to most systems in statistical thermodynamics. This is why large cold black holes have greater entropy than small quantum black holes with a hot black body temperature. So when it comes to the entire universe the breaking of symmetry is then involved with a net entropy increase for the universe as a whole.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The integral is supposed to be ∫dT/T = ln(T). I am not a fan of these HTML Tex emulators. In this case it worked fine in the preview, but crapped out on the real thing.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
So entropy really has nothing to do with biological systems/age or preservation of patterns then?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I hoped I did not give that impression. A biological system is removed from equilibrium, and as such has lower entropy. The death of a biological system means it has approached equilibrium and information about that system is mixed into an ensemble or effectively erased.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
You didn't give that impression. I guess I need to really look at thermodynamics. So biological systems are considered to "not be in" equilibrium. On the surface, that seems reasonable. But then what is equilibrium versus non equilibrium? I guess equilibrium is when the energy for all degrees of freedom are averaged out?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Back to neutrinos. Can I assume that the LHC cannot detect them? Yet they will carry away some spin from the reaction. For that matter, can the LHC even detect spin in the absence of electric charge? I guess I should check their website. I am curious as to what the LHC can measure directly, and what they can surmise from indirect evidence. I'm also curious about the "weak force" charge.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
You are partially correct. The LHC's detectors cannot detect weakly-interacting (via the Weak Nuclear force) particles. Its calorimeters can detect the directions of energy and momemtum deposits. This allows us to reconstruct vectors and determine a neutrino's signature based on missing momentum and missing energy (the missing mass of neutrinos is too negligible to measure accurately). In the case of Neutralinos, these are expected to be massive (~TeV), and its signature would consist of missing momentum, missing energy, AND missing mass.
The "weak force charge" is SU(2)_L weak isospin (which mixes with a U(1)_Y of hypercharge to create mixed quantum states of photons and Z's). I talked about it in my essay and my book. Just don't confuse it with my "Hyperflavor" which is an SO(4,2) left-right-handed symmetric extension of the Weak force.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
You are partially correct. The LHC's detectors cannot detect weakly-interacting (via the Weak Nuclear force) particles. Its calorimeters can detect the directions of energy and momemtum deposits. This allows us to reconstruct vectors and determine a neutrino's signature based on missing momentum and missing energy (the missing mass of neutrinos is too negligible to measure accurately). In the case of Neutralinos, these are expected to be massive (~TeV), and its signature would consist of missing momentum, missing energy, AND missing mass.
The "weak force charge" is SU(2)_L weak isospin (which mixes with a U(1)_Y of hypercharge to create mixed quantum states of photons and Z's). I talked about it in my essay and my book. Just don't confuse it with my "Hyperflavor" which is an SO(4,2) left-right-handed symmetric extension of the Weak force.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
So if the LHC has a missing momentum/enerrgy, from the calorimeter readings, equivalent to a neutralino, for a reaction that hypothetically might yield a neutralino, they will announce the detection of a neutralino? I guess we should be happy that this is even possible. So how does this influence the prospects for detecting the existence of other dimensions? ...or for that matter, FTL particles?
By the way, I was wondering if you know anybody at NASA/other places, who is working on FTL propulsion and/or exotic propulsion physics? I really need to share my ideas with people who have a similar interest. Eventually, we are going to need some kind of lepto-tachyon, chromotachyon, and the like. This buisiness of tachyons flying off to infinity, or time traveling, is just not an idea I can support. I believe that tachyons have to be some kind of interface between this space-time and a second space-time with a c' > c. I'm looking for people I can blog with who think this idea has merit.
report post as inappropriate
So if the LHC has a missing momentum/enerrgy, from the calorimeter readings, equivalent to a neutralino, for a reaction that hypothetically might yield a neutralino, they will announce the detection of a neutralino? I guess we should be happy that this is even possible. So how does this influence the prospects for detecting the existence of other dimensions? ...or for that matter, FTL particles?
By the way, I was wondering if you know anybody at NASA/other places, who is working on FTL propulsion and/or exotic propulsion physics? I really need to share my ideas with people who have a similar interest. Eventually, we are going to need some kind of lepto-tachyon, chromotachyon, and the like. This buisiness of tachyons flying off to infinity, or time traveling, is just not an idea I can support. I believe that tachyons have to be some kind of interface between this space-time and a second space-time with a c' > c. I'm looking for people I can blog with who think this idea has merit.
report post as inappropriate
Neutrinos were first suspected in beta decay because the positron and proton in the decay of a neutron would fly off in directions not opposite to each other. So a missing momentum is a clue to neutrino production. Later the spontaneous creation of pions and leptons from "nowhere," but near a scattering event indicated the presence of the neutrino. Neutrinos only interact by the weak interaction, and so have a small cross section for interaction. They are notoriously hard to "catch."
Neutralinos will appear as something simialr, but with a hefty mass. Then neutralino is also self annihilating, or Majorana, which means their presence will often appear in the production of photons or Z particles.
Cheers, LC
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Neutralinos will appear as something simialr, but with a hefty mass. Then neutralino is also self annihilating, or Majorana, which means their presence will often appear in the production of photons or Z particles.
Cheers, LC
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
We rely heavily on Monte Carlo event simulators to interrelate experiment and theory. The amount of missing mass will allow them to 'measure' the masses of Neutralinos (if they are produced and observed indirectly).
If the theorists don't build extra dimensions into their models and simulations then they won't even know what to look for, or that they've found evidence for higher dimensions. Realistically, I don't expect to find any direct evidence for higher dimensions at LHC - discovery of SUSY might imply extra dimensions. At NASA, I knew a Larry Smalley (Prof. Emeritus at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) who was interested in using String Theory to find higher-dimensional shortcuts from one point to another. I haven't corresponded with him in a couple of years - he may be in bad health.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
We rely heavily on Monte Carlo event simulators to interrelate experiment and theory. The amount of missing mass will allow them to 'measure' the masses of Neutralinos (if they are produced and observed indirectly).
If the theorists don't build extra dimensions into their models and simulations then they won't even know what to look for, or that they've found evidence for higher dimensions. Realistically, I don't expect to find any direct evidence for higher dimensions at LHC - discovery of SUSY might imply extra dimensions. At NASA, I knew a Larry Smalley (Prof. Emeritus at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) who was interested in using String Theory to find higher-dimensional shortcuts from one point to another. I haven't corresponded with him in a couple of years - he may be in bad health.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
That's very interesting that the proton/electron fly off in different but not opposite directions. I've heard the small cross section interpretation used to explain the lack of detection of gravitons. Cross section is necessary to set up the quantum mechanic scattering problem. But I wonder if it's really a lack of coupling between neutrinos/Higgs/gravitons/etc.
Dear Ray,
Can extra dimensions also be interpreted as zero coupling between particles? I can't visualize 11 dimensions. But I can imagine two or more space-times overlapping where the particles in each do not couple or interact with the particles in the other.
report post as inappropriate
That's very interesting that the proton/electron fly off in different but not opposite directions. I've heard the small cross section interpretation used to explain the lack of detection of gravitons. Cross section is necessary to set up the quantum mechanic scattering problem. But I wonder if it's really a lack of coupling between neutrinos/Higgs/gravitons/etc.
Dear Ray,
Can extra dimensions also be interpreted as zero coupling between particles? I can't visualize 11 dimensions. But I can imagine two or more space-times overlapping where the particles in each do not couple or interact with the particles in the other.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
Yes - Interaction cross sections are very small for particles that only interact weakly or gravitationally. The LHC is not designed to directly detect neutrinos or gravitons. Super Kamiokande is a good example of a neutrino detector.
I suspect that some forces (such as Hyperflavor and WIMP-Gravity) are very weak because most of their field lines are contained by their respective branes. If Gravity is spread out over 11 dimensions, and electromagnetism is spread out over 4 dimensions, it might help explain why Gravity is so much weaker (field lines spread out over more dimensions).
The coupling between Spacetime and Hyperspace must be very weak (of order G or the inverse of Dirac's Large Number), and thus it should be nearly impossible to discover Hyperspace at the LHC. I still think we need a black hole, but that is Lawrence's specialty.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Yes - Interaction cross sections are very small for particles that only interact weakly or gravitationally. The LHC is not designed to directly detect neutrinos or gravitons. Super Kamiokande is a good example of a neutrino detector.
I suspect that some forces (such as Hyperflavor and WIMP-Gravity) are very weak because most of their field lines are contained by their respective branes. If Gravity is spread out over 11 dimensions, and electromagnetism is spread out over 4 dimensions, it might help explain why Gravity is so much weaker (field lines spread out over more dimensions).
The coupling between Spacetime and Hyperspace must be very weak (of order G or the inverse of Dirac's Large Number), and thus it should be nearly impossible to discover Hyperspace at the LHC. I still think we need a black hole, but that is Lawrence's specialty.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
This is still a hard nut to crack. Specifically, how does one couple between our space-time and a faster space-time or hyperspace? I thought about why the speed of light is its value and not some other value. Why can't c be larger? Since c^2 = 1/(permeability * permitivity), one reason that c can't be faster is because it has to create ripples of both electric fields and magnetic fields. If it didn't have to generate electric and magnetic fields, then it could go faster.
By the way, I've heard many times that gravity is weak because it has to spread out over additional dimensions. Since F=ma, then mass directly ties into acceleration (motion). When gravity exerts itself, we say that space or space-time is curved. But when two charges exert a force on each other, we talk about wave function for the potential energy V(r), for a charge. Without using relativity, can we set up a wavefunction for a gravitational potential?
report post as inappropriate
This is still a hard nut to crack. Specifically, how does one couple between our space-time and a faster space-time or hyperspace? I thought about why the speed of light is its value and not some other value. Why can't c be larger? Since c^2 = 1/(permeability * permitivity), one reason that c can't be faster is because it has to create ripples of both electric fields and magnetic fields. If it didn't have to generate electric and magnetic fields, then it could go faster.
By the way, I've heard many times that gravity is weak because it has to spread out over additional dimensions. Since F=ma, then mass directly ties into acceleration (motion). When gravity exerts itself, we say that space or space-time is curved. But when two charges exert a force on each other, we talk about wave function for the potential energy V(r), for a charge. Without using relativity, can we set up a wavefunction for a gravitational potential?
report post as inappropriate
Particularly, I was curious if anyone had tried to solve Schrodinger's equation for a gravity wave using a gravity potential for the potential energy.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
You are effectively askiing whether or not gravity is quanitzed. As yet that has not been done. General relativity up to second order in the post Newtonian expansion appears similar to Maxwell's electrodynamics. That can be quantized in much the same way electrodynamics is. This is a sort of linearized gravity which can be quantized as with any other field theory. The metric is treated as a flat metric with a perturbing metric
and wave equations readily derived. This is how weak gravity waves are modelled. The wave equation is of the form
[equation]
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
'>
This
linear wave equation can be quantized.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
and wave equations readily derived. This is how weak gravity waves are modelled. The wave equation is of the form
[equation]
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
'>
This
linear wave equation can be quantized.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The last equation is supposed to appear as
[equation
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
[/equa
tion]
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
[equation
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
[/equa
tion]
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
One more try, if it does not show up right I give up
[equation]
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
[\equa
tion]
Grrr... LC
report post as inappropriate
[equation]
{\tilde h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}+\eta_{\mu\nu}{h^\alpha}_\alpha.
[\equa
tion]
Grrr... LC
report post as inappropriate
So the perturbing metric is proportional to the stress-energy tensor (times G/c^4). I figured the Einstein equations would pop back in my lap. But I think I can answer my real question. I do wonder if this perturbing metric, or for matter the Ricci tensor, if either of them have the effect of changing the distance between two points in euclidean space. Perhaps it's not the distance between them that changes, but rather, the potential energy. Is it reasonable to infer that any particle, wave or field that can be compelled to acclerate by gravity, where gravity is just the curvature of space, then these particles, waves and fields must be constituents of space itself? Can we infer that gravity is nothing more than space that has some scalar potential energy?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
The box symbol is the d'Alembertian
The * thing in the box should not be there. This is for the momentum-energy tensor T_{ij} = 0 is an elementary wave equation. The solution to this wave equation has elementary Fourier expansions, which are easily converted to quantum wave solutions. The wave equation is similar to that for photons, but where there are two directions of polarization. In quantum optics there are di-photon systems similar to this, and these are a sort of analogue of gravitons.
BTW, in Tiger Wood's SUV he crashed last week was a popular book on physics by Gribbon, "Getting a Grip on Physics." So lots of people are pondering physics.
Cheers LC
attachments: TigerWoodsscarwithGet002.jpg
report post as inappropriate
The * thing in the box should not be there. This is for the momentum-energy tensor T_{ij} = 0 is an elementary wave equation. The solution to this wave equation has elementary Fourier expansions, which are easily converted to quantum wave solutions. The wave equation is similar to that for photons, but where there are two directions of polarization. In quantum optics there are di-photon systems similar to this, and these are a sort of analogue of gravitons.
BTW, in Tiger Wood's SUV he crashed last week was a popular book on physics by Gribbon, "Getting a Grip on Physics." So lots of people are pondering physics.
Cheers LC
attachments: TigerWoodsscarwithGet002.jpg
report post as inappropriate
I've seen the d'Alembertian before. That would take the place of the Laplace operator in the Schrodinger equation. But the potential energy term would still be charge, right? Has anyone been able to get a solution to the perturbing metric? Does that solution include a Planck constant?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
The quantum version would be a form of the Klein-Gordon equation. The potential you are thinking of is really pertainant to the Schrodinger equation in non-relativitic QM. Here the perturbing portion of the metric defines something analogous to the vector potential in electrodynamics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Do you know anything about the Casmimir effect? Particularly that the two plates that are close together have the effect of limiting what waves can exist between the two plates. I've heard that this can have the effect of allowing the speed of light to be a little bit larger than usual. Have you heard anything about this?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Of course know about the Casimir effect. It is really like strings on a guitar, which from fret to nut hold a discrete number of wavelengths. The same holds for virtual photons inside the cavity. Yet outside the cavity there is a continuum of frequencies. Hence the vacuum energy in and out of the confined region are different. This results in the measured pressure on the walls of the cavity, or parallel plates.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Crowell,
Yes, but what about the speed of light being a little bit larger?
James
report post as inappropriate
Yes, but what about the speed of light being a little bit larger?
James
report post as inappropriate
One must remember there are the phase and group velocities of a wave. The phase velocity is that of the wave fronts, which is where information is communicate. The velocity is v_p = c/n for n the index of refraction. There is also the group velocity v_g = c/n_g, where n_g is the group index of refraction
n_g = n + ω(∂n/∂ω),
where there is a frequency dependency on the index of refraction. For ω(∂n/∂ω) < 0 the group velocity is faster than light. Yet no information is communicated here, for this velocity corresponds to the velocity of Fourier components of a wave, not the entire wave which communicates information. The term ω(∂n/∂ω) in the case of the Casimir effect is one where it is less than 0. This can be seen since n is for all Fourier modes of EM radiation and the dispersion term removes the contribution of frequencies on n in the trivial case n = n(ω) = constant. So the velocity which changes is the group velocity, not the phase velocity. As such there is no communication of information faster than light.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
n_g = n + ω(∂n/∂ω),
where there is a frequency dependency on the index of refraction. For ω(∂n/∂ω) < 0 the group velocity is faster than light. Yet no information is communicated here, for this velocity corresponds to the velocity of Fourier components of a wave, not the entire wave which communicates information. The term ω(∂n/∂ω) in the case of the Casimir effect is one where it is less than 0. This can be seen since n is for all Fourier modes of EM radiation and the dispersion term removes the contribution of frequencies on n in the trivial case n = n(ω) = constant. So the velocity which changes is the group velocity, not the phase velocity. As such there is no communication of information faster than light.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Hi all ,
Dear James ,
Never the light velocity will change its constant .It is like an axiom an universal gauge .Like a continuum of evolution .The sense of rotation seems very relevant about the synchronization of evolution .
The informations are intrinsics in the codes ,in the gravitational stable and evolutive system .I agree about the transfert thus ,some limits seem foundamentals thus .The phase of waves correlated with the superimposing of the rotations can be analyzed too with the fracal of spheres and thus the volumes thus the rot and synchronization of polarisations .
Dear Lawrence ,
What do you mean by refraction .Like n1sin i =n2sin r ? ....If the optic anlyze is inserted in the extrapolations ,thus how can we superimpose these systems with rationality ? That seems difficult about the real perception .
Happy to read tour details Lawrence ,it is always full of news .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear James ,
Never the light velocity will change its constant .It is like an axiom an universal gauge .Like a continuum of evolution .The sense of rotation seems very relevant about the synchronization of evolution .
The informations are intrinsics in the codes ,in the gravitational stable and evolutive system .I agree about the transfert thus ,some limits seem foundamentals thus .The phase of waves correlated with the superimposing of the rotations can be analyzed too with the fracal of spheres and thus the volumes thus the rot and synchronization of polarisations .
Dear Lawrence ,
What do you mean by refraction .Like n1sin i =n2sin r ? ....If the optic anlyze is inserted in the extrapolations ,thus how can we superimpose these systems with rationality ? That seems difficult about the real perception .
Happy to read tour details Lawrence ,it is always full of news .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
This is basic refraction, of which Snell's law is an example of. In general a media can have an index of refraction which depends on position in space and frequency of light. Chromatic aberrations are an example of a frequency dependency on the index. This occurs when a lens induces different paths fpr different colors of light.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
Yes I know. I thought that the most important part of Jason's question was unanswered. Even after DR. Crowell's response, I feel that more could have been said about the form of any evidence for a possible increase in the speed of light. However, I did not feel like pressing the matter any further. Also, I think that the speed of light being a universal constant is open to question. I have tried to indicate this point of view in my two essay contest entries. Thank you for your message.
James
report post as inappropriate
Yes I know. I thought that the most important part of Jason's question was unanswered. Even after DR. Crowell's response, I feel that more could have been said about the form of any evidence for a possible increase in the speed of light. However, I did not feel like pressing the matter any further. Also, I think that the speed of light being a universal constant is open to question. I have tried to indicate this point of view in my two essay contest entries. Thank you for your message.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear James,
I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics. Whether or not it's complete in the exotic sense (FTL/many dimensions), I cannot say. I can certainly point out all of the possible hiding places. If a tree falls in hyperspace, but the physics community has no proof of hyperspace, did the tree really fall? It's not much of an argument, but I can't reveal FTL propulsion without evidence. I do know that photons are quantum wavefronts of undulating electric and magnetic fields; that's just the poyting vector. Are the Higgs field, permeability, and permittivity all manifestations of the space-time brane? If I propose a second space-time with a different speed of light, c'>c, different kind of charge, but I keep all of the geometry the same for simplicity, then perhaps I can propose a way to acheive FTL propulsion. But if I have no way to interface the two space-times, if the two space-times have nothing in common, then a second space-time is really unhelpful towards an FTL propulsion objective. They say that all things that have both mass/energy content as well as information content, all of those things are allowed to contribute to the force of gravity. In fact information content via entropy are the last outpose of this universe. If you leave this universe through a black hole, you must give up your energy content and your information before passing through the event horizon; beyond which there is either maximum packing of quantum matter, or there is a tumultous storm of extreme energy that buffets against the speed of light barrier. At the smallest scale, the quantum wave function appears; it is the other unknown. Particles can be in multiple eigenstates simultaneously; but the math doesn's tell us more than that. These are the two doorways into this physical universe. The quantum wave comes from the potential energy of the charge; the black hole comes from mass-energy density. The light spans both of these horizons, but cannot reveal what lies beyond in the darkness.
report post as inappropriate
I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics. Whether or not it's complete in the exotic sense (FTL/many dimensions), I cannot say. I can certainly point out all of the possible hiding places. If a tree falls in hyperspace, but the physics community has no proof of hyperspace, did the tree really fall? It's not much of an argument, but I can't reveal FTL propulsion without evidence. I do know that photons are quantum wavefronts of undulating electric and magnetic fields; that's just the poyting vector. Are the Higgs field, permeability, and permittivity all manifestations of the space-time brane? If I propose a second space-time with a different speed of light, c'>c, different kind of charge, but I keep all of the geometry the same for simplicity, then perhaps I can propose a way to acheive FTL propulsion. But if I have no way to interface the two space-times, if the two space-times have nothing in common, then a second space-time is really unhelpful towards an FTL propulsion objective. They say that all things that have both mass/energy content as well as information content, all of those things are allowed to contribute to the force of gravity. In fact information content via entropy are the last outpose of this universe. If you leave this universe through a black hole, you must give up your energy content and your information before passing through the event horizon; beyond which there is either maximum packing of quantum matter, or there is a tumultous storm of extreme energy that buffets against the speed of light barrier. At the smallest scale, the quantum wave function appears; it is the other unknown. Particles can be in multiple eigenstates simultaneously; but the math doesn's tell us more than that. These are the two doorways into this physical universe. The quantum wave comes from the potential energy of the charge; the black hole comes from mass-energy density. The light spans both of these horizons, but cannot reveal what lies beyond in the darkness.
report post as inappropriate
Hi all ,
Dear James ,You are welcome ,I understand .
I agree too about this constant and our limits .It is the reason why I like read the extrapolations of Jason and his super creativity .I think he is going to find many relevances in this road .The constant and our limits are bizares in an interactions optic with the universe and its bodies in rotation .Sure it exists some roads to check the space and thus the velocity and the movement .Perhaps we are youngs and thus it is ht reason why we can't travel behind our system .Perhaps it is well like that ,indeed the planets I think are not there to sell their elements .Perhaps the step by step is essential and that to respect this universe and thus utilise the discovery in a pragmatic road of harmony .
I am very intrigued about the check of this space and our dimensions so far of us .Sure it exists some roads of improvement of the motion .Sometimes I say me ,if the contraction is a reality thus a decrease of the space is logic and rational ,furthermore if all turns around the universal center thus even the topology must be adapted with the evolution since the begining of the big polarisation if I can say .
The astrobiology is an evidence and many biological systems are everywhere ,thus how can we arrive to interact ......the evolution seems the main part of the puzzle ,even the consciousness seems on this road .
Perhaps the velocity is the key ,perhaps the contraction and rotation,perhaps the evolution is the key ,perhaps the intrinsic codes of the elementaries particles,perhaps some doors where all is light thus the code is important to re polarise,perhaps it is the propulsion .....probably what the rotating encoded system is important ,thus what is the cause thus how can we teleport in a light continuum with a spherical system in a other place in this universal sphere .That becomes very complex the cause of the rotation thus the mass .If we want to re polarise or re create a mass thus we must check the cause of the rotations and its superimposings since the begining .That seems not possible at this moment this super motion .It is the same with the light ,a rotation exists too thus if we want to be in this continuum before the re creation ,we must check there the sense of rotation and its velocity ,which is peobably the maximum gauge furthermore .
In conclusion I beleive what the evolution and its conscioussnes correlated with the technology shall permit these motions in our limited system .
Thank you to you too .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear James ,You are welcome ,I understand .
I agree too about this constant and our limits .It is the reason why I like read the extrapolations of Jason and his super creativity .I think he is going to find many relevances in this road .The constant and our limits are bizares in an interactions optic with the universe and its bodies in rotation .Sure it exists some roads to check the space and thus the velocity and the movement .Perhaps we are youngs and thus it is ht reason why we can't travel behind our system .Perhaps it is well like that ,indeed the planets I think are not there to sell their elements .Perhaps the step by step is essential and that to respect this universe and thus utilise the discovery in a pragmatic road of harmony .
I am very intrigued about the check of this space and our dimensions so far of us .Sure it exists some roads of improvement of the motion .Sometimes I say me ,if the contraction is a reality thus a decrease of the space is logic and rational ,furthermore if all turns around the universal center thus even the topology must be adapted with the evolution since the begining of the big polarisation if I can say .
The astrobiology is an evidence and many biological systems are everywhere ,thus how can we arrive to interact ......the evolution seems the main part of the puzzle ,even the consciousness seems on this road .
Perhaps the velocity is the key ,perhaps the contraction and rotation,perhaps the evolution is the key ,perhaps the intrinsic codes of the elementaries particles,perhaps some doors where all is light thus the code is important to re polarise,perhaps it is the propulsion .....probably what the rotating encoded system is important ,thus what is the cause thus how can we teleport in a light continuum with a spherical system in a other place in this universal sphere .That becomes very complex the cause of the rotation thus the mass .If we want to re polarise or re create a mass thus we must check the cause of the rotations and its superimposings since the begining .That seems not possible at this moment this super motion .It is the same with the light ,a rotation exists too thus if we want to be in this continuum before the re creation ,we must check there the sense of rotation and its velocity ,which is peobably the maximum gauge furthermore .
In conclusion I beleive what the evolution and its conscioussnes correlated with the technology shall permit these motions in our limited system .
Thank you to you too .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
"I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics."
I think that this could be said about experimental physics; however, for me, theoretical physics has made many educated guesses since the beginning of theory. These guesses cannot be shown to be correct. They are assumed to be correct. They take the form of imagined properties resulting from interpretations of unknown qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence.
We do not know the nature of cause. We can be certain only that there is a cause. We are not justified in accepting more than one cause. True unity requires that there be only one primary cause. All effects, including our intelligence and free will, must be the result of different aspects of this single cause. I think that the quote above is incorrect. I think that theoretical physics has created an illusory universe. Einstein pushed for support of his imaginary universe with words to the effect that: "We need a new way of thinking". His willingness to plunge us into accepting illusions has led to modern theoretical physics.
Misinterpretations starting with f=ma, grossly extended by Einstein, and carried on without restraint to this day have put us in a situtation where misinterpretation has introducted distortion into theory. The result of admitting multiple distortions is that solutions must contain multiple contortions. Several of the properties that you mention above are representative of contortions. We are are now required to reach outside of our understanding of this practical universe and imagine the existance of an impractical universe or universes.
It is probably not helpful for me to try to be specific in my objections. You are in good company with Drs. Munroe and Crowell. My opinions would not serve your purposes. I will carry on with my own work and encourage you to do the same. Thank you for your message.
James
report post as inappropriate
"I think that the physics community has an air tight representation of the laws of physics."
I think that this could be said about experimental physics; however, for me, theoretical physics has made many educated guesses since the beginning of theory. These guesses cannot be shown to be correct. They are assumed to be correct. They take the form of imagined properties resulting from interpretations of unknown qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence.
We do not know the nature of cause. We can be certain only that there is a cause. We are not justified in accepting more than one cause. True unity requires that there be only one primary cause. All effects, including our intelligence and free will, must be the result of different aspects of this single cause. I think that the quote above is incorrect. I think that theoretical physics has created an illusory universe. Einstein pushed for support of his imaginary universe with words to the effect that: "We need a new way of thinking". His willingness to plunge us into accepting illusions has led to modern theoretical physics.
Misinterpretations starting with f=ma, grossly extended by Einstein, and carried on without restraint to this day have put us in a situtation where misinterpretation has introducted distortion into theory. The result of admitting multiple distortions is that solutions must contain multiple contortions. Several of the properties that you mention above are representative of contortions. We are are now required to reach outside of our understanding of this practical universe and imagine the existance of an impractical universe or universes.
It is probably not helpful for me to try to be specific in my objections. You are in good company with Drs. Munroe and Crowell. My opinions would not serve your purposes. I will carry on with my own work and encourage you to do the same. Thank you for your message.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear James,
I enjoy reading new approaches to old problems. It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely. Perhaps we should be careful about taking our theories so seriously that we integrate them too much into our philosophy and perceptions.
Jason has challenged me to think about ideas such as hyperdrive more than I would have on my own. I think that constants such as c and h must be Universal within our 3+1 brane of Spacetime. If two different branes had two different values of h and c and classical couplings of order 1, then they should merge and 'average out' the values of h and c.
This leads me to consider multiple possibilities: 1) if a hyperspace brane has a different value of c or h than spacetime, then it can only be connected via a quantum (not continuous) event, and 2) the coupling between our spacetime brane and any hyperspace branes must be very weak - of order G or 10-40 - or else we should have discovered these hyperspace branes.
My education has led to some biases, but I agree that some changes are required in Modern Physics.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I enjoy reading new approaches to old problems. It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely. Perhaps we should be careful about taking our theories so seriously that we integrate them too much into our philosophy and perceptions.
Jason has challenged me to think about ideas such as hyperdrive more than I would have on my own. I think that constants such as c and h must be Universal within our 3+1 brane of Spacetime. If two different branes had two different values of h and c and classical couplings of order 1, then they should merge and 'average out' the values of h and c.
This leads me to consider multiple possibilities: 1) if a hyperspace brane has a different value of c or h than spacetime, then it can only be connected via a quantum (not continuous) event, and 2) the coupling between our spacetime brane and any hyperspace branes must be very weak - of order G or 10-40 - or else we should have discovered these hyperspace branes.
My education has led to some biases, but I agree that some changes are required in Modern Physics.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
"It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely."
All good theories are interpretations placed upon the perceived qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The interpretations may consist of real or unreal theoretical properties. The viewpoint of the theorist does not noticably harm the practical usefulness of the equations. When additionally discovered patterns in empirical evidence are observed to require the alteration of the equations, the old theory does not become irrelevant or wrong. It already was either right or wrong.
The potential problem for any new interpretations that are added onto the improved equations is that they are usually molded to successfully reduce, under the older restricted conditions, to the old theory. They are usually considered to represent improvements or extensions of the old theory. Therefore, the uncertainty of educated guesses or just plain wrong interpretations continue to force themselves onto the empirical equations and have a good chance of requiring the new additions to the theory to be distorted. The old theory becomes a special case of the new improved theory. Some error has been corrected, but there may be much more important errors that are retained.
The correctness of modern theoretical physics is very much dependent upon the correctness of older theory. I think it is important to recognize that the older theoretical interpretations of perceived properties have not been proven. I think it would be wise for modern theoretical physicists, with their vastly improved knowledge, to return to the fundamentals stripped bare of prior theoretical bias and make modern educated guesses. For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning. For others there may be a different path. I do not think that we are currently on the correct path.
James
report post as inappropriate
"It seems that good theories may get modified, but never get thrown out completely."
All good theories are interpretations placed upon the perceived qualities that appear in the empirical form of the equations that accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The interpretations may consist of real or unreal theoretical properties. The viewpoint of the theorist does not noticably harm the practical usefulness of the equations. When additionally discovered patterns in empirical evidence are observed to require the alteration of the equations, the old theory does not become irrelevant or wrong. It already was either right or wrong.
The potential problem for any new interpretations that are added onto the improved equations is that they are usually molded to successfully reduce, under the older restricted conditions, to the old theory. They are usually considered to represent improvements or extensions of the old theory. Therefore, the uncertainty of educated guesses or just plain wrong interpretations continue to force themselves onto the empirical equations and have a good chance of requiring the new additions to the theory to be distorted. The old theory becomes a special case of the new improved theory. Some error has been corrected, but there may be much more important errors that are retained.
The correctness of modern theoretical physics is very much dependent upon the correctness of older theory. I think it is important to recognize that the older theoretical interpretations of perceived properties have not been proven. I think it would be wise for modern theoretical physicists, with their vastly improved knowledge, to return to the fundamentals stripped bare of prior theoretical bias and make modern educated guesses. For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning. For others there may be a different path. I do not think that we are currently on the correct path.
James
report post as inappropriate
The hyperdrive is the dream of science fiction. It stemmed early on in part from a cracker barrel idea of general relativity, time dilation, curved space and so forth, and a need on the part of writers and authors to avoid the difficulties of time and relativity. Yet the idea has always presented us with troubles, and these things connect up with time travel, which is even more difficult to uphold.
We humans are amazingly good at using up our environment. Any constraint upon us we eventually figure a way around, and we use more and more of the world. It may have started with Australopithecus when they took themselves off the menu (throwing rocks at that menacing leopard) and put more on their menu. We have consistently supercharged things, eventually with agriculture and much more recently with science and technology we can use things up at a breakneck speed. Take note of this the next time you throw out the garbage. The sense we have had is that the future will hold much more of what we have, remember the cartoon “The Jetsons?” The problem is that in the last few decades things have not exactly worked out that way. We don’t have the Clavius lunar colony seen in 2001 A Space Odyssey, we don’t drive flying saucers to work, we don’t have jetpacks and so forth. We are also facing a host of growing problems due to our exploitation of the world. Physics is pretty much giving us obstructions on futuristic ideas like warp drives, and astronauts on Mars is as far off in the future as it was in the 1970s. In fact it could be said that in recent time our world is largely about hi-tech farting around --- web game sites, nonsense blogs, web conspiracy threads etc. Oh, and yes, there are the wars. We might in the end be just played a grand Ponzi game, a pyramid scheme based on energy and resources, and we might be reaching the limits on that --- endgame.
So things have not worked out exactly right. Even if we do manage to get a reasonable theory of cosmology and quantum gravity, chances are we will at best get tangential evidence to support it. So as Sting of the rock band “The Police” put it make the best of what is still around. Maybe we are just a way the universe becomes aware of itself up to some limit and then goes back to sleep.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
We humans are amazingly good at using up our environment. Any constraint upon us we eventually figure a way around, and we use more and more of the world. It may have started with Australopithecus when they took themselves off the menu (throwing rocks at that menacing leopard) and put more on their menu. We have consistently supercharged things, eventually with agriculture and much more recently with science and technology we can use things up at a breakneck speed. Take note of this the next time you throw out the garbage. The sense we have had is that the future will hold much more of what we have, remember the cartoon “The Jetsons?” The problem is that in the last few decades things have not exactly worked out that way. We don’t have the Clavius lunar colony seen in 2001 A Space Odyssey, we don’t drive flying saucers to work, we don’t have jetpacks and so forth. We are also facing a host of growing problems due to our exploitation of the world. Physics is pretty much giving us obstructions on futuristic ideas like warp drives, and astronauts on Mars is as far off in the future as it was in the 1970s. In fact it could be said that in recent time our world is largely about hi-tech farting around --- web game sites, nonsense blogs, web conspiracy threads etc. Oh, and yes, there are the wars. We might in the end be just played a grand Ponzi game, a pyramid scheme based on energy and resources, and we might be reaching the limits on that --- endgame.
So things have not worked out exactly right. Even if we do manage to get a reasonable theory of cosmology and quantum gravity, chances are we will at best get tangential evidence to support it. So as Sting of the rock band “The Police” put it make the best of what is still around. Maybe we are just a way the universe becomes aware of itself up to some limit and then goes back to sleep.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
We all share your concern that there are limited resources and unlimited wants. However, I don't that that waiting around for the extinction of mankind is such a great idea. One of the reasons why we over use resources is because we all worry about keeping our jobs, particularly in this economy. Another reason that people need stuff to make them feel better is because physics pretty much cut the connection between people, and the God(s) that they worship. What choice do we have but to seek some happiness in materialism?
report post as inappropriate
We all share your concern that there are limited resources and unlimited wants. However, I don't that that waiting around for the extinction of mankind is such a great idea. One of the reasons why we over use resources is because we all worry about keeping our jobs, particularly in this economy. Another reason that people need stuff to make them feel better is because physics pretty much cut the connection between people, and the God(s) that they worship. What choice do we have but to seek some happiness in materialism?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
Lawrence has raised concerns that we are too wasteful with our resources. Personally, I don't need a lot of gadgets to survive. But if everyone in the world suddenly turns away from buying stuff, what happens to the economy? It crashes, right? Lots of people out of work. I would like to find some reasoable compromise between the Global warming crowd whose data isn't working out for them, and the real environmental issues like pollution. I am not someone who thinks that the human race is some kind of virus; that is a popular idea that creates fertile breading grounds for hate groups. I'm also not one of these anti-religion intellectuals who eagerly and melevolently looks forward to the day when humanity will go extinct and cockroaches will take our place. In spite of whatever scientific and intellectual mumbo jumbo some intellectual can squack that relegates humanity and compassion to some equation or chemical reaction, I think that humanity is precious and worth looking out for. If I could renounce mathematics as a religion, I would. I hereby burn my membership card to the "Humans have no soul" club.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence has raised concerns that we are too wasteful with our resources. Personally, I don't need a lot of gadgets to survive. But if everyone in the world suddenly turns away from buying stuff, what happens to the economy? It crashes, right? Lots of people out of work. I would like to find some reasoable compromise between the Global warming crowd whose data isn't working out for them, and the real environmental issues like pollution. I am not someone who thinks that the human race is some kind of virus; that is a popular idea that creates fertile breading grounds for hate groups. I'm also not one of these anti-religion intellectuals who eagerly and melevolently looks forward to the day when humanity will go extinct and cockroaches will take our place. In spite of whatever scientific and intellectual mumbo jumbo some intellectual can squack that relegates humanity and compassion to some equation or chemical reaction, I think that humanity is precious and worth looking out for. If I could renounce mathematics as a religion, I would. I hereby burn my membership card to the "Humans have no soul" club.
report post as inappropriate
I can't say the human species is going extinct in the very near future. E. O. Wilson talks about the bottleneck we all face. There is also the Jay Hanson site dieoff, which does tend towards misanthropy, but contains some interesting material. I think it very possible that our species will encounter yet another bottleneck here, not unlike previous ones and where the most recent which spawned our species. So with our engineered planetary mass extinction, and collapse or implosion of the human condition, there might for the next 100,000 years or more only be a few hundred thousand Homo sapiens in isolated population pockets around the planet. This might in fact be some crucible for future evolution of the hominid line we currently are on. On the other hand we might simply fade out into the dark.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The real problem with predicting such events is that nobody knows. Creativity is what it is; thus, we fill in the blanks with our own personality, our personal experience. If there is a bottleneck, I anticipate that the ones who survive will have a superior creativity to our own; they will be able to endure their present conditions while they dream of a better world.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
I can't speak for the entire world, but I think Americans are rather wasteful in general. It is true that if we slow down consumption, we will slow down our economy. But part of the problem with the economy is that many Americans overspent and overextended their debt in the early part of this decade. The government will never call this a 'Depression', but we may be in for a decade-long cycle with no economic growth. It might take two or three Presidential cycles and different Presidents to get us out of this mess. We could blaim it on the wars, but the reality is that Depressions happen every 50 years or so and we were due for one.
My family's retail store sells major appliances. More efficient washers (front-loaders and hybrid top-loaders) and refrigerators are very popular because our city has relatively high utility rates. Front-load washing machines use less electricity, less water, and less detergent than the average top-load washer, so consumers can continue to consume, but reduce their carbon footprint at the same time. Most people I know consider a washer and a refrigerator necessities, not luxuries.
We haven't fully tapped a variety of resources because they are more costly (solar and wind) or dirtier (coal and nuclear). As we consume our fossil fuels, we must make the tougher cost vs. benefit decisions of the other resources. I once studied Plasma Physics because I thought Nuclear Fusion was the future of our energy requirements: heavy hydrogen is abundant, and fusion is generally cleaner than fission. However, it is difficult to achieve, and became obvious that only the larger cities could afford the multi-billion dollar tokamaks. If we ever surpass the break-even point in fusion, then these larger cities could sell hydrogen gas to the smaller cities. We could have cars and smaller power plants that burn hydrogen and produce water steam. Yes - water is a greenhouse gas, but water is the cleanest waste I can think of.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
I can't speak for the entire world, but I think Americans are rather wasteful in general. It is true that if we slow down consumption, we will slow down our economy. But part of the problem with the economy is that many Americans overspent and overextended their debt in the early part of this decade. The government will never call this a 'Depression', but we may be in for a decade-long cycle with no economic growth. It might take two or three Presidential cycles and different Presidents to get us out of this mess. We could blaim it on the wars, but the reality is that Depressions happen every 50 years or so and we were due for one.
My family's retail store sells major appliances. More efficient washers (front-loaders and hybrid top-loaders) and refrigerators are very popular because our city has relatively high utility rates. Front-load washing machines use less electricity, less water, and less detergent than the average top-load washer, so consumers can continue to consume, but reduce their carbon footprint at the same time. Most people I know consider a washer and a refrigerator necessities, not luxuries.
We haven't fully tapped a variety of resources because they are more costly (solar and wind) or dirtier (coal and nuclear). As we consume our fossil fuels, we must make the tougher cost vs. benefit decisions of the other resources. I once studied Plasma Physics because I thought Nuclear Fusion was the future of our energy requirements: heavy hydrogen is abundant, and fusion is generally cleaner than fission. However, it is difficult to achieve, and became obvious that only the larger cities could afford the multi-billion dollar tokamaks. If we ever surpass the break-even point in fusion, then these larger cities could sell hydrogen gas to the smaller cities. We could have cars and smaller power plants that burn hydrogen and produce water steam. Yes - water is a greenhouse gas, but water is the cleanest waste I can think of.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Hi all ,
Dear James ,
I agree totaly with you .It is what I said too on the blog of Mr Oldershaw,the old school is the base .The superimposings at this moment becomes confusing .
You speak about an important piece of the puzzle,the referential and its uniqueness ,its laws ,invariants and constants .The base is the base.Einstin was the chief of the distorsions of equations .Like an utilisation of our imagination with the infinity .That implies of course the confusion if the evolution is considered .The personality I think is unique and thus the creativity too ,but I beleive strongly what the referential is essential even with the imaginaries ,the sisters of the EPR and the others paradoxs .The balance between the rationality and the unlimited creativity thus is young ,that implies an understood confusion .The uniqueness of a system ,created thus will be always inside the specific system where the imaginaries and the rationality at the unification becomes pefecty synchronized ,of course at this step of perception and understanding ,even the difference between them doesn't exist at this scale of evolution and harmonisation .This line of reasoning implies thus possible synchronizations between all imaginaries extraplations if and only if the universal referential is taken in its specificity ,where the zero ,the - and the infinity are analyzed with pragmatism with the pure physicality .
The reasonability thus becomes the sister of all our imaginary extrapolations .
With this perception ,the illusion of course is not a reality .
I liked a lot your words dear James ,
" For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning." the referential always and thus its limits .....
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear James ,
I agree totaly with you .It is what I said too on the blog of Mr Oldershaw,the old school is the base .The superimposings at this moment becomes confusing .
You speak about an important piece of the puzzle,the referential and its uniqueness ,its laws ,invariants and constants .The base is the base.Einstin was the chief of the distorsions of equations .Like an utilisation of our imagination with the infinity .That implies of course the confusion if the evolution is considered .The personality I think is unique and thus the creativity too ,but I beleive strongly what the referential is essential even with the imaginaries ,the sisters of the EPR and the others paradoxs .The balance between the rationality and the unlimited creativity thus is young ,that implies an understood confusion .The uniqueness of a system ,created thus will be always inside the specific system where the imaginaries and the rationality at the unification becomes pefecty synchronized ,of course at this step of perception and understanding ,even the difference between them doesn't exist at this scale of evolution and harmonisation .This line of reasoning implies thus possible synchronizations between all imaginaries extraplations if and only if the universal referential is taken in its specificity ,where the zero ,the - and the infinity are analyzed with pragmatism with the pure physicality .
The reasonability thus becomes the sister of all our imaginary extrapolations .
With this perception ,the illusion of course is not a reality .
I liked a lot your words dear James ,
" For me the key to correcting such theory is to include unity right from the beginning." the referential always and thus its limits .....
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
I keep hearing reports that CO2 levels rise after global temperatures rise, thus destroying the causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. I also keep hearing reports that we are in a global cooling period, not a global warming period. Furthermore, I am also hearing reports that climate change scientists are fudging their numbers because, like everyone else, they like getting paid, too.
My girlfriend keeps asking what I want for Christmas. I don't really need anything. Of course, I have lots of student loans and a car payment. I'm not a great aggregator of financial wealth. If we're in for a depression, then prosperity is just not in the cards.
The truth is that I'm not really interested in stuff; I like ideas and I am developing a fondness for human(e) topics, experiences, and things that require a soul. I'm not some souless hominid in a dying universe, waiting for the next iceage or Hitler to come along. Let's just face it; science has nothing to contribute to the important parts of life. First, the physics communty came for our religious convictons and they watered it down and undermined it. They murdered our God and told us we had no soul; that made it easier for the Nazis to kill millions. Or if you prefer someone more contemorary, a Sadam Hussein. He gave his two sons, republican guard and henchmen, a license to torture, rape and kill millions. After all, they were just hominids; they had no soul and no God; in fact, the universe is dying of heat death, so who really cares.
I'll describe my next attack on the speed of light when I'm not so pissed off.
report post as inappropriate
I keep hearing reports that CO2 levels rise after global temperatures rise, thus destroying the causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. I also keep hearing reports that we are in a global cooling period, not a global warming period. Furthermore, I am also hearing reports that climate change scientists are fudging their numbers because, like everyone else, they like getting paid, too.
My girlfriend keeps asking what I want for Christmas. I don't really need anything. Of course, I have lots of student loans and a car payment. I'm not a great aggregator of financial wealth. If we're in for a depression, then prosperity is just not in the cards.
The truth is that I'm not really interested in stuff; I like ideas and I am developing a fondness for human(e) topics, experiences, and things that require a soul. I'm not some souless hominid in a dying universe, waiting for the next iceage or Hitler to come along. Let's just face it; science has nothing to contribute to the important parts of life. First, the physics communty came for our religious convictons and they watered it down and undermined it. They murdered our God and told us we had no soul; that made it easier for the Nazis to kill millions. Or if you prefer someone more contemorary, a Sadam Hussein. He gave his two sons, republican guard and henchmen, a license to torture, rape and kill millions. After all, they were just hominids; they had no soul and no God; in fact, the universe is dying of heat death, so who really cares.
I'll describe my next attack on the speed of light when I'm not so pissed off.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
Don't let situations you can't control rule your emotions. Just do your best and be your best.
"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."
My wife asks me what I want for Christmas. I usually say "Peace on Earth" knowing that she and I can't make that happen by ourselves (and withdrawl from a war that leaves socio-economic chaos behind is not true peace), and knowing that she'll probably get me more clothes instead.
Climate is a tricky subject. It requires decades - and maybe centuries - of data to understand. It seems that our average temperature has risen slightly in the past century. If we project this out exponentially with the economic expansion of our most populous regions (such as China and India), then this could be a bad omen. On the Gulf Coast, we worry about Hurricane seasons becoming worse with time due to warmer waters. Only time will tell... I just hope I don't have to move to the hills of northern Georgia to find beach-front property.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Don't let situations you can't control rule your emotions. Just do your best and be your best.
"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."
My wife asks me what I want for Christmas. I usually say "Peace on Earth" knowing that she and I can't make that happen by ourselves (and withdrawl from a war that leaves socio-economic chaos behind is not true peace), and knowing that she'll probably get me more clothes instead.
Climate is a tricky subject. It requires decades - and maybe centuries - of data to understand. It seems that our average temperature has risen slightly in the past century. If we project this out exponentially with the economic expansion of our most populous regions (such as China and India), then this could be a bad omen. On the Gulf Coast, we worry about Hurricane seasons becoming worse with time due to warmer waters. Only time will tell... I just hope I don't have to move to the hills of northern Georgia to find beach-front property.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
It's not that I'm ruled by my emotions. I'm very tired of having to be a good little "scholar" who never gets mad or feels any passion. If I don't throw a fit now and again, it's like my emotions are dead. I don't want to be a "Vulcan", all logic and no passion. I want my passions to enrich people's lives; to inspire others to dig deep into their feelings. All this thermodynamics business is about systems in equilibrium, dead things. Biology and emotions could be a sign that nature doesn't like equilibrium. Maybe the laws of physics and/or the physics constants can be seen as equilibriums. In other words, how do we know that the equations of physics are not just iterative relationships. What if there are iterative relationships that enforce the physics constants. c = f(G,h); speed of light is an iterative function of Planck and gravitational constant. Planck cosntant h = f(c,time it takes for nature to establish enough resolution). And G = f(c, geometry). Three iterative relationships. My examples are just to get the conversation started. If there were three primary equations that iteratively arrive at the physics constants, then it might be possible to upset this equilibrium approaching iteration. In doing that, it might be possible to tamper with the constants themselves. But then: What are those three primary equilibrium equations?
report post as inappropriate
It's not that I'm ruled by my emotions. I'm very tired of having to be a good little "scholar" who never gets mad or feels any passion. If I don't throw a fit now and again, it's like my emotions are dead. I don't want to be a "Vulcan", all logic and no passion. I want my passions to enrich people's lives; to inspire others to dig deep into their feelings. All this thermodynamics business is about systems in equilibrium, dead things. Biology and emotions could be a sign that nature doesn't like equilibrium. Maybe the laws of physics and/or the physics constants can be seen as equilibriums. In other words, how do we know that the equations of physics are not just iterative relationships. What if there are iterative relationships that enforce the physics constants. c = f(G,h); speed of light is an iterative function of Planck and gravitational constant. Planck cosntant h = f(c,time it takes for nature to establish enough resolution). And G = f(c, geometry). Three iterative relationships. My examples are just to get the conversation started. If there were three primary equations that iteratively arrive at the physics constants, then it might be possible to upset this equilibrium approaching iteration. In doing that, it might be possible to tamper with the constants themselves. But then: What are those three primary equilibrium equations?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Was that a link? It didn't load anything.
I transitioned from a social/humanities topic to a possible way the laws of physics might be implemented. Was it too drastic a transition?
One of my talking points was that physics/engineering/chemistry/etc all rely that the system will approach an equilibrium. But "equilibrium" seems to imply "dead". There are lots of living systems that are not in equilibrium, animal life/biosphere/economony/emotions/etc... Systems that are not in equilbrium are probably too difficult to model or predict.
report post as inappropriate
Was that a link? It didn't load anything.
I transitioned from a social/humanities topic to a possible way the laws of physics might be implemented. Was it too drastic a transition?
One of my talking points was that physics/engineering/chemistry/etc all rely that the system will approach an equilibrium. But "equilibrium" seems to imply "dead". There are lots of living systems that are not in equilibrium, animal life/biosphere/economony/emotions/etc... Systems that are not in equilbrium are probably too difficult to model or predict.
report post as inappropriate
This thread has gone a bit off any physics track. I think this recession is a bit more than a siimple economic downturn. I think this is the beginning of American decline as a world power. It is very clear that China will be running the world by the mid-21st century, with Europe and India assuming sort of second place positions. The United States is a classic case of a declining power, which I suspect is evolving into a neo-third world nation state.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
Thank you again for your kind remarks. I wish to point out that when I have responded to your messages, I gave limited responses. That is because I have difficulty understanding what you are saying in English. This is not your failing, it is mine. I am a typical american who knows only English. The difficulties in communicating are mine. It is because people of other nationalities know more than one language that I can participate so well on the Internet. I thank you and all other non-English speaking people who learn English and make up for my deficiency.
James
report post as inappropriate
Thank you again for your kind remarks. I wish to point out that when I have responded to your messages, I gave limited responses. That is because I have difficulty understanding what you are saying in English. This is not your failing, it is mine. I am a typical american who knows only English. The difficulties in communicating are mine. It is because people of other nationalities know more than one language that I can participate so well on the Internet. I thank you and all other non-English speaking people who learn English and make up for my deficiency.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence,
I checked out the Jay Hanson die off link. You pretty much summarized what the link had to say. The link was anti-American; oh well. The world is still mad at us because we removed a tyrant from power; do you want him back? I'm not sure I know what China has that will give it the edge in the middle to late 21st century; perhaps motivation? Sure their economy is growing; they are a major user of oil now. Perhaps they will swallow up an oil country at some point in the future; Russia, I doubt it. China swallowing Iran might be a future headline. I doubt the Chinese will be too concerned about protecting the world oil supply. They would suck it dry, which is what the US gets falsely accused of.
report post as inappropriate
I checked out the Jay Hanson die off link. You pretty much summarized what the link had to say. The link was anti-American; oh well. The world is still mad at us because we removed a tyrant from power; do you want him back? I'm not sure I know what China has that will give it the edge in the middle to late 21st century; perhaps motivation? Sure their economy is growing; they are a major user of oil now. Perhaps they will swallow up an oil country at some point in the future; Russia, I doubt it. China swallowing Iran might be a future headline. I doubt the Chinese will be too concerned about protecting the world oil supply. They would suck it dry, which is what the US gets falsely accused of.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Crowell,
Ok so, as a physicist, you feel educated enough to make grand pronouncements about God and religion, and, now our political future. I would encourage you to first straighten out theoretical physics so that we no longer have wild theoretical speculation, but rather, practical empirically substantiated knowledge.
The United States of America will decline if we relinquish our foundational principles. The most important of these is to offer liberty to ourselves and others and, when severe difficulties arise, as in the American confrontation between slavery and freedom, to offer a rebirth of liberty to ourselves and others. Liberty is more important than individual survival.
Liberty is based upon the highest level of political intelligence achieved thus far. It is not the fruit of socialism or communism. It is the fruit of American style, as in the Bill of Rights, restricted individualism. The restriction seeks a balance between individual rights and the liberty of all. It is more valuable than economic security. Liberty requires us to remain vulnerable. It is worth the risks. Times may be good or they may be bad, but, liberty must survive.
If the world is going to have a chance to survive humanitarian crisis, or economical crisis, or environmental crisis, it is the United Sates of America that has the best attitude and means to help ourselves and the world to avoid these climaxes.
So much of the current academic attitude presents a grossly distorted universe, a grossly distorted idea of government, a grossly distorted idea of economics, a grossly distorted idea of morality, and a grossly distorted idea of the United States of America.
I do not know yet if this description applies to you or not. However, if fqxi should decide to start a thread on the character and future of America, I will participate.
James
report post as inappropriate
Ok so, as a physicist, you feel educated enough to make grand pronouncements about God and religion, and, now our political future. I would encourage you to first straighten out theoretical physics so that we no longer have wild theoretical speculation, but rather, practical empirically substantiated knowledge.
The United States of America will decline if we relinquish our foundational principles. The most important of these is to offer liberty to ourselves and others and, when severe difficulties arise, as in the American confrontation between slavery and freedom, to offer a rebirth of liberty to ourselves and others. Liberty is more important than individual survival.
Liberty is based upon the highest level of political intelligence achieved thus far. It is not the fruit of socialism or communism. It is the fruit of American style, as in the Bill of Rights, restricted individualism. The restriction seeks a balance between individual rights and the liberty of all. It is more valuable than economic security. Liberty requires us to remain vulnerable. It is worth the risks. Times may be good or they may be bad, but, liberty must survive.
If the world is going to have a chance to survive humanitarian crisis, or economical crisis, or environmental crisis, it is the United Sates of America that has the best attitude and means to help ourselves and the world to avoid these climaxes.
So much of the current academic attitude presents a grossly distorted universe, a grossly distorted idea of government, a grossly distorted idea of economics, a grossly distorted idea of morality, and a grossly distorted idea of the United States of America.
I do not know yet if this description applies to you or not. However, if fqxi should decide to start a thread on the character and future of America, I will participate.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
It is a link. It works for me. Just takes a little while to load. You can find it on You tube. Lyrics fitting the current debate and mood, IMO.
report post as inappropriate
It is a link. It works for me. Just takes a little while to load. You can find it on You tube. Lyrics fitting the current debate and mood, IMO.
report post as inappropriate
As an American, let me tell you why America will remain a dominant and influential nation for the next thousand years. You see, intellectual prowess and genius are useful in the short term; but from an evolutionary perspective, they are completely useless. The new hominids who will have amazing survival skills; they will come from places like the Jerry Springer Show and also anyone who makes a movie called Jackass. For some reason, evolution favors the dumbest and most obnoxious kinds of people. These same dumb and obnoxious people will continue to join the Armed Forces and run for elective office. For the next thousand years, the United States will occasionally get the itch to go to war; a Republican will get elected as president, a war will start, and a tyrant will be devoured. The world will always hate us and falsely accuse us of being an empire. For some strange reason, freedom will continue to spread.
For the strangest reason, these new hominids will not be able to say words like "extinction", "environment", or "hominid". They will believe in God, read horoscopes, and outlast the smart people by 500,000 years.
report post as inappropriate
For the strangest reason, these new hominids will not be able to say words like "extinction", "environment", or "hominid". They will believe in God, read horoscopes, and outlast the smart people by 500,000 years.
report post as inappropriate
Dear FQXi Friends,
Where did the hyperdrive blog go?
I like James' perspective.
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. Don't trust the government too far - they are nearly bankrupt themselves, special interest groups will get their piece of pie before any of the rest of us, and their fiat money is only as good as their ability to back it. I don't think that one President (or one political party) can get us out of this mess - regardless of how good a speaker he is. We are in a cyclical finacial crisis, and it may take two or three 'scapegoat' Presidents to slowly lead us out (unless we use a major war like FDR did with WWII). Don't trust large corporations too far - they are nearly bankrupt, and will pay their CEO's huge bonuses for mediocre performance before their shareholders see a penney. Don't trust the stock market too far - it may be a huge Ponzi scheme, and the brokers are higher up the pyramid than we are. Silver bullion is still affordable, but you can't eat it for breakfast. Our FQXi friend, Owen Cunningham got laid off a couple of days ago.
At the end of the day, all you can really count on is yourself, your intelligence, your strength, and your available resources (invest those wisely!). The future of America depends on the next generation. If they maintain their freedom and dignity, then individuals (like Jason or James) can invest everything they own into marketable ideas. Liberty and small business was the foundation of this country's wealth. Just imagine how wealthy Jason could be if he patented and marketed the first hyperdrive vehicle! I could say I knew you before you became a Billionaire.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Where did the hyperdrive blog go?
I like James' perspective.
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. Don't trust the government too far - they are nearly bankrupt themselves, special interest groups will get their piece of pie before any of the rest of us, and their fiat money is only as good as their ability to back it. I don't think that one President (or one political party) can get us out of this mess - regardless of how good a speaker he is. We are in a cyclical finacial crisis, and it may take two or three 'scapegoat' Presidents to slowly lead us out (unless we use a major war like FDR did with WWII). Don't trust large corporations too far - they are nearly bankrupt, and will pay their CEO's huge bonuses for mediocre performance before their shareholders see a penney. Don't trust the stock market too far - it may be a huge Ponzi scheme, and the brokers are higher up the pyramid than we are. Silver bullion is still affordable, but you can't eat it for breakfast. Our FQXi friend, Owen Cunningham got laid off a couple of days ago.
At the end of the day, all you can really count on is yourself, your intelligence, your strength, and your available resources (invest those wisely!). The future of America depends on the next generation. If they maintain their freedom and dignity, then individuals (like Jason or James) can invest everything they own into marketable ideas. Liberty and small business was the foundation of this country's wealth. Just imagine how wealthy Jason could be if he patented and marketed the first hyperdrive vehicle! I could say I knew you before you became a Billionaire.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Hi all ,
Dear James ,thanks .
To all ,
The last threads have a politico economico realism .....I insist on one fact important ,the humans are humans and it doesn' t exist differences between them .If the actual situation and the crisis is not taken universaly ,the problems shall be more important like a ultiplication and acceleraton of the chaotic systems .If the Earth continue to consider differences ,thus the checking will be a parameter of the local prosperity .
Whe you say Lawrence about USA and Chine ......I don't agree because the essential parameter is not inserted ,the universalism and its aim ,simply ,thus we are humans and that is all .I repeat and I think it a real important reality of our Universe in evolution .
Some human inventions are dedicated to disapear in Time and Space evolution ,fortunaly (weapons,borders, differences ,monney ,....)If a real universal community govern this planet ,all will be different and towards this harmony .The problem is not the universal laws ,but the young age of humans ,we are babies and we make errors ,but we evolve and thus we can improve ,optimize and harmonize.Of course now it is just a question of time and locality ....but I beleive strongly what the real solutions exist and are applicables furthermore by this simple fact the adapted harmonious sciences .
If we rest with our bad habits ,we shall add chaos ,on the other side if we apply the universalism ,it will be easier for all humans without differences .An american is an human ,a chinois is a human ,a musulman is a human ,a christian is a human ,a bouddhist is a human ,a black ,a white ,a blue ,a green ,....a rainbow this humanity ,a diversity of colors unified in this light ......we are youngs ,very youngs at the universal scale ,thus let' s improve the universality .
For the climat and the energy and the food ,simply the soils ,on air and in oceans ,it is the key of the balance on Earth ,a real harmony between animals and vegetals .Thus let's improve these soils .A global commission of the soil must be implanted on Earth ,it is essential .The argilo humic complex ,which I work since several years is the key with some adds by powders to dynamize the bio chem system and its interactions .With a good soil ,the rest is evidently more simple in the bio diversity of the global ecosystem .
The solutions exist .The problems too exist .....universalism or earth actual system ,to be or not to be .....
Take care humans and let' s improve the universalism the uited is a key too ,the ideas of 10 are better than the ideas of 1.All is there the complemenatrity towards the harmonisation ,the perfect sphere for me and its spheres.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear James ,thanks .
To all ,
The last threads have a politico economico realism .....I insist on one fact important ,the humans are humans and it doesn' t exist differences between them .If the actual situation and the crisis is not taken universaly ,the problems shall be more important like a ultiplication and acceleraton of the chaotic systems .If the Earth continue to consider differences ,thus the checking will be a parameter of the local prosperity .
Whe you say Lawrence about USA and Chine ......I don't agree because the essential parameter is not inserted ,the universalism and its aim ,simply ,thus we are humans and that is all .I repeat and I think it a real important reality of our Universe in evolution .
Some human inventions are dedicated to disapear in Time and Space evolution ,fortunaly (weapons,borders, differences ,monney ,....)If a real universal community govern this planet ,all will be different and towards this harmony .The problem is not the universal laws ,but the young age of humans ,we are babies and we make errors ,but we evolve and thus we can improve ,optimize and harmonize.Of course now it is just a question of time and locality ....but I beleive strongly what the real solutions exist and are applicables furthermore by this simple fact the adapted harmonious sciences .
If we rest with our bad habits ,we shall add chaos ,on the other side if we apply the universalism ,it will be easier for all humans without differences .An american is an human ,a chinois is a human ,a musulman is a human ,a christian is a human ,a bouddhist is a human ,a black ,a white ,a blue ,a green ,....a rainbow this humanity ,a diversity of colors unified in this light ......we are youngs ,very youngs at the universal scale ,thus let' s improve the universality .
For the climat and the energy and the food ,simply the soils ,on air and in oceans ,it is the key of the balance on Earth ,a real harmony between animals and vegetals .Thus let's improve these soils .A global commission of the soil must be implanted on Earth ,it is essential .The argilo humic complex ,which I work since several years is the key with some adds by powders to dynamize the bio chem system and its interactions .With a good soil ,the rest is evidently more simple in the bio diversity of the global ecosystem .
The solutions exist .The problems too exist .....universalism or earth actual system ,to be or not to be .....
Take care humans and let' s improve the universalism the uited is a key too ,the ideas of 10 are better than the ideas of 1.All is there the complemenatrity towards the harmonisation ,the perfect sphere for me and its spheres.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Jason,
because you asked. (According to the model I have been proposing.)
Energy is change in quaternion spatial position. It can be identified as kinetic energy within 3D vector space or promotional energy along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.
All matter and particles possess both forms of energy because change of spatial position is occurring both within 3D vector space and along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Potential energy is the potential to cause change in quaternion spatial position.
A small change in spatial position can lead to a subsequent larger change via the processes of chaos and complexity occurring within quaternion energy-space.
Change in position is conserved (and thus energy is also conserved) in that every change in position causes a further change in position of matter, particle or medium. There is thus ceaseless perpetual motion within the quaternion Mega-universe.
Therefore terminal entropy is not the inevitable fate of the universe. IMO.
report post as inappropriate
because you asked. (According to the model I have been proposing.)
Energy is change in quaternion spatial position. It can be identified as kinetic energy within 3D vector space or promotional energy along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.
All matter and particles possess both forms of energy because change of spatial position is occurring both within 3D vector space and along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Potential energy is the potential to cause change in quaternion spatial position.
A small change in spatial position can lead to a subsequent larger change via the processes of chaos and complexity occurring within quaternion energy-space.
Change in position is conserved (and thus energy is also conserved) in that every change in position causes a further change in position of matter, particle or medium. There is thus ceaseless perpetual motion within the quaternion Mega-universe.
Therefore terminal entropy is not the inevitable fate of the universe. IMO.
report post as inappropriate
With regard to my previous post,
when discussing entropy, argument based on the expansion of the universe does not apply to the model I propose. There can not be such expansion IMO as it does not permit explanation of gravity, that -is- possible with contraction along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.
It must be an "illusion" due to motion away from the origin of the EM observed, along the 4th spatio energetic dimension, which will be away from the origin of the EM of all of the stars. This could hypothetically give rise to the red rift which may be incorrectly interpreted as all of the stars moving away from the earth or telescope through 3D vector space. Movement away along the 4th spatio energetic dimension will also give spatial rotation.
Current universal expansion theory relies upon insertion of a cosmological constant to fit the observations, interpreted as expansion, with the scientific and mathematical framework. It is a "fix". There is not therefore theoretical verification of the supposition of expansion.
report post as inappropriate
when discussing entropy, argument based on the expansion of the universe does not apply to the model I propose. There can not be such expansion IMO as it does not permit explanation of gravity, that -is- possible with contraction along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension.
It must be an "illusion" due to motion away from the origin of the EM observed, along the 4th spatio energetic dimension, which will be away from the origin of the EM of all of the stars. This could hypothetically give rise to the red rift which may be incorrectly interpreted as all of the stars moving away from the earth or telescope through 3D vector space. Movement away along the 4th spatio energetic dimension will also give spatial rotation.
Current universal expansion theory relies upon insertion of a cosmological constant to fit the observations, interpreted as expansion, with the scientific and mathematical framework. It is a "fix". There is not therefore theoretical verification of the supposition of expansion.
report post as inappropriate
The one thing which marks our current age is the rapidity of events. The rate things change is exponentially increasing, and this has some resonance in history as well. If you want to look at civilizations which lasted (well nearly) a thousand years it is best to look at the Old Kingdom of Egypt. If you heap the new Kingdom and the Hyksos period between them Egypt worked out for nearly 2000 years. Long lasting Empires after then had a shorter duration, such as Rome. We can forwards to the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Britain and so forth and you might notice that the time frame for each of these is generally shorter. Now it is America's turn, and I expect the exponential contraction of time frames to have much the same result. If China takes the world center stage they might hold it for an even shorter time period. We live in an age of increasing impermanence.
http://vimeo.com/6437816
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
http://vimeo.com/6437816
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I hit the submit bar instead of what I wanted to do. The link is at
visualizing empires decline
which is kind of fun to watch.
As for America, this nation was founded on some good ideas which came out of the enlightenment. I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization. A lot of what we learned about the American Revolution is sort of silly. The real reason for the revolution was to grab land held by the Cherokee and Chocktaw nations, which formed buffer regions between the British and French Americas. This was negotiated in the end of the 7 Year War, called the French and Indian War here. It took Andrew Jackson to clear the natives out. The American Revolution was a complete disaster for native people here. I could write much more on this, but... time and space are limited.
I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
visualizing empires decline
which is kind of fun to watch.
As for America, this nation was founded on some good ideas which came out of the enlightenment. I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization. A lot of what we learned about the American Revolution is sort of silly. The real reason for the revolution was to grab land held by the Cherokee and Chocktaw nations, which formed buffer regions between the British and French Americas. This was negotiated in the end of the 7 Year War, called the French and Indian War here. It took Andrew Jackson to clear the natives out. The American Revolution was a complete disaster for native people here. I could write much more on this, but... time and space are limited.
I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
DR.
Crowell,
So is your point that the Declaration of Independence about all men, read that all people, are created equal was nothing more than a ruse to rout out the Indians? The patriots who fought and died did this so that others might grab Indian land?
"I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization."
Please go into depth.
James
report post as inappropriate
Crowell,
So is your point that the Declaration of Independence about all men, read that all people, are created equal was nothing more than a ruse to rout out the Indians? The patriots who fought and died did this so that others might grab Indian land?
"I don't want to go into depth on this, but there are some rather negative elements to our civilization."
Please go into depth.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Crowell,
Everyone and every discipline and every nation and every religion and every whatever has negative elements. This nation was founded on Great Principles such as self-government. Self-government is not silly. What is silly is thinking that the merit and worth of this country depends upon evaluating those things that really were or 'now appear to us' to be wrong, from today's perspective, with what American's did 100 and 200 or more years ago. What do you know about the difficulties and great challenges they faced? What would you have done then? What makes us worse and less deserving of success than other civilizations such as Stalinist Russia or Communist China?
Are numbers of people more important than quality of principles? Is liberty not worth the struggle of human endeavor? Is that your point? What is so perfect now, either in America or the rest, of any other part of the world, that has anything at all to do with risking losing liberty? Regardless of whatever else is happenning, because of politicians or university professors, the most important quality that American's, as a whole, have to offer to the world is liberty!
The last thing we, or the world, needs are panels of experts, or even worse a single panel, or even worse a single person of specialized but limited, this includes physicists, education deciding, or even worse 'declaring', how the rest of us must live our lives in order to be responsible and moral and right!
It seems to me that it is popular for intellectuals to declare previous generations as being innocent, immature, and underdeveloped and, lacking moral clarity. Now, I will say declaratively that: This generation knows very little about facing real challenges, and knows very little about real sacrifice and still to this day knows very little about the reason for existence, whether through physics or any other of our compartmentalized scientific endeavors.
Everyone is limited in their knowledge and correctness. That includes us today. Now would you please, until moderaters end this, please explain why America is worse compared to either others in history or today to the rest of the world?
James
James
report post as inappropriate
Everyone and every discipline and every nation and every religion and every whatever has negative elements. This nation was founded on Great Principles such as self-government. Self-government is not silly. What is silly is thinking that the merit and worth of this country depends upon evaluating those things that really were or 'now appear to us' to be wrong, from today's perspective, with what American's did 100 and 200 or more years ago. What do you know about the difficulties and great challenges they faced? What would you have done then? What makes us worse and less deserving of success than other civilizations such as Stalinist Russia or Communist China?
Are numbers of people more important than quality of principles? Is liberty not worth the struggle of human endeavor? Is that your point? What is so perfect now, either in America or the rest, of any other part of the world, that has anything at all to do with risking losing liberty? Regardless of whatever else is happenning, because of politicians or university professors, the most important quality that American's, as a whole, have to offer to the world is liberty!
The last thing we, or the world, needs are panels of experts, or even worse a single panel, or even worse a single person of specialized but limited, this includes physicists, education deciding, or even worse 'declaring', how the rest of us must live our lives in order to be responsible and moral and right!
It seems to me that it is popular for intellectuals to declare previous generations as being innocent, immature, and underdeveloped and, lacking moral clarity. Now, I will say declaratively that: This generation knows very little about facing real challenges, and knows very little about real sacrifice and still to this day knows very little about the reason for existence, whether through physics or any other of our compartmentalized scientific endeavors.
Everyone is limited in their knowledge and correctness. That includes us today. Now would you please, until moderaters end this, please explain why America is worse compared to either others in history or today to the rest of the world?
James
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
You said:"I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability."
It's funny you should mention righteousness and invulnerability; maybe we learned to do both 'better' then the empires of ages past. If American goes away and China becomes the world's superpower, do you think your freedoms will be any safer? I understand that freedom is difficult to deal with. It requires much more personal responsibility. You have the freedom to voice your opinion. Well, you would in the United States. I'm not sure Europe really likes freedom.
report post as inappropriate
You said:"I will say that a civilization is entering its greatest depths of trouble once its people begin to see themselves as having some mandate of righteousness or some invulnerability."
It's funny you should mention righteousness and invulnerability; maybe we learned to do both 'better' then the empires of ages past. If American goes away and China becomes the world's superpower, do you think your freedoms will be any safer? I understand that freedom is difficult to deal with. It requires much more personal responsibility. You have the freedom to voice your opinion. Well, you would in the United States. I'm not sure Europe really likes freedom.
report post as inappropriate
I posted a response to this, but on the wrong page. I put it on
The Art of Combining...
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The Art of Combining...
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
I've been overseas, to Germany when I was a young pup; and to Kuwait when I served in the US Army; I served during peace time. If the United States has supported or installed dictators such as Sadam Hussein/others, then that presidency was wrong to do it; whether or not it was a lesser of two evils decision, I cannot say. I am told that the US helped Sadam hussein get into power so that Iraq and Iran could slug it out for a while. If that is so, then we should have removed Sadam from power during the first gulf war. We Americans complain about our government; but the truth is, we have it so good here in the US. We have a lot of freedom, some health care, and a government that is trying to figure out how to best serve its people. In foreign lands, I seriously doubt that those governments give a damn about their citizens. If Kuwait, South Korea, present day Iraq, seem worse to those who wait for America to decline, let me tell you something. North Koreans are starving; I've seen video where a man was so hungry, he started munching on cow poop. South Koreans have had the US in their country for 60 years; they eat well and enjoy various freedoms. Before Sadam Hussein was removed from power, he was torturing people; not water torture or barking dogs (which was wrong), more like body shredders and rectally inserted coke bottles. There are still problems in Iraq/Kuwait, but the torture faciliities have been destroyed.
The Constitution of the United States has been a powerful document towards the cause of human and civil rights. Those human and civil rights have emerged in nations where the US intervened. I am pretty sure that the Chinese government, whom you are rooting for, would wipe their back side with our civil rights legislation. I'm sure the Tibetans would agree. But feel free to blame the United States if that makes you feel better. But don't look to the Chinese to improve anyones quality of life.
report post as inappropriate
I've been overseas, to Germany when I was a young pup; and to Kuwait when I served in the US Army; I served during peace time. If the United States has supported or installed dictators such as Sadam Hussein/others, then that presidency was wrong to do it; whether or not it was a lesser of two evils decision, I cannot say. I am told that the US helped Sadam hussein get into power so that Iraq and Iran could slug it out for a while. If that is so, then we should have removed Sadam from power during the first gulf war. We Americans complain about our government; but the truth is, we have it so good here in the US. We have a lot of freedom, some health care, and a government that is trying to figure out how to best serve its people. In foreign lands, I seriously doubt that those governments give a damn about their citizens. If Kuwait, South Korea, present day Iraq, seem worse to those who wait for America to decline, let me tell you something. North Koreans are starving; I've seen video where a man was so hungry, he started munching on cow poop. South Koreans have had the US in their country for 60 years; they eat well and enjoy various freedoms. Before Sadam Hussein was removed from power, he was torturing people; not water torture or barking dogs (which was wrong), more like body shredders and rectally inserted coke bottles. There are still problems in Iraq/Kuwait, but the torture faciliities have been destroyed.
The Constitution of the United States has been a powerful document towards the cause of human and civil rights. Those human and civil rights have emerged in nations where the US intervened. I am pretty sure that the Chinese government, whom you are rooting for, would wipe their back side with our civil rights legislation. I'm sure the Tibetans would agree. But feel free to blame the United States if that makes you feel better. But don't look to the Chinese to improve anyones quality of life.
report post as inappropriate
James,
Freedom of thought and speech are also important freedoms.
Learning sometimes involves changing ones former beliefs. Polite and reasoned debate with others allows current opinions to be modified in the light of additional information or a new perspective. I find that much that I used to believe, including much "received wisdom" and teaching is untrue but that does not mean that I was formerly ignorant or at fault. My former opinions were valid given the information I had available. I am still learning. To suppress thought and speech or to verbally attack another person because we dislike particular ideas, viewpoints or their expression is to hamper or prevent the free exchange of ideas and the opportunity to learn from each other. IMO.
report post as inappropriate
Freedom of thought and speech are also important freedoms.
Learning sometimes involves changing ones former beliefs. Polite and reasoned debate with others allows current opinions to be modified in the light of additional information or a new perspective. I find that much that I used to believe, including much "received wisdom" and teaching is untrue but that does not mean that I was formerly ignorant or at fault. My former opinions were valid given the information I had available. I am still learning. To suppress thought and speech or to verbally attack another person because we dislike particular ideas, viewpoints or their expression is to hamper or prevent the free exchange of ideas and the opportunity to learn from each other. IMO.
report post as inappropriate
Hi ,
Thus all is correlated with the good and universal governance .It is only simple like that ....a faith and universal people acts with compassion and rationality .A unconscious governor simply uses its power in a capitalist optic where the individualism becomes a sad reality .
At this moment the monney is like a tool even if it is going todisapear ,thus if this tool is given in the good hands ,that will go ,if not that will continue .......Thus a real earth commission ,universl and totaly universal without differences must be implanted .To divide to better reign is not a good solution ,perhaps only for the individualist ,but in an universal and evolutive point of vue ,of course it is different .At this scale all is the same with its secificities and uniqueness .This line of reasoning implies thus an universal equation where ther intelligence and the consciouss are parameters of the harmony .The young age of humans must be well analyzed ,the time thus is a hope .Can we analyze this actual system only with some years of history .2000 years ,10000 years ,100000 years .....and the 13.7 to 15 billions years .....just a fraction of seconds .Our perception must have the large scale to encircle the real aim of a created system like us ,humans.If the universal laws are applicated ,that will go ,if we continue to apply the human inventions non harmonics ,that won't go.
Best Regards to all ,and thanks for your relevances.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Thus all is correlated with the good and universal governance .It is only simple like that ....a faith and universal people acts with compassion and rationality .A unconscious governor simply uses its power in a capitalist optic where the individualism becomes a sad reality .
At this moment the monney is like a tool even if it is going todisapear ,thus if this tool is given in the good hands ,that will go ,if not that will continue .......Thus a real earth commission ,universl and totaly universal without differences must be implanted .To divide to better reign is not a good solution ,perhaps only for the individualist ,but in an universal and evolutive point of vue ,of course it is different .At this scale all is the same with its secificities and uniqueness .This line of reasoning implies thus an universal equation where ther intelligence and the consciouss are parameters of the harmony .The young age of humans must be well analyzed ,the time thus is a hope .Can we analyze this actual system only with some years of history .2000 years ,10000 years ,100000 years .....and the 13.7 to 15 billions years .....just a fraction of seconds .Our perception must have the large scale to encircle the real aim of a created system like us ,humans.If the universal laws are applicated ,that will go ,if we continue to apply the human inventions non harmonics ,that won't go.
Best Regards to all ,and thanks for your relevances.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
This is a response to comments left on "The Art of Combining..." blog site.
I have a trace of Minorcan in me. My Minorcan ancestors came to New Smyrna, Florida as endentured servants as part of Dr. Andrew Turnbull's British colonial experiment in the late 1700's. The slave ship from Africa shipwrecked and all were presumed dead, so the endentured Mediteranean peoples of Dr. Turnbull's colony effectively became the slaves. They endured hardships, disease and death until they finally marched to St. Augustine and asked the Governor of East Florida for freedom.
My wife is part Cherokee. They were forced off of their lands (recognized by British treaty) by the State of Georgia and the Federal Government because of the Georgia Gold Rush.
I live in the South. I have seen the dangers of racism.
I know that America isn't perfect. The Constitution gave rights to white, male, landowners, but was designed to be changed - to adapt with the generations, and thankfully it has.
Freedom of thought and freedom to pursue our individual dreams is important. It was those freedoms that helped America become the Superpower that we are today.
Every generation has a choice to be great, or to fade away into history.
Our current national debt is about $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. How far will our Debtors allow us to extend our credit? $50,000 or $100,000 per person? At some point, they will ask for a substantial payment or collateral. What happens when the Federal Government asks a large state like Texas or California for a trillion dollars, and the state says "No, you spent that money on Special Interests, not on our State"? If one state splits from the Union, we could imagine a chain reaction whereby the South, Midwest and Northeast also become independent countries, and the "US" becomes at least 5 different nations split along historical, regional, cultural, and/or racial lines. The USSR faced a financial crisis (may I emphasize that financial crises are cyclical and 'normal', but to Lawrence's point they may grow exponentially more extreme) and split into 15 different nations.
That is one scenario whereby America could collapse. Another is if we give away our freedom in exchange for 'phantom' security. I say 'phantom' security because you never have real security without real freedom. In the past 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than have been killed in wars.
America isn't perfect, but I'm not perfect, and I don't know any perfect people either.
Can we get back to hyperdrives? I want to see Jason make his first billion dollars.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
This is a response to comments left on "The Art of Combining..." blog site.
I have a trace of Minorcan in me. My Minorcan ancestors came to New Smyrna, Florida as endentured servants as part of Dr. Andrew Turnbull's British colonial experiment in the late 1700's. The slave ship from Africa shipwrecked and all were presumed dead, so the endentured Mediteranean peoples of Dr. Turnbull's colony effectively became the slaves. They endured hardships, disease and death until they finally marched to St. Augustine and asked the Governor of East Florida for freedom.
My wife is part Cherokee. They were forced off of their lands (recognized by British treaty) by the State of Georgia and the Federal Government because of the Georgia Gold Rush.
I live in the South. I have seen the dangers of racism.
I know that America isn't perfect. The Constitution gave rights to white, male, landowners, but was designed to be changed - to adapt with the generations, and thankfully it has.
Freedom of thought and freedom to pursue our individual dreams is important. It was those freedoms that helped America become the Superpower that we are today.
Every generation has a choice to be great, or to fade away into history.
Our current national debt is about $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. How far will our Debtors allow us to extend our credit? $50,000 or $100,000 per person? At some point, they will ask for a substantial payment or collateral. What happens when the Federal Government asks a large state like Texas or California for a trillion dollars, and the state says "No, you spent that money on Special Interests, not on our State"? If one state splits from the Union, we could imagine a chain reaction whereby the South, Midwest and Northeast also become independent countries, and the "US" becomes at least 5 different nations split along historical, regional, cultural, and/or racial lines. The USSR faced a financial crisis (may I emphasize that financial crises are cyclical and 'normal', but to Lawrence's point they may grow exponentially more extreme) and split into 15 different nations.
That is one scenario whereby America could collapse. Another is if we give away our freedom in exchange for 'phantom' security. I say 'phantom' security because you never have real security without real freedom. In the past 100 years, more people have been killed by their own governments than have been killed in wars.
America isn't perfect, but I'm not perfect, and I don't know any perfect people either.
Can we get back to hyperdrives? I want to see Jason make his first billion dollars.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
And if we speak about arms and weapons in total transparence .....THIS STUPID ?HORRIBLE AND INCREDIBLE INVENTION must be what ?? an human equation ,monney +weapons +vanity +education =chaos ,differences and stupidities .thus wars ...if the stupids humans hane not arms in their hands ,of course the things shall be different ....don't turn around the pot ,
It is not the fault of a state or a country or a religion ,no the problem is simple ,it exists bad and good people everywhere and they imply the chaos due to their tools ,the equation is simple ,.....
Regards
STEVE
report post as inappropriate
It is not the fault of a state or a country or a religion ,no the problem is simple ,it exists bad and good people everywhere and they imply the chaos due to their tools ,the equation is simple ,.....
Regards
STEVE
report post as inappropriate
We did sort of detour here a bit. My point mainly is that things around us are never as certain as we would want to think. It is a human characteristic to see their tribe, god(s), rituals, tradition etc as something far superior to everyone elses. This continues with the modern world every bit as much as with the past. Further, with time compression due to the rate that things change we live in an age of impermanence far more than in the past.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Yes that is a sort of detour but it is essential .Here is my little point of vue .
The things around us are the same for all ,only the human point of vue can be chaotic.
The reason is to be universal ,the rest is not important .The evolution and the improvement of course are a real hope to decrease the stupidity.
If you give a game to a young people ,his age is 6 years ,and if on the box ,we see ,interdfiction under 12 years ,thus you can correlate this fact with our actual tools .Don't give tools to a unconscious people thus .It is only simple like that .
If the differences are made ,it is impossible and of course don't confound the specificity and the uniqueness with the individualism ,there a balance too is necessary .The human is a simple catalyzer of the physicality in evolution and optimization .Our story is just a step and our errors too ,the time is more important than just our age .
It exist ionly one tribe ,the humanity and its aim .The universe is not a play ,just a foundamental evolution towards the perfect harmony between mass systems ,spheres and their lifes and creations ,these polarisations of complementarity .All is complementary ,all .
The future is a harmony .
What is our rule of humans ,simply catalyzers of the truth .The sufferings thus in this line of ectrapolation will disapear like the stupids imaginaries inventians implying chaos .The present becomes thus a time of responsability where the past is analyzed ,studied to improve and evitate the errors and that to be in the synchronization of the universe and its aim .The polarisations aren't there for nothing ,all has a rule of complementarity if and only if the foundamentals are inserted with pragmatism .We can't fortunaly change this universality and it is well like that .The future =hope thus .......
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
The things around us are the same for all ,only the human point of vue can be chaotic.
The reason is to be universal ,the rest is not important .The evolution and the improvement of course are a real hope to decrease the stupidity.
If you give a game to a young people ,his age is 6 years ,and if on the box ,we see ,interdfiction under 12 years ,thus you can correlate this fact with our actual tools .Don't give tools to a unconscious people thus .It is only simple like that .
If the differences are made ,it is impossible and of course don't confound the specificity and the uniqueness with the individualism ,there a balance too is necessary .The human is a simple catalyzer of the physicality in evolution and optimization .Our story is just a step and our errors too ,the time is more important than just our age .
It exist ionly one tribe ,the humanity and its aim .The universe is not a play ,just a foundamental evolution towards the perfect harmony between mass systems ,spheres and their lifes and creations ,these polarisations of complementarity .All is complementary ,all .
The future is a harmony .
What is our rule of humans ,simply catalyzers of the truth .The sufferings thus in this line of ectrapolation will disapear like the stupids imaginaries inventians implying chaos .The present becomes thus a time of responsability where the past is analyzed ,studied to improve and evitate the errors and that to be in the synchronization of the universe and its aim .The polarisations aren't there for nothing ,all has a rule of complementarity if and only if the foundamentals are inserted with pragmatism .We can't fortunaly change this universality and it is well like that .The future =hope thus .......
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Thank you for your message. I will respond to you and others in my own forum. The response is not there yet. I will let you know when. You are correct that free thought and speech are imortant parts of liberty. I am uncomfortable discussing this subject in this forum. This website is a science site so I will delay for a little while and see what the moderators have to say. In the meantime I will prepare a message. One question to you: Why did you not submit an essay entry? You are very active otherwise.
James
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your message. I will respond to you and others in my own forum. The response is not there yet. I will let you know when. You are correct that free thought and speech are imortant parts of liberty. I am uncomfortable discussing this subject in this forum. This website is a science site so I will delay for a little while and see what the moderators have to say. In the meantime I will prepare a message. One question to you: Why did you not submit an essay entry? You are very active otherwise.
James
report post as inappropriate
While Lawrence was deriding gods, rituals and traditions, one of the chains that bars the darkness, the evil within every human, was allowed to escape, for it felt no fear of eternal retribution. As humanity continues to withdraw from the Creator, more darkness will come forth. Perhaps it is better to let the faithful do what they are intended to do.
It is better to let those of different faiths find some common ground, then it is to deny the Creator's existeence.
report post as inappropriate
It is better to let those of different faiths find some common ground, then it is to deny the Creator's existeence.
report post as inappropriate
The recent period of the human race, since the Younger Dryas, has seen a comparatively stable climate, no significant asteroid impacts, moderate volcanism and so forth. About 10,000 years ago our ancestors began to transition from hunter-gathering to horticulture and later agriculture. Then about 5000 years ago villages grew into towns and eventually cities. So here we are, having consumed a...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Crowell,
What does your message have to do with the Year of the Warp Drive? Why don't you request a special forum? I would participate.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
What does your message have to do with the Year of the Warp Drive? Why don't you request a special forum? I would participate.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Well above I argue pretty much that warp drives will not happen. To be honest I think they are physically impossible. They are similar to perpetual motion machines or time travel. I mentioned how our view of the future has changed, and so forth. What I am saying largely is that we are in a whole lot of trouble, and the future seems to be taking us further away from science fiction ideas --- except for maybe Soylent Green.
LC
report post as inappropriate
LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Crowell,
What kind of society or form of government do you think might be a solution to the problems that you see stemming from the Year of the Warp Drive? Is there a present name for it?
James
report post as inappropriate
What kind of society or form of government do you think might be a solution to the problems that you see stemming from the Year of the Warp Drive? Is there a present name for it?
James
report post as inappropriate
As a proponent of the warp drive, the biggest obstacle I see is that we do not have clarity on how the space/space-time architecture is constructed. We just don't know how the laws of physics are implemented. It could be an E8 or some kind of space-time crystal lattice; it could just as easily be some kind of amorphous aether-like brane. Whatever implements space-time, we have to take a piece of it, the piece with the hyperdrive starship inside, surround it with some kind of warp field, and transmit equal/opposite momentum from the spaceship, through the warp field, into some kind of hyperspace. For right now, we'll just have to wait for more physical evidence. By the way, the dark matter that we discussed a couple of pages ago, is probably significant. There seem to be invisible yet gravitationally significant objects in space, called dark matter. Whatever dark matter is, it doesn't seem to acknowledge light, because light passes right through it. Perhaps these are regions of space where the permitivity and permeability are zero? Just a thought.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
As I indicated the group velocity of a wave can change so it is greater than the speed of light. The general problem with warp drives or any system which is proposed to travel between points x and y at a speed faster than light is that one can easily transform coordinates of observation so that you travel from y to x. It would also be possible to transform the opening points x and y, if these lead wormholes or some other spacetime where its purported speed of light is c' >> c in our spacetime, so that you get time travel or closed timelike curves.
I suppose this is in part why things got a bit on the un optimistic side, for the future we see today is not at all working out to be the future seen in the past.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I suppose this is in part why things got a bit on the un optimistic side, for the future we see today is not at all working out to be the future seen in the past.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The connection between space and time via the speed of light is nothing more than the propagation of electromagnetic fields to connect charges. In other words, electric and magnetic fields connect electric charges. At velocities v > c, charges between the two inertial frames can no longer interact. FTL is potentially a cloaking technology, as well. Space-time is not a movie reel that you can rewind. If you find a way to travel FTL, you lose the ability to interact with the physical universe. The problem with FTL is that it constitutes a separate space-time that doesn't easily project into our space-time. What is the difference between an object in another dimension versus an object in our 3D space that cannot interact via electromagnetic forces? If charge interactibility can be considered sufficient to represent regions within a dimension, then velocity of charge interaction would lead to a second space-time. So why don't charges from two different space-times interact? Why do charges interact at all? If we knew that, we would know why charges of different space-times don't interact. With that information, we could look at the conditions necessary to make two space-times interface with each other.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
The speed of light is really a conversion factor between time and space. It happens to define the paths which massless particle travel on, such as photons. Anything travelling along a spacelike interval (FTL) can interact with the rest of the universe. By the simple fact you travel from x to y and carry information you communicate is an example of interacting with the exterior universe.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
I think we take the words "information" and "information content" for granted. To say that information can only travel at the speed of light is true, subject to the absence of evidence of a second space-time. We really don't know what space/space-time is made of; so we can't really confirm or eliminate the possibility that a second space-time exists. If a second space-time actually did exist, I could potentially transduce particles or signals to the FTL space-time, then transduce them back into this space-time. No time travel results.
report post as inappropriate
I think we take the words "information" and "information content" for granted. To say that information can only travel at the speed of light is true, subject to the absence of evidence of a second space-time. We really don't know what space/space-time is made of; so we can't really confirm or eliminate the possibility that a second space-time exists. If a second space-time actually did exist, I could potentially transduce particles or signals to the FTL space-time, then transduce them back into this space-time. No time travel results.
report post as inappropriate
If you had two spacetimes that are connected by some bridge, similar to a wormhole (in fact it is a wormhole), then you could in principle boost that opening so as to make a time machine. The connecting region between the two spacetimes is essentially a wormhole, and this can be looked at in some more extensive length than I can write about as the wikipedia site on wormholes.
General faster than light ideas can be found here as well. In effect any faster than light travel can by various means be transformed into travel through time by general relativity.
Arguing this is becoming somewhat fruitless, as you keep wanting to wordsmith things in ways so as to shave down a point. These things have been pretty extensively studied, and they all lead to various uncomfortable conclusions. The configurations are unstable. Such as crossing a wormhole bridge or what might be called a stargate into another region so as to return to our spacetime at some other point. This is a multiply connected topology, which can only exist for certain vacuum configurations where T^{00} < 0, such as a Boulware vacuum across an event horizon. This can potentially happen for near Planck scale physics where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will permit a ΔT^{00} < 0, so there is a quantum virtual wormhole. Yet this is a nonlocal connection which can’t communicate information.
One reason why earlier I got into the thread on how the future is not shaping up as we once thought is to illustrate how one really should not pursue physics with some idea of a purpose or future prospect. It is best in my opinion to remain neutral on that matter. This is one reason I am not a partisan of the strong anthropic cosmological principle. For all we know our future path might in fact be some spectacular planet-wide train wreck, or where we fade out into the dark as the last financial investment scheme which profits for a time is Soylent Green. We are observers in the universe, but for all we know we might just be some sort of highly improbable fluke. Though in a spatial universe that is infinite anything which is not forbidden or impossible is in a sense mandatory.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
General faster than light ideas can be found here as well. In effect any faster than light travel can by various means be transformed into travel through time by general relativity.
Arguing this is becoming somewhat fruitless, as you keep wanting to wordsmith things in ways so as to shave down a point. These things have been pretty extensively studied, and they all lead to various uncomfortable conclusions. The configurations are unstable. Such as crossing a wormhole bridge or what might be called a stargate into another region so as to return to our spacetime at some other point. This is a multiply connected topology, which can only exist for certain vacuum configurations where T^{00} < 0, such as a Boulware vacuum across an event horizon. This can potentially happen for near Planck scale physics where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle will permit a ΔT^{00} < 0, so there is a quantum virtual wormhole. Yet this is a nonlocal connection which can’t communicate information.
One reason why earlier I got into the thread on how the future is not shaping up as we once thought is to illustrate how one really should not pursue physics with some idea of a purpose or future prospect. It is best in my opinion to remain neutral on that matter. This is one reason I am not a partisan of the strong anthropic cosmological principle. For all we know our future path might in fact be some spectacular planet-wide train wreck, or where we fade out into the dark as the last financial investment scheme which profits for a time is Soylent Green. We are observers in the universe, but for all we know we might just be some sort of highly improbable fluke. Though in a spatial universe that is infinite anything which is not forbidden or impossible is in a sense mandatory.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I am also starting to think that arguing about FTL propulsion is fruitless. You keep using the wormhole/time machine argument. I keep running into the dilemma that nobody, including either of us, really knows how space-time is implemented or what it's made out of. The other problem is that neither FTL propulsion nor wormholes have ever been observed; so we're both arguing from positions of deep speculation. However, we are both trying to argue from logical and carefully considered points of view.
If you want to exclude the existence from wormholes, that's fine with me. I'm not arguing for wormholes, stargates, time machines or perpetual motion machines. For FTL propulsion to be possible, a second space-time has to exist. This is where it starts getting hard to understand. I have to temporarily manipulate the relationship between two space-times in order to get a bubble of standard space-time, with the spaceship inside of it, to exist in the FTL spacetime/hyperspace. The metaphor would be a bubble of air under the water. The issue becomes, can I get the bubble in the first place? You will argue that a bubble leads to a waterspout which is basically a worm hole. I will argue that if you try to do this, the waterspout (wormhole) collapses, and your spaceship is back in regular space-time (possibly in many pieces). The wormhole cannot become stabilized. But I don't need a stable wormhole. I need a bubble of space-time to occur in hyperspace. When the rockets fire, high energy gas is pumped into another bubble. That bubble moves away at a very high speed. The two bubbles will obey conservation of momentum and conservation of energy laws within hyperspace; the two bubbles are effectively hyperspace objects. Your next question I anticipate/hope will be, "how do you create a space-time bubble in hyperspace?" More realistically, your stubbornly persistent response will be "you can still create a wormhole, therefore FTL = time travel."
It's Christmas time. I implore you, don't deny me the question! Just ask it!
report post as inappropriate
If you want to exclude the existence from wormholes, that's fine with me. I'm not arguing for wormholes, stargates, time machines or perpetual motion machines. For FTL propulsion to be possible, a second space-time has to exist. This is where it starts getting hard to understand. I have to temporarily manipulate the relationship between two space-times in order to get a bubble of standard space-time, with the spaceship inside of it, to exist in the FTL spacetime/hyperspace. The metaphor would be a bubble of air under the water. The issue becomes, can I get the bubble in the first place? You will argue that a bubble leads to a waterspout which is basically a worm hole. I will argue that if you try to do this, the waterspout (wormhole) collapses, and your spaceship is back in regular space-time (possibly in many pieces). The wormhole cannot become stabilized. But I don't need a stable wormhole. I need a bubble of space-time to occur in hyperspace. When the rockets fire, high energy gas is pumped into another bubble. That bubble moves away at a very high speed. The two bubbles will obey conservation of momentum and conservation of energy laws within hyperspace; the two bubbles are effectively hyperspace objects. Your next question I anticipate/hope will be, "how do you create a space-time bubble in hyperspace?" More realistically, your stubbornly persistent response will be "you can still create a wormhole, therefore FTL = time travel."
It's Christmas time. I implore you, don't deny me the question! Just ask it!
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
If Quantum Gravity is the key to understanding the relationship between Spacetime and Hyperspace, then we need to find large gravitational fields - Black Holes - to test this hypothesis. Although I think there is another time dimension, it could be imaginary time. How would that tie into your ideas?
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
If Quantum Gravity is the key to understanding the relationship between Spacetime and Hyperspace, then we need to find large gravitational fields - Black Holes - to test this hypothesis. Although I think there is another time dimension, it could be imaginary time. How would that tie into your ideas?
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
I wrote a book on the issue of sending probes to nearby stars. I discussed some of the issues of wormholes and how they can be converted to time machines. This figure is from the book and illustrates how the so called twin paradox can lead to time travel. The two openings of the wormhole are illustrated in a spacetime diagram. The opening on the right is sent out at near light speed, and then accelerated back in the opposite direction at again near light speed. The numbers illustrate the local intervals of time on clocks near the two openings. So an observer travels from near the left face at near light speed, jumps in the right opening and emerges in the left opening at the coincident times. The winding through the worm hole continues and there is a piling up of this geodesic at a Cauchy horizon. Now if the observer elects to do this winding around the wormhole in the region future to the Cauchy horizon there is again a piling up of geodesics which approach the Cauchy horizon from the future. This is the region of closed timelike curves, or a time machine.
Now instead of there being a worm hole, we just think of these openings as any sort of stargate, even if it connects to another spacetime with c’ >> c. Since the interval between the right face and the left (the spacetime connection between jumping in the right opening and emerging from the left) is spacelike I can always choose a frame where the observer emerges from the left opening at a time coincident with entering the right. So the same winding up of paths will occur so there is a Cauchy horizon. The region to the future of the horizon will then be a “time machine,” or a region of closed timelike curves.
Cheers LC
attachments: fig11_3.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Now instead of there being a worm hole, we just think of these openings as any sort of stargate, even if it connects to another spacetime with c’ >> c. Since the interval between the right face and the left (the spacetime connection between jumping in the right opening and emerging from the left) is spacelike I can always choose a frame where the observer emerges from the left opening at a time coincident with entering the right. So the same winding up of paths will occur so there is a Cauchy horizon. The region to the future of the horizon will then be a “time machine,” or a region of closed timelike curves.
Cheers LC
attachments: fig11_3.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ray,
If quantum gravity is about closed loops in space-time, that just sounds too much like "reel to reel" physics; I don't see how we can rewind back in time. As for manipulating gravity in some convenient way, I tend to think of gravity as similar to an electric flux similar to E=epsilon*D where epsilon is the permitivity. In the case of gravity, G is a dielectric which is dependent upon the particular space-time in question; G should scale as (c'/c)^2.
Physics has probably gone as far as it can with what we can experiment with and look at from space; I am hopeful that someday we might come across some strange new material that might provide a way. I agree with Lawrence that it is probably impossible to create a stable wormhole and/or stargate. Perhaps if you try to accelerate one side of it, there is an ever increasing chance it will become unstable some how. If I can generate a space-time bubble in hyperspace, every attempt to make a stable wormhole will undoubtedly fail.
Lawrence assumes: GR --> FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = branch is impossible.
I argue that: GR --> FTL = possible;
however, FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = impossible.
I am not, as Lawrence suggests, "word-smithing". It is Lawrence who stubbornly grasps wormholes as a defense against FTL. The mathematics that he uses is only as good as the universe's willingness to obey it. All of Lawrence's mathematics are based on equilibrium conditions. Yet nature has demonstrated it's ability to manifest stable systems that are not in equilibrium. If FTL propulsion relies upon a delicate balance between our space-time and a temporarily existing FTL space-time, then traveling FTL for a few light years might be possible. Then again, I don't have the credentials needed to be able to stubbornly ignore the nuance that FTL propulsion can be accomplished without wormholes.
report post as inappropriate
If quantum gravity is about closed loops in space-time, that just sounds too much like "reel to reel" physics; I don't see how we can rewind back in time. As for manipulating gravity in some convenient way, I tend to think of gravity as similar to an electric flux similar to E=epsilon*D where epsilon is the permitivity. In the case of gravity, G is a dielectric which is dependent upon the particular space-time in question; G should scale as (c'/c)^2.
Physics has probably gone as far as it can with what we can experiment with and look at from space; I am hopeful that someday we might come across some strange new material that might provide a way. I agree with Lawrence that it is probably impossible to create a stable wormhole and/or stargate. Perhaps if you try to accelerate one side of it, there is an ever increasing chance it will become unstable some how. If I can generate a space-time bubble in hyperspace, every attempt to make a stable wormhole will undoubtedly fail.
Lawrence assumes: GR --> FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = branch is impossible.
I argue that: GR --> FTL = possible;
however, FTL --> wormhole --> time travel = impossible.
I am not, as Lawrence suggests, "word-smithing". It is Lawrence who stubbornly grasps wormholes as a defense against FTL. The mathematics that he uses is only as good as the universe's willingness to obey it. All of Lawrence's mathematics are based on equilibrium conditions. Yet nature has demonstrated it's ability to manifest stable systems that are not in equilibrium. If FTL propulsion relies upon a delicate balance between our space-time and a temporarily existing FTL space-time, then traveling FTL for a few light years might be possible. Then again, I don't have the credentials needed to be able to stubbornly ignore the nuance that FTL propulsion can be accomplished without wormholes.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
General Relativity says that space and time are intertwined, therefore FTL travel = time travel is a REASONABLE assumption. What you need to hope for is the possibility that this symmetry is broken by a new (as yet undiscovered) Quantum Gravity. I fully undersatnd Lawrence's position, and your desire to accomplish the 'impossible'.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
General Relativity says that space and time are intertwined, therefore FTL travel = time travel is a REASONABLE assumption. What you need to hope for is the possibility that this symmetry is broken by a new (as yet undiscovered) Quantum Gravity. I fully undersatnd Lawrence's position, and your desire to accomplish the 'impossible'.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
The wormhole is used as an example of any sort of opening in our spacetime cosmology that either bridges two regions in the universe or which connect with some other spacetime. In effect your idea amounts to a wormhole from our universe to another one, where you can travel at some c' >> c and then enter another wormhole to reenter our universe. You also presume that times in the two spacetimes are synchronized in some way, which is a broad assumption, but I will let that go for now. Exchange the terms wormhole for opening or what ever. Then if you can lasso an opening in our universe and accelerate it in the way I pictured with wormhole openings you then have closed timelike curves --- a time machine.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
That is why FTL appears to be impossible. You are reaching for a wormhole. A wormhole is not necessary. You leave space-time with a bubble of space-time. That bubble is drifting in hyperspace. You don't care about the clock for hyperspace because that flow of time is occurring outside of the bubble. You can worry about getting lost in hyperspace; you can worry about the flow of time in the bubble being different from the flow of time in the rest of the universe. It is also reasonable to wonder how you create the bubble in the first place. You are over reaching; you don't need a worm hole. All you need is a bubble. The laws of the universe are telling you that a wormhole is too much to ask for. So don't ask for what the universe won't give you. Ask for something smaller that doesn't attempt to violate causality. A wormhole violates causality. A bubble does not.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
It looks as if world sheets already have built into them a "reel to reel" like quality in that the time dimension or ct is assumed to exist across all time. This give the impression that it's possible to construct a wormhole between two events in space and time. Maybe a fuse with a long wick might be a better model. The fuse can always burn fast or slow, but it can't 'un'-burn.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
The Hubble Space Telescope can "see" back in time to the early moments of the big-bang, but the same HST cannot see 3 or 2 seconds ago? Think how many moments have occured from the big-bang to "now", HST must be seeing through a large number of "past,now moments" to focus in on about 3-seconds after the "big-bang", how do you set a destination, if you do not actually know the "time" of the location you want to travel to?
When the HST first recieved images, the time-stamp, or physical date given to the images were of a couple millions light years ago, then HST recieved images of older period..etc..etc how come?
Why could not HST be tuned to just 3 seconds ago?..what if 3 seconds ago was really the big-bang, what if to travel away from the "now", a second ago or 3seconds ago, will br the big-bang, just by violating the spacetime continuum, may trigger the actual big-bang?
Our "now" has energy conservation to adhere to, send one molocule out of our "now" would have vast entropic consequences?
Nobody or anything has access in sight, sound or other physical process to any time domain other than "now"! It may be that we need to physically send the HST back to the Universe early moments, to actually confirm any evidence of a big-bsng. So how about entanglement?..if we could produce entanglement of a HST, then send it backwards, re-laying the information directly to our physical real-time..now?
The unphysical mode of transportation may be called an AVATAR via AVATATION, which is basically entanglement scaled up to relative spacetime!
best p.v
report post as inappropriate
When the HST first recieved images, the time-stamp, or physical date given to the images were of a couple millions light years ago, then HST recieved images of older period..etc..etc how come?
Why could not HST be tuned to just 3 seconds ago?..what if 3 seconds ago was really the big-bang, what if to travel away from the "now", a second ago or 3seconds ago, will br the big-bang, just by violating the spacetime continuum, may trigger the actual big-bang?
Our "now" has energy conservation to adhere to, send one molocule out of our "now" would have vast entropic consequences?
Nobody or anything has access in sight, sound or other physical process to any time domain other than "now"! It may be that we need to physically send the HST back to the Universe early moments, to actually confirm any evidence of a big-bsng. So how about entanglement?..if we could produce entanglement of a HST, then send it backwards, re-laying the information directly to our physical real-time..now?
The unphysical mode of transportation may be called an AVATAR via AVATATION, which is basically entanglement scaled up to relative spacetime!
best p.v
report post as inappropriate
The Hubble Telescope can see light from millions of years ago because that light just now arrived. In that sense, we can look at the past, but we cannot change it. There is a world of difference between looking at light from the past, and interacting with the past to change the present. It's not like we can look at light from millions of light years away, reach into the past of some star, and change anybody's future. The time machine that you thought you created using a wormhole is nothing more than a fancy inspection of history without causal interactivity. There are two different manifestations of the past.
1. Look at the past, but you can't change it; and,
2. Time travel to the past and change it, which is impossible.
report post as inappropriate
1. Look at the past, but you can't change it; and,
2. Time travel to the past and change it, which is impossible.
report post as inappropriate
The distant universe we observe is in the past. From an elementary perspective light observed from 100 million light years out carries information about a galaxy 100 million years ago. Things become a bit strange the further out you look. The velocity of a galaxy at a distance d is v = Hd, where the distance d is not too far out so a linear expression works. The z value is for z > 1 traveling faster than light as z ~ v/c for the radius of the FLRW metric then and now not too different. The most distant objects optically imaged are up to z = 9, and the CMB occurs out to z ~ 1000! This sounds a bit odd of course, for we are detecting photons from galaxies traveling faster than light. Yet this is a manifestation of a sort of frame dragging, where the stretching out of spatial surfaces of the universe is carrying particles with it. The objects are not so much traveling faster than light as they are commoving in a frame with spacetime. Further, since the speed of light is locally always the same a photon from a distant z > 1 galaxy will be commoved away as well, but it enters regions where that commoving is less and less until it eventually ends up to the telescopic aperture.
As for the three seconds, there is a bit of an ambiguity. We can’t optically image things before the surface of last plasma or radiation dominated scatter at the CMB. This surface of last scatter represents the state of the universe about 380,000 years after the big bang. The universe was optically opaque. If we improve our abilities to detect gravity waves and neutrinos we could detect the configuration of the universe much earlier. If the three seconds refer to three seconds ago from “now,” that is easy to see. If you observe the moon you are seeing it 1.3 seconds ago. The light from the sun escaped the photosphere about 9 minutes ago and most planets you see is from light which scattered off them anywhere from a few minutes ago (Venus) to a few hours ago (Saturn or Neptune for instance).
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
As for the three seconds, there is a bit of an ambiguity. We can’t optically image things before the surface of last plasma or radiation dominated scatter at the CMB. This surface of last scatter represents the state of the universe about 380,000 years after the big bang. The universe was optically opaque. If we improve our abilities to detect gravity waves and neutrinos we could detect the configuration of the universe much earlier. If the three seconds refer to three seconds ago from “now,” that is easy to see. If you observe the moon you are seeing it 1.3 seconds ago. The light from the sun escaped the photosphere about 9 minutes ago and most planets you see is from light which scattered off them anywhere from a few minutes ago (Venus) to a few hours ago (Saturn or Neptune for instance).
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
While we still disagree about FTL propulsion, some of what you posted might come in very handy. I've been wrestling with an effect that I didn't realize was called Frame Dragging. The space-time bubble within hyperspace could also be described as frame dragging for the FTL spaceship; the spaceship carries its own space-time with it. The transition from the spaceship traveling FTL to regular space-time might be explained with a variation of linear frame dragging. By the way, frame dragging suggests the existence of p3-brane or something resembling an aether.
Thank you. You made my day.
report post as inappropriate
While we still disagree about FTL propulsion, some of what you posted might come in very handy. I've been wrestling with an effect that I didn't realize was called Frame Dragging. The space-time bubble within hyperspace could also be described as frame dragging for the FTL spaceship; the spaceship carries its own space-time with it. The transition from the spaceship traveling FTL to regular space-time might be explained with a variation of linear frame dragging. By the way, frame dragging suggests the existence of p3-brane or something resembling an aether.
Thank you. You made my day.
report post as inappropriate
The frame dragging is done with certain criteria which prevent FTL. There was some years ago an idea about a big rip, and in this case the spacetime might permit closed timelike loops. The energy conditions are such that it could happen. Yet, that condition does not appear to be real, for the equation of state between energy density and pressure has to be w > -1. Data indicates that w = -1 within reasonable error bars. In the end it looks as if we are made out of meat. Now matter how you slice it up, if you try to link two points in spacetime by an interval with FTL you are equivalently travelling faster than light.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
If we were made out of tachyons, we could probably beat the speed of light, but that probably wouldn't be as much fun as being made out of meat.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Besides, if we were made of tachyons we might be either shifted off to "infinity" or stuck on M2-branes in black holes.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
I watched the Made of Meat video; ugh! As for frame-dragging, I'm left with the feeling that frame dragging is the dirty little FTL secret that the physics community doesn't want to talk about. It is a vulnerability to the whole space-time interpretation of space and the speed of light. If a region of space can appear to carry a galaxy faster than light, then why don't we see that galaxy appear to rewind or travel backwards in time? There has to be something wrong with the very idea that a wormhole can create a bridge to the past via FTL simply because the past does not exist as a separate universe. Since the pathological fear of FTL phenomena is so strong, let me be the one to take a sledge hammer to the light cone assumption. WHACK!!!
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
World sheets come from Feynman diagrams. But even for a particle that might be quantum mechanically smeared out in time, it doesn't give you the ability to change historically established events. For an FTL particle, why would it travel back in time as if trying to change the past in some closed loop event? Why wouldn't it just travel further and faster, with possibly peculiar interactions with regualar quantum particles?
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Leave the poor light cone alone Jason. Just leave time out of the dimensional framework and consider the scalar dimension to be spatio-energetic the same as the other 3 all the time travel problems disappear.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
There could be closed timelike curves, which leads to the paradoxes of time travel. Anything which involves the propagation of information or a causal influence outside a light cone of timelike or null influences is equivalent to a time reversal under boosting conditions.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Lawrence,
Here's your light cone back; it looks a little bumpy now, sorry.
Dear Georgina,
For causes that change the potential energy, the effect propagates at the speed of light (or less). For an FTL cause whose effect travels FTL, we have to use potential energies for some FTL appropriate charge. Maybe Ray has some tacheocharges we can use. Of course, FTL would mean the electric and magnetic fields have to be weaker to account for a smaller permitivity and permeability.
Dear Ray,
I've got a tachyon charged frame dragger for us meat folks. Let's go for a ride!
report post as inappropriate
Here's your light cone back; it looks a little bumpy now, sorry.
Dear Georgina,
For causes that change the potential energy, the effect propagates at the speed of light (or less). For an FTL cause whose effect travels FTL, we have to use potential energies for some FTL appropriate charge. Maybe Ray has some tacheocharges we can use. Of course, FTL would mean the electric and magnetic fields have to be weaker to account for a smaller permitivity and permeability.
Dear Ray,
I've got a tachyon charged frame dragger for us meat folks. Let's go for a ride!
report post as inappropriate
There is space that the earth has passed through and space that it will pass through at different positions along the scalar dimension. The space that it has passed through is now vacant or filled by other matter. There is not another copy of the earth in that space that the earth formerly occupied.It is not therefore the past but aft space.
We could not travel to the past as it does not exist but it could hypothetically be possible to travel to aft space by slowing progression along the scalar dimension. Why hypothesise that there is anything there at all? Why not just have 3D space and no scalar dimension? Because although time can be argued to be an entirely biologically generated subjective reality experience it is necessary to have a physical scalar dimension to satisfactorily explain gravity, the experienced passage of time, the self construction of the universe (via continuous change of position along this dimension) and energy input for this self assembly process due to loss of universal potential energy, and to give mass energy.
We can not see what is within this aft space and whether it is vacant or occupied because instead we see an EM image of former configurations of matter in space that have changed or no longer exist. Likewise there is space that the earth will occupy afore along the scalar dimension. It is not possible to see what exist within this afore space, as all we can see is the EM image of former configurations of matter. No light travels back from afore space although gravitational effect can be observed. We are completely blind to that which exists afore and aft along the scalar dimension with the exception of the gravitational effect of matter in afore space, as our senses only detect stimuli from within 3D vector space.
According to this model the material universe (not the EM image) can be considered as one 3D spherical layer of the Megauniverse hypersphere. Other universe layers existing afore and aft, not past and future. This is the hyperspace. Travelling between universe layers would cause no temporal paradox because this is travel between different spaces not different times.
The reason for this model is that it explains the foundational questions in particular regarding time and gravity that the current space-time model does not. It solves the grandfather paradox and others. I do not see the logic in inventing a model, in order to permit faster than light travel, utilising modified space-time. When space-time has been found unsatisfactory in so many regards. Such as causing paradoxes and leaving so many foundational questions unanswered.
report post as inappropriate
We could not travel to the past as it does not exist but it could hypothetically be possible to travel to aft space by slowing progression along the scalar dimension. Why hypothesise that there is anything there at all? Why not just have 3D space and no scalar dimension? Because although time can be argued to be an entirely biologically generated subjective reality experience it is necessary to have a physical scalar dimension to satisfactorily explain gravity, the experienced passage of time, the self construction of the universe (via continuous change of position along this dimension) and energy input for this self assembly process due to loss of universal potential energy, and to give mass energy.
We can not see what is within this aft space and whether it is vacant or occupied because instead we see an EM image of former configurations of matter in space that have changed or no longer exist. Likewise there is space that the earth will occupy afore along the scalar dimension. It is not possible to see what exist within this afore space, as all we can see is the EM image of former configurations of matter. No light travels back from afore space although gravitational effect can be observed. We are completely blind to that which exists afore and aft along the scalar dimension with the exception of the gravitational effect of matter in afore space, as our senses only detect stimuli from within 3D vector space.
According to this model the material universe (not the EM image) can be considered as one 3D spherical layer of the Megauniverse hypersphere. Other universe layers existing afore and aft, not past and future. This is the hyperspace. Travelling between universe layers would cause no temporal paradox because this is travel between different spaces not different times.
The reason for this model is that it explains the foundational questions in particular regarding time and gravity that the current space-time model does not. It solves the grandfather paradox and others. I do not see the logic in inventing a model, in order to permit faster than light travel, utilising modified space-time. When space-time has been found unsatisfactory in so many regards. Such as causing paradoxes and leaving so many foundational questions unanswered.
report post as inappropriate
There is indeed logic to inventing an FTL theory with additional space-times. It encourages us to think about how the physical universe would have to organize it; such that we don't directly observe it. We have to look at all of the ways the speed of light is tied into the physics. Permitivity and permeability change/scale if we change the speed of light; the acceleration of gravity changes;...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
I found something interesting with regards to our rotating spheres.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/eart
h_drag.html
report post as inappropriate
I found something interesting with regards to our rotating spheres.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/eart
h_drag.html
report post as inappropriate