Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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 POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Forever Fiances: on 10/21/19 at 6:38am UTC, wrote Welcome to Forever Fiances, an invitation company in San Diego. Since 2008,...

songjoong df: on 1/2/18 at 8:41am UTC, wrote jual qnc jelly gamat di magelang jual qnc jelly gamat di mataram jual qnc...

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:31am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/19/09 at 11:10am UTC, wrote Hi Jason, Yes indeed ,the rotating effects have a cause ,probably the...

Jason Wolfe: on 9/18/09 at 19:37pm UTC, wrote Steve, Maybe I should take a closer look at rotating spheres. I'm drawn...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/18/09 at 18:19pm UTC, wrote Jason, ahahah I have discussed with him a little about your hyperdrive...

Jason Wolfe: on 9/18/09 at 16:40pm UTC, wrote Lawrence, First, I think it's helpful to push the limits of our...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 9/18/09 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote It is likely that faster than light technology exists in the same category...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Zeeya Merali: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..." in What Will Quantum...

Jason Wolfe: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "the fuzzy spheres are very relevant in fact ,they are non commutative, I..." in Alternative Models of...

Jason Wolfe: "You should consider that wave functions describe the possible position and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Vita Nuova [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Apr. 26, 2007 @ 02:55 GMT
The days' big news, of course, was the second Earth. This was the discovery of the first "Earth-like" planet outside our solar system.

image: Joseph.Stueffer


The inglamorously named "581 c" is circling the red dwarf Gliese 581, and has awakened immediate astronomic interest in the plethora of other local red dwarfs. Based on the rough data gleaned by the European Southern Observatory's telescope in Chile, it's thought to be 1 ¬? times Earth's size. It may be rocky, may have liquid water, and may have an atmosphere. It may also, just conceivably, be the home of our remote descendants.

More immediately, it provides us here and now with confirmation of what has been generally believed to be the case but has, until this generation, been imposssible to demonstrate: that the Solar System is no aberration in the Milky Way, that gas giants are not the only regularly occurring form of accretion around stars, and that rocky, water-bearing, reasonably temperate inner planets may form just as frequently out there as they do here. 581 c also makes it that much more likely that, as Earth is not alone in the Milky Way, neither are we.

image:Jack000


This discovery is headline news today, forgotten tomorrow. But that makes it none the less significant. With the introduction of 581 c we open the door on a new era -- only by the slightest crack, but one can see the light -- in what might be called our cosmic potential. The plausibility of extraterrestrial organic life is a little greater today (intelligent life is another issue); the prospect of human colonization beyond our homeworld a little less like fantasy. Gradually, life is expanding.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Blogger William Orem wrote on May. 11, 2007 @ 19:27 GMT
It's one of the more charming aspects of Jules Verne's speculative-science classic "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" (which doesn't mean straight down, by the way: that would be through the planet and about a quarter of the way to the moon)--the character of Conseil, "a devoted Flemish boy‚" who acts as an amanuensis to our hero. Conseil is "quiet by nature, regular from principle, zealous...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Blogger William Orem wrote on May. 17, 2007 @ 20:49 GMT
Staying on the foundational biology thread for one more post:

Sagan used to comment on the paucity of our imaginations when it came to alien species. After all, the Earth itself--a single biosphere, examined at a single point during a single epoch--gives rise to such incredible diversity as to include underground aspen grove rhizomes, whale sharks, and the H. Pylori microbe. Is it really likely that aliens, evolved under radically different conditions, will resemble little gray people?

Even the more outlandish "designs" for aliens we see in popular culture, which tend to resemble insects and reptiles, are almost certainly going to seem decidedly conventional, if and when we get a specimen of the real thing.

image: JLplusAL


Just as a reminder of how fecund, and downright weird, nature is when it comes to evolving lifeforms to fill different ecological niches, hundreds of previously undiscovered deep-sea species have just been recorded by the Antarctic Benthic Deep-Sea Biodiversity Project.

From National Geographic News:

"Researchers aboard the German research vessel Polarstern in the Weddell Sea also brought up heart-shaped sea urchins, carnivorous sponges, and giant sea spiders the size of dinner plates.

'We were astonished by the enormous biodiversity we found in many groups of species,' said Angelika Brandt, a marine biologist at the University of Hamburg in Germany."

To stimulate your mind into imagining what exobiology will appear like, take a gander at the unreal glass sponge, the crustacean related to wood lice, or the munna--an organism so peculiar its difficult to tell whether its one living thing or several fused together. (These images are not they. In fact, this bizarre-enough looking creature is the fairly standard angler fish.)

This work is are all part of another foundational biology project--the international Census of Marine Life program, aiming to create a database of all marine life by 2010. My only beef: Why didn't they call the project Arronax?

image:JLplusAL


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Blogger William Orem wrote on May. 24, 2007 @ 00:35 GMT
And speaking of exobiology . . .

The big news of the day is the best evidence so far of past liquid water on Mars. Spirit, the current Mars rover, examined soil in Gusev crater and found loads of silica, which only forms in such amounts when liquid H2O is around.

There's a nice image of one of Spirit's malfunctioning wheels uncovering a silica-rich soil layer as it is dragged along the surface here. When was the last time a flat tire actually made your job easier?

From Wired News:

"This is a remarkable discovery," principal investigator Steve Squyres of Cornell University said in a statement. "It makes you wonder what else is still out there."

image: WalkingGeek


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Blogger William Orem wrote on Jun. 4, 2007 @ 18:35 GMT
There's a good interview with two major cosmologists today at WBUR: Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, and Alan Guth, professor of physics at the MIT (and estemmed member of the FQX scientific advisory panel). They debate, among other things, the question of whether the SCM needs to be replaced by a brane-collision model.

For folks new to the question: branes (membranes, p-branes) come out of string theory and M-theory, where they are a natural consequence of the math. A point particle is technically a 0-brane, or a brane with zero dimensions, while 1-branes are strings and 2-branes are sheets. Forgive the analogy, but it helps to think of 2-branes and higher as those enormous bubble-walls that people make every summer in parks using wire and soapy water.

Branes are just a mathematical concept--anybody dive in here if you want to take issue with that claim--but they are speculated to underlie physical phenomena and have active world-lines, or world-volumes, of their own. They can, for example, collide, causing a locally inflationary state such as the one now believed to have initiated the emergence of our universe.

image: Jay Khemani


The big point is that brane collisions, other than being intrinsically cool, in no way imply a Foundational beginning. The elemental stuff of the cosmos exists before the branes meet as well as after. If the Bang was an event like this, it may have been the local beginning without being *the Beginning*. Indeed, there may have been no beginning.

Here's a quotation from Turok in the broadcast to whet the appetite:

"I think the challenge we're raising is that the usual picture of the Big Bang is based on an assumption which is that time, space, matter, energy, everything began at the Big Bang. And that assumption was made in the 60s when people got the first strong observational evidence that the Big Bang happened. But it's really just an assumption and our point of view has come out of new development in physics which are enabling us to describe the behavior of matter in very extreme conditions such as were present around the Bang. And what we're seeing is that the Big Bang doesn't have to be the beginning of time. It's perfectly possible that the Big Bang was just a violent event in a pre-existing universe."

I would be very interested in hearing any opinions on whether brane cosmology is poised to supplant the SCM . . .

image: Tomt6788


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 11, 2008 @ 11:23 GMT
what



dual http://cialisbuydiscount.com/

micturition [url=http://cialisbuydiscount.com/][/url]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2008 @ 20:31 GMT
cheap viagra online

cheap viagra

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nikola wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 00:59 GMT
I have found the best place for all reviews., american wedding ring, [url="http://sale4you.ifrance.com/wedding-ring/american-wedd
ing-ring.html"]american wedding ring[/url], http://sale4you.ifrance.com/wedding-ring/american-wedding-ri
ng.html american wedding ring, 5536, celtic ring sapphire silver, [url="http://sale4you.l4rge.com/silver-ring/celtic-ring-sapp
hire-silver.html"]celtic...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear System Administrator,

Please delete the three spam messages above from Anonymous and Nikola.

Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 05:07 GMT
Florin,

This is a fascinating blog! I had no idea there was anything like 581c, earth-like planet. But that article was written in 2007. Of course the antarctica fish and the "no beginning" brani-verse stuff is cool.

What are the odds that something good might come from spam?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 13:42 GMT
Jason,

Nothing good comes from spam. If we do not delete the messages and block the IP addresses of the spam originator, soon all of the FQXi web site will be innundated by ads for viagra and cialis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi all ,

Yes indeed very very verrrrry fascinating ,our Universe and the lifes .We are all fishes hihhi....locomotion ,nutrition ,reproduction,evolution,spherisation.

Here is some links about astrobiology ,

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 18:31 GMT
Steve,

Cool website.

Florin,

I was making a joke.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Jason, all ,

It's cool indeed .

I like so much the evolution ,the differenciation between unicells and pluricells is gascianting ,we are all ancient zooflagellate ,the cytomorphes and cytoids ,do you know the hexacontium ,a radiolar or the opalina.Very relevant .The evolution builds it's evident and the diversification and complexification of complemenatrity are fundamenatls ,and that's continue .

Do you know the crossopterigian the Latimeria,this fish is incredible,the fossils linked is the Eusthenopteron ,it a order Actinistians ,the second order is the dipneustes.it's a phase of evolution where we wee the differenciation .We can link them with amphibians like the tritunus .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 15:50 GMT
Hi Steve,

Biology is a fascinating topic. I remember learning Cell Theory. I could never quite figure out how the cell performed all of its activities like moving around and mitosis. I remember how they described the mechanisms, but the cells acted like living creatures (obviously), not like the mechanistic robots that they really are.

It's been a long time since I've studied biology. It still seems wonderous to me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 17:56 GMT
Hi Jason,

Do you know The London Interactions in the proteins links .We can superimpose the ionic interactions,the atomic and hydrogen interactions.

What I fiend relevant is the rule of Hydrogen even with water with its polarizations and the two diffrent pôles.

It's always a question of HCON and P too....all architecture in rotations of spheres probably implies the hydrophob and hydrophyl pole.

An important organit is the centriol inside the nucleus .In fact all possesses that except the ancient vegatals and animals .These centriols have a primordial rule during the cell division .There during this phase a fantastic thing appears where two poles,like a cylender with many spheres in rotation for me and very weak polarisations.Inside we have many tubes and all that inside a spherical solution with H .This increase of mass fascinates me and proof the evolution and complexification if we insert the electromagnetism .The gravity too is important and the ultim code in the spheron which is the main central sphere correlated with the Universal sphere.

The tubular (toris)arrangement is everywhere in fact with three main kinds ,fibrilar,circular or helocoidal .

All is coded and have a specific rule ,it's evident.

Let's take the prophase ,the metaphase ,the anaphase and the telophase ,all is in a spherical architecture of polarizations to create the life and its optimization.Even the propulsion is in this logic with for exemple the spermatozoid ,the flagels have these comportments in rotations too.

In the differenciation too whith the determination and the potentiality .

It hasn't any doubt the rotations of spheres and the spherisation are everywhere in all centers of interest .

Don't hesitate to ask me some questions ,I like so much the biology .I will answer you with pleasure .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 20:11 GMT
Steve,

There is a place for spheres in physics. I am trying to figure out the nature of the p3-brane of which our universe is constructed. I liked Georgina's idea of a potential energy from the fourth temporal dimension pushing the p3-brane forward in time. I believe that the Cosmological constant might serve as a constant pressure that continually inflates our universe.

I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 11:47 GMT
Hi Jason ,

I am always surprised by your creativity ,you are going to find many relevances with this facility to play with ideas .

What I find very relevant is the pression which implies probably a diffrent velocity of rotations thus mass .

How can we check this frequences to be in the good oscillation,and after we must recreated the nature of these particles for the polarized building ,If not we are dead hihihi .

If a BH takes the light and diffuses it after by universal center ,thus all matters become light in these increase of pression .If a kind of vaccuum exists it 's perhaps between BH and Universal center.If the Universe will have a contraction it's relevant about the check of space with the light velocity .Perhaps in these vaccuums the velocity is different like an specific acceleration .

It's just an extrapolation ,you makes me crazzy Jason with all that hihihihi

But I like read your ideas .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Steve,

I might be close to solving the Cosmological mystery. I also think I see something that can be interpreted as a rotating sphere leading to mass. In the equation E2=p2c2 + (mc2)2, I think there is one more term; this equation looks like the 3D definition of a sphere. I will explain more in a few days when I can better understand it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Jason,

I have been thinking about my theory, and how it might tie into your ideas. Lawrence keeps talking about 4-D Spacetime and a 7-brane, which is consistent with 11-D M-Theory. My theory is 12-D, but quickly disassociates into a 4-D Quaternion (with a 3-brane plus a "quaternion time" that we call time) and an 8-D Octonion (with a 7-brane plus an "octonion time"). There may be situations in which the 7-brane is stable, or the M2-brane plus M5-brane combination is more stable, or a 3-brane plus two 2-branes combination is more stable. In this manner, my theory is compatible with M-theory plus a "two-timed" theory.

The 4-D quaternion has disassociated from the 8-D octonion in much the same way that our Universe has disassociated from the Cosmic Microwave Background. However, remnant effects still exist. In my theory, gravity is an octonion effect. Apparently, the primary octonion effects warp spacetime to create the secondary gravitational effects that we observe. This makes the true nature of gravity difficult to understand because our observations are indirect.

Perhaps the (mc^2)^2 scalar component of E^2 is also a remnant of the unseen collapsed octonion dimensions. Similarly, my theory has spinor components in these unseen dimensions that causes confusion between fermions and bosons (which is OK because we expect Faddeev-Papov ghosts in Yang-Mills theories).

Can we get into this 8-D hyperspace octonion? Because its branes are different, and its time may also be different, we could imagine a space with a different "speed limit" from the "c" quaternion speed limit. The strongest couplings between our quaternion Universe and the unseen octonion Hyperspace must occur in high gravitational fields (such as near black holes). Lawrence is concerned about entropy and information theory in the region of a black hole, but this may be resolved by the octonion (in fact, the M2-brane that Lawrence and I talk about is part of this octonion).

I know you have other ideas as well. I didn't know if this interpretation would help you.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 09:24 GMT
Hi ,

Super ,Dr Cosmic Ray is there .

Until soon dar friends .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 12:27 GMT
The AdS_4xD7 is an extension of the Bousso-Polchinksi result on renormalizing the cosmological constant in m-theory. In 11-dimensions of supergravity the AdS_4 is dual by Poincare's duality in homology to 7-dimensions. And how this 7 dimensional structure is conincident with a F^4_2 poential determines the cosmological constant on AdS_4. We might think of the D7 as wrapped in some configuration so the field flux is larger or smaller according to the topology of this compactification. So this gets into the matter of how it is that Dirac and gauge fields have masses and coupling strengths determined by such Calabi-Yau compactifications. I think this is set by a quantum critical point.

There are various dimensions running around here. Supergravity has 10 and 11 dimensions of primary concern. I think that this space or bulk exists over some a 24-dimensional space of discrete elements for the M_{24} sporadic group. These are in some ways independent spaces, and this has connections to the 26-dimensional bosonic string space.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
Evolution of life is an universeal process.

In whole universe matter has tendency to develop in life and intelligent organisms.

see file attached

yours amrit

attachments: 6_IIGSS_BASIC_FREQUENCY.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 23:31 GMT
Ray,

What you are telling me sounds like specific information I was getting this morning. I are on the same page. This is what I think:

Cosmlogical gas flows through and inflates a hypersphere, something like a Schwartzchild sphere. The flowrate into it minus the flowrate out manifests on the sphere surface (3D for our universe), as an energy density.

I am considering the idea of superstrings on both sides of the "bubble". Ours are on the outside. On the inside, they may have negative mass. This might cause the Cosmological constant to balance.

Additionally, a superstring's vibration disturbs the Cosmological gas around it. If the disturbance is too great, the disturbance becomes a pair of particle strings, and the original vibrating string is reduced to a disturbance. There is a continual duality between the vibrating string/particle-wave, and the disturbed Cosmological gas around it. They trade of.

From the highest most complex dimensional space, this cosmological gas condenses energy onto the vertices and edges. This energy flows down, taking whatever easiest path down to the simplest dimensional space. Whatever geometry can best take advantage of this flow of energy, will expand like a balloon (like our physical universe). We cannot determine the fate of our universe because we cannot account for everything in hyperdimensions beyond it.

Time can behave like a spatial dimension when we need to extrapolate to a higher dimension. Creating particles in higher dimensional space is like creating ripples on a pond in just the right way. When our ripples span time, it gives us a chance to produce a 4D particle on a 5D space-time brane. The geometry get complicated, but some geometries are more favorable than others for Cosmological gas flow (and energetics). In this way, all universes and their laws of physics compete, winner takes all and expands like a balloon.

Manipulating branes requires the skillful manipulation of this energy flow (Cosmological gas flow). How is a 5D (4D+1) energy described in terms of its units?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 06:42 GMT
Ray,

Consider the following metaphore. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Only a tiny fraction have the right genetics, personality disposition, training and insticts to properly handle money in a way that makes them wealthy; the rest of us wish we were. In the same way, there are countless billions of universes each with their own physics, but only a handful, perhaps only one, has what it takes to properly manage the energy it gets from the Cosmological gas in order to expand into a full size universe. A given set of physics laws/constants is like a business plan. It may not be possible to predict which universe will be the one that successfully expands to full size while all of the others remain small, no bigger than a length constant.

There is more to the Cosmological constant than we think.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Jason,

I have mixed feelings about the Cosmological Constant (CC). Einstein once considered the idea a mistake. If our Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then the CC is a reasonable solution. It is an interesting coincidence that the expected value of the CC is ~10^{-120}, whereas Dirac's Large Number is ~10^{40}. I'm not even opposed to the idea of new forces such as WIMP-Gravity that may provide the accelerating expansion. The biggest problem I have is that Variable Coupling Theory might explain the apparent acceleration of expansion as well as the CC.

Is the CC a fundamental force or an effective fudge factor?

Thermodynamics is relevant, but what is the origin of the cosmological gas's pressure? We should expect this pressure to have different characteristics in 2-branes vs. 3-branes vs. 5-branes vs. 7-branes.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 12:12 GMT
Ray,

I don't believe you have to know advanced mathematics before the universe will reveal its true nature. I simply started with what physicists are already saying about the universe (multiverse). The Big Bang exploding from a singularity into a universe that is expanding, coupled with the idea that the CC is largely what governs the expansion or contraction of the universe were important details. Then, I borrowed the concept of branes, membranes, p-branes because I needed to describe advanced physics will very simple concepts like the expanding balloon. The metaphor of the expanding balloon as an n-dimensional object whose n-1 dimension was a rubber surface/brane that particle-strings could attach to fit very nicely. The idea that time could be used to add or remove a spatial dimension, as part of a technique for constructing branes, seemed blatantly a trick that anyone would notice if they were looking for it. The Schwarzchild radius or sphere has a fractal-like relationship to the expanding universe.

It was Georgina who suggested that the Cosmological constant could produce a potential energy across a fourth (spatio-temporal) dimension. But I have to figure out how gravity was being implemented. How could space curve, contract and even expand without suggesting an airflow behavior. For more than six months, the Einstein equations had a PV=nrT look to them. If our universe really is a p3-brane which resembles bubble wrap, then those bubbles can't be static; there has to be a flow out minus flow in behaviour, because I see that everywhere else in nature. Everything flows, even when we don't want to think about it or accept it.

I really believe that the Creator is delighted that someone wanted to know how he created the universe, and was patient enough to give it the many months it would take to get an answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 13:15 GMT
The cosmological constant is a factor which imposes some constant curvature to the cosmological spacetime. Data does suggest that this is nonzero. The cosmological constant is identified often with the vacuum structure of quantum field theory with

Λ = 8πG(ρ + 3p),

which suggests some tie between string, orbifold and p-brane configurations at low energy.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 16:48 GMT
Lawrence and Ray,

In my opinion, the Alcubierre hyperdrive will never be realized because the energy required to warp space is above and beyond anything that humanity can ever utilize. My idea about the Cosmological constant followed from the desire to find another way, a way to capitalize upon a greater understanding of how gravity operates and develop a technology that doesn't require...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Jason,

But what if our observed particles are 4-D and we need to trick the Universe into disclosing 6-D particles? The analogy to graphene is critical. If we can capture 3 or 4-D in just 2-D, then we might be able to trick the Universe into disclosing more than a simple energy analysis allows.

Dear Steve,

Have you studied my paper on the new design for a rocket engine? My great-uncle (the engineer) and a machinist and I built a prototype of this engine a few years ago. Such an engine cannot achieve escape velocity by itself, but could help speed a rocket towards a distant Earth-like planet. It isn't Jason's brane-warping hyperdrive, but it should work with modern technology.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 09:51 GMT
Hello ,

Dear Ray ,

In fact no ,sorry ,I must refind it in my mail box google ,I am really very bad organized .It's a problem in fact ,I like order in my classments or when I create a garden but for me ,it's an other story .

Could you send me it again please ,I will read it this day and I will tell you here on FQXi .

The propulsion is fascinating ,I have seen some links with the Goddard Space center and the website .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 11:51 GMT
I like extrapolate the lifes in our Universe and its spheres in rotation around the center .

We can admit what the thermodynamic are essential .The HCNO ..are probably more different what we thought .

The CH4..NH3...H20 ...all that ,in an evolution point of vue, is intriguing.

The amino acids and the nuclei acids are the keys of life ,one inform ,the other acts....the adn...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 8, 2009 @ 13:49 GMT
I suppose what the thermodynamic and the informations in the strong forces in an evolution point of vue are essentials to encircle the whole of the process ,because our physicality is a process where the time constant and the velocity of light too constant are main pieces of the puzzle.

When we accept these constants and limits ,we focus more on essentials in their locality and their...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 16:37 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Dr Cosmic ,Ray ,

super the pdf about the spaceship ,thanks it's nice to share it.

You know about our Universe and its rotations of spheres ,I try to encircle the rule of centers ,which are too spheres .The light from our sun is a percetion ,local ,if we take our BH in the center of our galaxy,still a big sphere,black ...if we go more far ,thus these galaxies with these centers turn around ,in each step,a bigger sphere with a specific rule .Already it's difficult to understand the rule of our BH thus we can imagine these cenetrs in rotation around the main central sphere ,if the sequence is specific and correlated with prime numbers thus where is the limits of this sequence or the good numbers ,thes numbers are the numbers of spheres .The prochain step is these cenetrs and rules .Probably what these steps are different steps of BH ,biggers and biggers towards the main central sphere where all has begun .

Like a fractal of sphere .Like a mitose of sphere .

It's possible to find these centers ,because their volume is correlated too and their numbers too .But the generality must be adapted ,an approximation is possible and the prbability but the specificity is important .

The facts to know this universal entanglement of spheres ,this fractal ...permits to know the number of BH ,planets ,stars,moons ....when the specificity is respected .All is specific thus all spheres are specifics like all BH .

How much steps exist between the main central sphere of our Universe and our planet Earth ,the big question is there ,how much BH ,super BH ,supermega BH ....TURN with all these stars ,planets and moons ,their lifes .But how is this sequence ,perhaps it is not a big sequence ,just some steps .1 is the fisrt .......the multiplication will give this number but how have the good datas thus the good number.

In fact I search the numbers of BH ,with an increase of volume of the central sphere more we go towards the main central sphere.

1 3 15 105 .....in all case probably the sequence is in this logic but where .

If we knew the volume of our actual sphere ,it will be easier .The distances too.A sequence of regularisation of relativistic error is essential to balance the perception and thus to extrapolate datas ,virtual datas .It's possible but the simulations must be very well archietctured .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Sphere-keeper Steve,

I primarily envision that rocket engine as a way to reach Pluto or the Kuiper Belt quickly, but 20 light-years to Gliese 581 (planets c and e) is a long distance.

In my own theory, I see "Kissing Numbers" as multi-dimensional (up to 14-D) lattices and "Fractal Spheres" in the 2-D comparison between Klein's Chi(7) and hyperbolic heptagonal tiling. Therefore, I think your spheres are relevant.

However, I think you are making this too complicated and maybe less foundational. Is it necessary to descibe and catagorize everything from the "smallest" particle to the "largest" black hole? I think that the essence of the idea is more important than how many examples we can enumerate.

My strategy for entering the "What is Ultimately Possible" Contest has evaporated. I most likely will not participate this time. I cannot get the first paper published, and I am running out of time to write a second paper (because my efforts were primarily focussed on the first paper). Could you explain the essence of your theory in a 10-page essay? Perhaps your sister could help with your English, since it is your fourth language. I would also be willing to proof-read it before you submit it.

Have Fun!

Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 17:36 GMT
Dr Cosmic Ray ,

In fact I don't see my road ,this day a person contacted me about a proposition in agriculture .I must stabilise my economic situation in fact ,I wait this proposition ,perhaps it's interesting .

Like I said I am a very bad administrator and communicator .

About the essence ,I think what some people have understood this theory but it's difficult to resume .

You are right about the whole .

I think an important thing about the name ,

At this moment the name is The Theory of Spherisation ,a GUT or spheres.

But I think it's better with The Theory of Spherisation ,a GUT or UTE of Rotating Spheres .The word rotation is important in my opinion ,what do you think Ray ?

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 18:33 GMT
Ray ,

I d like make the engineering of my sphere of compostang ,where we can produce energy .In a closed volume with a kind of membran in pvc .

Thus we insert O and H2O and ,the pression and the heat can be used and the gas too like the methan ,We can optimise the mixing with the rotations for the homogeneity which accelerates the process of desaggregation.

This sphere can be optimized in many closed system ,let's take the potential of the auxins and the multiplication which increases the mass ,it's an interesting link .

The fact to have a sphere with a specific membran which is closed ,permits to play with the thermodynamic and the biology more the physics .

If we adapt this kind of sphere in the house ,the organics wastes thus can be insert with the good proportion .we can create too a personal crusher for metal and pvc ,all that reduces and helps a system .

This crusher must be universal and very resistant ,probably too expansive ,but the recycling is so important .The problem is the civil responsability,thus it's necessery to give this kind of system .

I Think what the methan is the future ,not the methan in the Ocean ,but a methan of production and recycling .

The ecology and its mass give us its potential and we can use it with universality .The volume of methan will be proportional with our ecology responsability ,because more we shall plant ,more we shall have methan if the good technics are utilized of course .The energy is not thus a problem ,only for our system but not for us in reality because all has the maximum quantity and even a local ecological system is sufficient for a life system and its interactions .The energy is thus a problem for the economy ,only in this center of interest,the economy .

The autarcy is universal by the complemenatrity ,but that doesn't please .

Sincerely

Steve

Dear Ray ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 19:38 GMT
Ray,

I wrote a paper that is considerably more involved than the one I submietted. In effect my submission is a reduction of sorts. I should have completely rewritten it the more I think about it. cheers, LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 20:30 GMT
Ray,

The 2D graphene idea is worthy of intense efforts. There may yet be a way I can use it for hyperdrives and branewarping.

In the creation of hyperD particles, without a recipe, pathway or some known formula for creating them, we are left to trial and error for now. Until a few crumbs are dropped from on high, I have some more ideas.

First, I'm inclined to think of a particle-space relationship. The idea is that a space has more dimensions than a particle contained thereupon. When dealing with higher dimensions, I'm inclined to imagine that a space from our perspective can be a particle within a higher dimension. A particle is subject to the laws of nature of the space it exists in. For example, a space ship might be able to generate a space around itself which happens to be a particle within a 6D space whose laws of physics will govern it's movement. From the perspective of the spaceship, the spaceship exists within a spherical space that mandates its laws of physics/laws of motion.

Next, I pondered the idea that a brane can be thought of as a potential energy configuration under its own unique mathematical nature. Superstrings that connect to it must share that same mathematical uniqueness if they are to connect with it. Then I had an idea. Let's take a region of space R, and refer to whatever brane exists therein. Next, let's add zero to the potential energy that describes that brane. From zero, we can add and subtract the potential energy and other relavent components of a lower dimensional brane. when the two are combined, then add out and annhilate each other. But if they move away from each other, they behave as particles under the physics laws that govern region R.

I drew upon the Big Bang analogy the idea that energy density can be traded for brane volume, the lower the energy density, the larger the brane; not a farfetched idea since it echoes PV=nRT.

Then the big idea. Let's imagine a particle collision that results in an Asymmetric particle-space creation, a 6 dimensional (I like 6D) particle space pair is created. It is asymetric because one of the created particles is a space that trades its energy density for volume and envelopes the atom smasher or space ship that created it. The other particle-space flies off in some direction with some velocity subject to the laws of physics of the universe it was created in. But the two particle-space pairs remain quantumly entangled. They are entangled such that they will try to equalize the way their energy is manifested. The space that enveloped the spaceship will begin to elongate to catch up with it's partner. The other particle will begin to slow down, but also expand into a volume of space. When their centers coincide, they will annhilate each other and give back the invested energy. I considered this idea as another possilbe way to create a hyper drive/hyperspace jump effect.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 21:08 GMT
Take a look at my paper at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494

The M2-brane is analogous to graphene, and the quantum Hall and quantum phase physics in graphene may play a role in setting the cosmological constant to its small value. p-branes are to strings very much what a sound box is to a string on a musical instrument. The M2-brane is a 2-dim system which holds IIA strings, and may compose what we call the singularity in a black hole.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Steve,

Jobs are a necessary evil. They pay the bills, and keep us busy enough that we are less likely to go crazy thinking about nothing. Rotation is relevant. Rotation allows your theory to explain intrinsic spin, whereas intrinsic spin seems ad-hoc in a String Theory. Rotation also establishes a time-scale. Without a time-scale, your theory is just space without time. But now you have time and space. Better ecological practices are relevant. With our ideas (and a lot of money), we could help feed and water Africa - now if we could get some more help with disease and war...

Dear Lawrence,

I started a second paper. I would have to pare down the first paper so much that it would lose too much important content or justification. I still have quite a bit of writing to do, and have lost my motivation if I can't also boost exposure for the more important (in my mind, anyway) first paper. Your paper is good (much better than its current Community vote - Is another author trying to torpedo the competition?). I haven't cast my vote yet because I don't yet know if I will be part of the Public vote or part of the Community (Authors) vote. I have read four of these papers, but need to read more - some of them are interesting.

Dear Jason,

The energy requirements to get into a 6-D (or more D) hyperspace/spacetime hybrid universe are probably too high. Can we just create a 6-D wave, and ride on the 4-D projection of that wave? My Facebook friend, Dr. Garrett Lisi probably has that part figured out. You are making me think so hard that my brane is starting to hurt.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 21:48 GMT
Ray --- Either my paper has some fundamental flaw that I nor anyone else I had look at this spotted, or it could be too off the mark for the essay topical question.

We often think of the vacuum state as a fluid of sorts. To take the vacuum energy density as

∫kdk(k^2/2) = K^4_end/6 ~ (1/L_p)^4

is to evaluate the quantum fluid at its quantum critical point, where for a small singular perturbation away from that point the value is renormalized to a much smaller value at the Landau-Fermi fluid state.

I am a bit temporarily out of action too. I have the cold from hell right now. and to compound the problem last Sunday I helped my son map out anthills to see which are connected to a single colony. This involved capturing ants and placing them on other hills. If they fight then they are genetically not the same clone from a queen ant. The problem is that I got stung by a number of these ants. It felt like getting hot chili juice on me then, but now I am covered with extreme itches that are intensely annoying.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Having studied both particle physics and solid state physics in graduate school, I am comfortable with your treatment of the vacuum state as a fluid. The Dirac Sea may not seem very elegant, but it has strong solid state parallels. It is true, that the topic is "What is Ultimately Possible?" Maybe you should use your M2 BH for a warp-drive...

Take care of yourself. You reminded me that I need to poison some anthills.

Have Fun!

Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
The vacuum probably exists in various phases, and the huge cosmological constant predicted by 1/L_p^4 is a phase transition point between these different phases.

Here we have various species of harvester ants, which have a bit of a sting to them. We have occassional fire ants as well. These guys are not that much of a trouble. The little tiny ones which getinto pantries and food are the ones I really hate.

Cheer LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 02:30 GMT
Lawrence,

Do what I do to anthills. Dump gasoline on them and light them up. It's the least I could do for them.

Ray,

I am grateful that you think about what I'm saying at all. I wish I had the kind of mathematical ability that you do, it's a gift.

I am getting frustrated because I can think up ideas all day long. The problem is I keep bumping into untennable energy requirements. It would help if I knew how to slide two branes across each other without loosing track of where I'm going. But if I know where I'm going, I had to use energy from photons to figure it out.

If I create a wormhole with high speed of light, then I have to use a mass that is as small as possible to minimuze my energy requirements. Is it possible to get a brane to expand at superluminal velocities inside of a brane-hose?

Why does superluminal travel cost so much energy?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 04:39 GMT
Ray,

Is there any chance we can create a brane that interfaces between our universe and a tiny-verse with identical laws of physics? The idea is to navigate via an interface brane that can transmit data and some gravitational signatures to the tinyverse for navigating? Navigation by gravity might be a lot better. It's also important that the interface and tinyverse interact with the physical universe in a way that does not attempt to introduce large amounts of energy into our physical universe. There should be some way to scale that.

It would also be nice to cause the interface brane to span several lightyears on the side that interfaces with our physical universe, but on the other side, where the tinyverse exists, it is only about 2 or 3 hundred meters across. Can this be designed into a brane?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 07:03 GMT
Hello Jason ,Lawrence ,Ray,

Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Thanks ,I take this one "The Theory od Spherisation,a UTE of Rotating Spheres .

Indeed the time scale was important to encircle and link the evolution and polarisation .

You are right the system is the system and without monney ,we don't pay our bills .

About ecology and technology ,I think what it's ou future ,it's easier to evolve with our environment ,harmonious than without in fact simply .

There are so many secrets in the nature ,the geometry implying the properties ,....

Until soon

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 12:44 GMT
Dear Jason,

The M2-brane may be the answer. It is a hyperbolic 2-D hyperspace that contains tachyons and other wierd particles. I think Lawrence understand this brane better than I do. I expect the energy requirements to depend on the Gravity GUT scale in my book: 2 x 107 GeV per particle. These energies exist in cosmic rays, but we can't generate them in a supercollider, so we need to find a way to cheat the system. Perhaps graphene research can give us the clues to advance these ideas.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 19:00 GMT
I outlined some of this stuff on my blog area

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/494

The M2-brane has physics similar to that found in graphene, with quantum criticality and quantum Hall effects.

I think to get physics at the thousands or millions of TeV range we will have to set up space-based cosmic ray detectors. An idea occurred to me some time back to use sonic tomagraphic systems on the ice moons of Jupiter and Saturn to image the tracks of cosmic rays which interacted with the surface. Maybe data is frozen on these strange and very cold little worlds.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 20:18 GMT
Hi Ray,

I certainly have no problem with weird particles. I'd like to take a closer look at the M2-brane to see if it can solve some of the fundamental problems I'm having with hyperdrive applications. General Relativity requires massive energy demands in order to approach the speed of light. Eventually, warping of space occurs if there is enough available energy. However, that much energy just isn't available. Now, if we could somehow detach from the p3-brane, the good news is that we could break free of our electromagnetic interaction with this physical universe. The bad news is that we have no way of knowing where we are. We become Heisenberg's lost travelers without any means of knowing where we are. The other problem is that we have no way to change our position versus time become we have lost our electromagnetic foothold on the physical universe.

In truth, I really wanted to get away from action-reaction forces and rockets. I was hoping that we really could expand space behind us and shrink it in front of us as is the case with the Alcubierre drive. I wanted some way to manipulate gravity so that we could have big starships that can float effortlessly over the earth. Georgina's Quaternion model gave me the idea that every unit of mass-energy is drawing 3D space into its center as it moves along the 4th dimension. Large accumulations of mass-energy would draw large amounts of volume into their center; this could be interpreted as deflation of space around a blackhole or as an acceleration field. I was hoping to be able to manipulate this flow of volume into the center of each unit of mass-energy; alternatively, manipulate the rate of continuous inflation by building 4th dimensional structures. In truth, I'm trying to clarify the differences between Georgina's model and my model.

In my model, 3D space is expanding because of a Cosmological pressure that continuously flows through the p3 brane. Energy-mass impedes that flow by drawing energy out of it into that region of space. In turn, that area of space is deflated and causes curvature of the p3-brane.

Georgina's model reinterpretes the graviational attraction of every unit of mass-energy as movement through the 4th dimension. Accumulations of mass create more movement of space into the center of the mass accumulation. There were other 4th dimensional hypersphere ideas that require a larger brain to really understand (just kidding, Georgina).

As for tachyons in the M2-brane model, what can we use them for, besides watching them fly off really fast? Can they be used to regulate the attachment of a tiny-verse brane (containing our space ship) to the p3-brane of the physical universe?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Jason,

I think I understand the problem. If photons are an artifact of the third dimension, then a pure M2-brane would not be illuminated by photons (although hyperflavor bosons might help with navigation). A 6-D hybrid Spacetime/ M2 would be illuminated, but would probably have large spaces that obey the "c" speed limit. It seems to be a "lose-lose" scenrio. There is so much we don't understand...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 17:33 GMT
Ray,

I feel like I was told the answer, but I have no idea what it means. If we go along with the idea that the Cosmological constant works like a pressure form inside of a hypersphere and causes it to expand, then the next step is possible. Two p3 spherical membranes, one inside of the other (like a small beach ball inside of a large beach ball), for some reason, these p3-branes will want to sit with their centers in top of each other. For reasons I do not understand, if the inner p3-branse is nudged slightly from that center, it will change the flow of Cosmological gas and result in a physically describable and observable Alcubierre-like event. The space on one side of the spaceship will expand, the space on the opposide side will contract, and the spaceship will accelerate subluminally or, if the dislocation of the p3 spheres is significant, the result will be a hyper speed event.

I have no idea why this should work in this way. I believe that the Cosmological constant will trump or will override conservation of energy. The flow between the two spheres will negate the need for an energy supply.

I have no idea how you get these membranes to expand. I also have a feeling that the concepts and mathematics get a lot harder beyond this point. Like I said, I feel like I was told the answer.

I think you are on the right track with regards to hybrid space-times. If an M2 brane lacks photon illumination, that could come in handy.. By hyperflavor bosons, it sounds like you mean strong force effects that can span a larger range? That could come in handy. I suspect that anything that you come up with, as awkard or strange as it might seem, could be useful for the next step, the creation of a hyperdimensional comstruction machine. I have a nagging feeling that this technology is going to eventually look like a hyperdim cellular biology. The big challenge is going to be to figure out how to create hyperdim structures. I also think that branes don't inflate just because we want them to. We're going to have to figure out what makes the one we want to inflate, inflate. These membranes probably exchange something...

Then, there is the main problem of getting experimental evidence and M-theory to agree. Ray, think of it this way: whatever we figure out that doesn't work, will bring us one step closer to a new advanced physics that may take hundreds of years to develop. I honestly think this kind of exploration of thought will lead to new physics that nobody ever thought of.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Jason,

It seems that you recieve inspiration more frequently than I do - perhaps my math brain works against my inspired brain. Is Inflation an ongoing event (as it is with our currency) or was it a singular point in time? (I think the latter). Is the expansion of the Universe accelerating or is it a misinterpretation of the data? (I know that I'm in the minority, but I think the latter - as such, I don't put much confidence in the Cosmological Constant). How would we inflate one brane while deflating another? If this is a Thermodynamic Phase Transition, how much energy is required to bring the two branes to a critical point?

I'm still not opposed to riding the 4-D projection of a 6-D wave. My only reservation is that we are probably still limited by the "c" speed limit. Still, taking 20 years to get to Gliese 581 c and e is better than our current technology.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 19:51 GMT
Hi Ray,

I was just thinking about that. I'm trying to track down a bump in the road. In the balloon metaphor, the rubber tension is what makes it hard to pump air into it. In the case of an inflating universe, the gravity of everything attracting everything else makes it hard to pump (Cosmological gas?) into the p3-brane.

From this reasoning, it would be easier to expand a brane if it had nothing in it. So why doesn't our universe just leak out its (Cosmological gas) into all of the rolled up universes laying around? I'm not ready to think about attachments and tubing yet.

I'm also still trying to grasp how black holes cause a sagging towards the center of a brane (diminished inflation). I do think that, unlike normal balloons, the (Cosmological air) leaks or passes through the membrane. If so, then some of its 4D inflation capacity (4D volume) will either be used to inflate, or it will go into the energy density of a point in space. For this reason, some of the 4D inflation capacity will have to push against a 3D energy density; that should result in an equation that describes the inflow of (Cosmological gas) minus outflow should equal the energy density times the (3D volume). A black hole would be minimally expanded; collapsed down to a singularity or at least very small. Everything inside of the event horizon we can assume (for a moment) is mass-energy density; mass-energy density is what deflates that part of space. Everything outside of the event horizon of a (assumed lonely and very hungry blackhole) is 3D space being stretched or p3-brane stretch. The graviational constant of the universe, G, should be a property of the p3-brane. The speed of light, c, should also be a property of the p3-brane as well. If I try to inflate a balloon with a hard metal disk attached to it, the curvature might not be noticeable. But what if I significantly over inflate it? The only way the curvature occurs is if gravity is centrally pointed.

There is something funny in my metaphor. I think that gravity is pointing to the center of the 4D sphere. I have to think about this some more.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 20:19 GMT
Ray,

Just a thought. Is there any chance that blackholes are carrying all of that mass content back to the instanton of the Big Bang? When I saw the possibility energy-mass trying to get back to the origin of the Big Bang, I got a little nervous about time travel. Time travel has to be impossible because of causality. But if each particle experiences an attraction back to the Big Bang, a 4 dimensional event, then maybe gravity is just a superstring attachment to that instanton. A black hole is just the overwhelming amount of mass that is sufficient to override the expanding p3-brane. Mmm...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
Ray,

I remember many months ago I was at the mall with my girlfriend. I was seeing in my minds eye elongated superstrings that were vibrating along the temporal axis as well as the 3D axis. I could watch them change their orientation as well. When there were interactions, new superstrings emerged. There weren't any causality violating events; just the strange sense of amusement that we were stumped by the contradiction. There were some other rather un-thermodynamic shinannigans, but no causality violations. There were other things I'll have to tell you about privately. I suppose that one interpretation of this could be our motion in the 4th dimension as a physical dimension.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 23:28 GMT
The singularity in a black hole and that associated with the big bang might be considered as quantum mechanically entangled or dual in some ways. Food for thought.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 01:05 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

That is an interesting idea. If Spacetime is represented by an H4 120-cell, then what happened to the dual 600-cell (or vice versa)? Our lattices allow multi-dimensional geometrical entanglement.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 02:56 GMT
Lawrence,

I tend to agree that black holes and Big Bangs might be related. More specifically, I was considering that our universe might still be attached to an instanton in 4D space, the location of the original Big Bang. I'm considering that such an instanton might allow criss crossing lines into another universe the same way that a cone can have a geometric mirror image.

Ray,

Multidimensional entanglement? I've been banned from discussing physics at my girlfriends house for discussing stuff like that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 12:21 GMT
The singularity of a Schwarzschild BH, in classical GR, is a three dimensional surface where the Weyl curvature diverges. When one considers string theory and examines what happens to closed strings the singularity is composed of M2-branes with IIA strings attaching to them. So as the M2-branes are similar in physics to graphene, the strings attached to the M2-branes are like loose bonds between sites on the graphene sheets that stack them up --- a bit like graphite.

The singularity is of course not a point but is a huge sheet "stretched out" by the enormous geometric curvatures and so forth. BH singularities exist in the causal future of any system which enters the BH, and are in a spacelike "trapping region." The singularity for cosmology is in the causal past and bounds a timelike region. So both singularities are in some sense spacelike, in that they don’t exist in a timelike region with a temporal component to scatter quantum at one time t into another time t’ > t. So imagine we have a stack of M2-brane sheets and we extend quantum fields across this region, in ways I am unclear on at this point, so that across this region a spacelike trapping region is signature changed into a timelike region. This them might correspond to the singularity tied to the big bang.

The M2-brane or anyonic stringy sheets and their “stacking up” correspond to the three scalars in the Jordan matrix J^3(O). The thee copies of the octonions in the J^3 correspond at higher energy. I think to the Leech lattice Λ_{24} which decomposes into S^3xSL_2(7), or three copies of the Fano plane (or in a pullback three E_8’s) on a three sphere --- a curious analogue of the Bloch sphere as an S^2 defining spin states. This is the description level at J^3(O). The three E_8 then decompose further I think into E_8xE_8, but where each E_8 exists on a tessellation of icosians given by the 120/600 cells. This is where the E_{12} or K_{12} enters into the picture. The octahedrachoron of the 120 and 600 cells have lots of beautiful structure and they also tessellate hyperbolic four spaces, such as AdS_4. The role of the M2-branes is that there exists a structure at this level as AdS_4xD7 (or AdS_4S^7) and the 7 dimensional stuff is “5+2”, for the “2” being these string anyonic sheets, similar to graphene. The D1-D5 duality between brane tensions on the NS5-brane *black brane” and strings D1 enters into this picture as well. At this lower energy description the M2-brane exhibits Fermi surface physics and states just off that surface which are Landau-Fermi fluid like on the entire stack of M2-branes. This is the crux of my paper on how the cosmological constant is a manifestation of a quantum phase change induced by elementary physics on lower dimensional braney structures similar to graphene.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 17:45 GMT
Hi all ,

It's interesting this graphene ,it's more interesting than silicium still No ?

Probably this architecture facilitates the velocity of particles thus the transfert of informations .

This architecture is still weak due to our young evolution ,but we evolve fortunally for our harmonious future technology .

The natutre of silicium is incredible indeed ,with the cellular automata it's relevant with coded algorythms and superimposings .Probably our global system uses this coded informations systems .

Thanks Ray and Lawrence to give me the road to understand the computing ,I saw too the correlated hilbert space and the Boch sphere with the M. Fréchet-J. von Neumann-P. Jordan Theorem .And the personal computer is born and evolves with the superimposings .I have some questions about the code ,it's just a spherical fields in fact .

I understand better your works Lawrence and your mathematical extrapolations .

If the thermodynamics ,the mass and the rotatings spheres are correlated ,the results can be surprisings and universal .The ultim cellular automata can be pragmatic with the physic and its scales ,limits ,coherences ,invariances and anthropic principle .If the increase of mass by rotation and polarisations towards centers are a reality ,thus the physical dynamic can be correlated with the universal automata with specific spheres ,thus this system can evolve and can be completed too in Time space evolution towards the ultim universal sphere .

The ultim system like a crystal if you prefer will increase the velocity of transfert,very interesting ,but our quantum number implies a very important complexification of the quantum architecture and its rotations implying mass.We are still far of this number of spheres thus far of the crystal .But we must accept this important number of spheres to encircle our Universal dynamic in evolution.

In fact the computing is human ,the universe is more .Of course the computing can be harmonized with the universal dynamic to make a difference between imaginaries and reals ,simply .

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
I believe there is benefit to describing a particle-space relationship. Generally, a particle is an object in some dimensional region; the space dictates the laws of motion to the particle. I believe that a 3D space can be described as a particle in a higher dimensional space. Such particles would be allowed to interact with other particles via the forces of that higher dimensional space. From the perspective of inside the particle (that 3D space), we would not directly be able to determine the existence of the higher dimensional space nor any adjacent 3D spaces that are particles in the higher space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
Lawrence/Ray,

I've been thinking about a "particle-space" representation which had led me to tesselation. I need to consult the experts.

Particle-Space representation:

For a particle in some space R, there exist within that space fermions (particles) and bosons (forces). The tessalation theory suggests that the particles/forces and laws of motion come from the vertices and struts of the tiles that tesselate this space, R.

If the tiles that tesselate R will also tesselate U, then particles/forces in space R can also exist in space U.

What happens if the tiles of space U, called TU can be subdivided into smaller tiles called, TR? Is it possible to have a situation in which particles and forces of space R can exist in space U, BUT particles and forces of space U cannot exist within space R?

I'm afraid that in order to show that a particle-space phenomena can occur, I have to show that the tiles, TR can assemble a vertex on a tile of U, TU. Is that kind of funky geometry even possible?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 06:39 GMT
I've been thinking about the tesselation of these various geometric shapes. If particles correspond to vertices and forces correspond to struts, then what is really being tesselated?

Can superstrings arrange themselves into these kinds of lattices? If that were the case, then strain and angle should become important in the way that they relieve stress. If not, the superstrings will change configuration until they can find a geormetry that spreads out strains and stresses.

So why is the universe expanding? Lawrence said the Cosmological constant is related to phase transitions of M2 planes. That's interesting, but how does that explain the Big Bang, Inflation, and the corresponding expansion of the universe? In what way are we looking at it wrong?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 12:27 GMT
Dear Jason,

As usual, you have an interesting perspective and bring up interesting questions. I have only been playing around with tesselations since last year and do not pretend to have all of the answers.

The question here is "What are the fundamental differences between Spacetime and Hyperspace? If Hyperspace is a "stringy lattice" (in my theory, Hyperspace is based on an E8 Gosset lattice - Lisi imposed Spacetime, not Hyperspace, requirements on the Gosset lattice), then it might allow tesselations that Spacetime doesn't allow, and therefore contains new particles (of all kinds: scalar bosons, matter fermions, vector bosons, gravitino fermions and tensor bosons). Furthermore, the tension in this "stringy lattice" would better resist the stresses and strains of a one-time Inflation event, and therefore Hyperspace should not have inflated and expanded as much as Spacetime.

I'm working on a new paper for the "What is Ultimately Possible in Physics" contest. arXiv still hasn't agreed to publish my ideas, but I refuse to quit. Maybe I'm a maverick and I need to stir up some controversy.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 13:51 GMT
We might think of the universe as a system of quantum bits determined by polytopes of sphere packing structures. These are tessellations of various manifold, similar to the crystallographic structure of a solid. How the manifold is tessellated is a matter of a gauge or coordinate choice, so it is not as “hard” as with the case of a solid. The quantum fields of the system are determined by a certain gauge group, which is E_8xE_8, and if the tessellation is in 8 dimensions the E_8 group root lattice defines the Voronoi crystalline lattice --- similar to a Brillouin zone. In the case the fundamental lattice is E_8, the root lattice is the group, which is a remarkable aspect of the E_8 exceptional group. This breaks down into simpler elements at lower energy.

Now suppose we have some lattice, and there is a quantum field on the lattice. For a strongly coupled system there is then Skyrmion physics which is established that has rope-like physics which are at a distance what we call strings. From this quantum code or quantum sphere packing approach some elements of string physics can be derived. Curious the simplest tessellation is F_4 group, or the 24-cell (octahedrachorion) tessellation of 4-dimesnions. This reproduces some basic aspects of the 26-dimensional bosonic string.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 17:00 GMT
Hi Lawrence ,Ray ,Jason ,

Well well well,strings ,Exeptional E ,branes ,extradimensions ....

This group is not correct ,it's just a mathematical extrapolation ,the quantum architecture is the same what our cosmological future spheres probably thus the number and the system is totally different ,far of these absurdities .Not your mathematical extrapolations which I find very interestings ,but your bitterness on these things is stupefying .I am frank ,the franchise is important for me .You are like a computer on the bad road ,so competent but in the bad roads .I imagine your extrapolations with fundamentals ,probably very relevant in total sincerity .

I am curious Lawrence ,since how many years do you use these tools ,strings ,gosset,extradimensions,...if I can ask you that of course ?

Sometimes I have the impression what it's like a forced job for you but perhaps I am false ,could you convince me ,in fact it's a little if all turned around these tools and nothing can be insert .

If you stop at this limits ,gosset ,strings...you are going to rest far of the truths .

All your extrapolations could be used in the fundamental roads ,sure the results shall be supers for the sciences community .

It's not a critic but a sincere message ,

Personally if I can tell you is what The entanglement must considered the volumes and the specificities of spheres,any mathematical geometrical extrapolations can be correlated with the physics and its fundamenatls without the correct entanglement of quantum spheres which are so so numerous and specifics .The volumes and the rotations in a maximum contact explains all .The lattices ,thus these spaces for the rotations are specifics too correlated with the volume of the quantum spheres.

Now of course if I have a proof of the strings ,gosset and extradimensions ,be sure I will agree but at this moment really ???

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 17:18 GMT
Dear Steve,

I understand your critisisms. I work with computers enough to know that "garbage in equals garbage out" (GIGO). My lattices are based on products of Simplices. Simplices are as true to Kissing Spheres (and your Spheres) as we can find. The strangest Simplex in my theory is a 4-D 4-Simplex. I hope that doesn't bother you too much.

The Gosset lattice is a very special lattice, even though it is 8-dimensional. Personally, I was very resistant to consider unseen extra dimensions until the past couple of years. I now see the beauty and complexity of these extra dimensions, and am willing to defend them even though they are out of fashion. Remember, FASHIONS ALWAYS CHANGE - stick with a fashion long enough and it will eventually come back into style.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 17:30 GMT
HIHIH ,don't worry if people focus on spheres and spherisation,I am with them ,the complemenatrity always .I will be flatted and I will have to work my vanity ,hihihi

To be serious nothing bother me ,only the health of my family and friends ,and the PLANET IN DISTRESS ....there that bothers me and not a few .

We must

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

What is a a 4-D 4-Simplex ?

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Steve,

Another name for the 4-Simplex is the PENTACHORON. You can imagine it as the underlying shape of close-packing 4-D spheres in a 4-D space.

I am fine. It sounds like Lawrence is on the mend. I hope you are also OK. Perhaps one day, you and I can work together to help this planet in distress.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
The pentachoron is a classical tessellation. You can tile up a 3-space with tetrahedra and the pentachoron has a fifth vertex which demarks where light rays emitted from the four tetrahedral vertices join. If you join these null strutted fifth vertices together you find curiously a second tessellation which is a three space tiled up by truncated octahedra. This is a dual space, in fact a momentum space, as they emerge from the focusing of light rays similar to Fourier transform optics.

The elementary quantum tessellation is the 24-cell or octohedrachoron. This gives the spacetime an underlying F_4 group structure, which is connected to the 26-dimensional bosonic string. The 24-cell is self dual and defines a system of quaternions. The F_4 group is stable under the G_2 group and the F_4xG_2 define orthogonal subgroups or centralizsers in E_8. If we spit the E_8 into its two H_4's which compose the Weyl group on E_8 this is the 120/600 cell (dodecahedrachoron) which tessellates a spacetime with hyperbolic geometry, such as AdS.

The cosmological constant is in some stable configuration corresponding to a low energy configuration. At high energy it was considerably larger, wuch as during inflationary period.

As for Steve's question, these things take years to study. Each topic might take weeks or months, but to study them all takes considerable time.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
Lawrence,

That sounds kind of useful. What are your comments about "information" through an M2-brane? I'm referring to the black hole question of holographic a universe. Can M2 shed any light on how it handles this kind of information?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 21:28 GMT
Lawrence,

A Brillouin zone is a description of the momentum in each direction within K-space. But if k-space is scaled to be very large, isn't that the same thing as allowing its speed of light to get very large? If that is true, then there will be a scaling of other building blocks. I have to look back at what you've written; I'm on my way to work now. I think you gave me some of the clues I've needed.

Oh, also, how hot does it have to get before we can start inflating a space?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear Jason,

Direct (Wigner-Seitz) space and reciprocal (Brillouin or momentum k) space are Fourier transforms of each other. If reciprocal space is large, then direct space is small, and vice versa. As k tends towards infinity (no electron band curvature), effective mass also tends towards infinity. Thus, in graphene, an electron would "freeze" if the energy band curvature and its effective mass approached +/- infinity.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Ray,

I'm afraid you're right. I noticed that as well from E=mc2; higher speed of light means the energy content for mass is larger. On the other hand, maybe I don't care if the energy content of my particles is really large. What if I can get by with far less mass? This leads me back to the "particle-space" concept. If there really was a hyperspace with a speed of light c' = 1000c, could I get one of its particles to behave like an M2-brane? I would hide my spaceship inside of the M2-brane where the laws of motion, inside, are normal. But the M2-brane would be recognised (in an amazing stroke of luck) as a single particle with mass m = E/c'2.

If I can reduce my mass content within this hyperspace, significantly, can I avoid the huge energy cost of traveling a long distance in a short time? I am assuming (hoping) that the higher speed of light isn't going to muck up the flow of time. Also, for an M2-brane that acts like a single particle in hyperspace, a megaton or two of energy can push a single hyperspace particle up to c' alot quicker than a 50,000 metric ton starship. This assumes that (a) an M2-brane can make a space look like a particle to hyperspace, (b) that one particle is enought, (c) that energy can be channelled through the M2-brane barrier (and not incinerate it).

But this is why I thought of the "particle-space" idea. My hope is that Lawrence, or you, find a way to show that a tesselated geormetric space can reduce to a simple particle in another type of tesselated space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 02:55 GMT
Rescaling k space will not change the speed of light. Propagators are of the form

G(E, k) ~ 1/sqrt(k^2 - E^2)^n

and for a disperion k = k(E) the rescaling just adjust and amplitude of a field propagated by this Greens function. The Brillouin space is momentum space, which is in some sense the reicprocal of standard space.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 04:39 GMT
Ray,

I do remember something about the effective mass of an electron in a crystal, and how the potential energy of the lattice could change it. I'll need to crack my Solid State physics book tonight. From a tesselation approach, it should be possible to say something meaningful about mass and Higgs fields. As for the speed of light, the crystal just gets its properties from the atoms it's made of, which in turn get their properties from quantum mechanics, space-time, etc.

Exactly how do we get to change the speed of light?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 08:44 GMT
Hi ,

I am fine ,thanks .

Yes Dr Cosmic Ray it's nice ,with pleasure ,the united is the key and act by adapted sciences on ground too.

With You ,Jason ,Lawrence ....we can extrapolate many interesting systems ,the engeniering is not my force .

Lawrence ,thanks for your answer.

Jason ,we have two mavericks with us ,hihih in all case ,Thanks Lawrence and Ray to answer to our questions so often .

About the light ,perhaps we can ask to God to change this velocity ,if he wan't thus it don't change this light hhhihi

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 10:55 GMT
Steve,

I've already talked with God about this. God told me to come up with good sturdy set of Laws of Motion, and he'll fit it in.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 12:37 GMT
The speed of light is a conversion factor. It permits one to convert units of distance to those of time. It is an absolute invaraint. If you do "change" the speed of light then everything else in physics which depends on the speed of light adjusts accordingly in a way so you do not notice any real change.

The renormalization of the electron mass is an effect of the brillouin zone. The nonrelativistic energy of particle is E = k^2/2, where the parabola is spit up into this lattice-like system and one can compute the effective mass.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 16:46 GMT
Lawrence,

You said: "The speed of light is a conversion factor. It permits one to convert units of distance to those of time. It is an absolute invaraint. If you do "change" the speed of light then everything else in physics which depends on the speed of light adjusts accordingly in a way so you do not notice any real change.

"

There have been movies like "The Incredible Shrinking Women" in which someone gets smaller or larger. The very idea seems incompatible with physics. However, from your statement, you seem to suggest that this is exactly what scaling of the speed of light would do. A space with a larger speed of light would make everything bigger and heavier, right?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 17:43 GMT
It would do exactly the opposite. If you rescale the speed of light then everything else rescales accordingly, including meter sticks and clocks, or atomic frequencies. In rescaling the speed of light everything adjusts accordingly so as to mask any change in the speed of light. Poincare one wrote that if everything in the universe increased in size by a factor of 10 there would be no way of knowing it. Of course he made this statement before relativity and some other aspects of modern physics, but the point is well made.

I see that Giovanni Amelino-Camelia has just put up an essay, and he has been an exponent of the idea of double relativity. That throws a bit of a spanner in what I am saying. Though that involves what happens to c as one considers things near the Planck scale. I also have wondered if there is not some covariant-like structure which operates to counter the effect of double relativity if physics does have some reality to it.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 20:10 GMT
Are you suggesting that even if the speed of light could drift, there are feedback relationships in place that push its value back to 3x102m/s? Since c=frequency x wavelength, I assume that the speed of light connects time (1/f) and space together. There are other relationships that may play a role in a physics feedback system that forces the constants together. But what would that feedback loop look like? Could a small change in the speed of light create negative feedback loops that make it energetically unfavorable to deviate from c?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 21:17 GMT
If you sit down and crank some numbers you find lots of physical parameters rescale according to any change in the speed of light so there would be no observable difference. For instance the Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom would change, but so would everything else proportionally so there would be no observed change, or any measurable change in c! You will have to sit down and just crank some numbers through various parameters to check this.

When it comes to double relativity the variation in the speed of light occurs near the Planck scale. So on that domain there is a range of uncertainty, yet I have thought there might be some covariant-like structure which accounts for this so there is no actual change in c. I have not pursued this in any serious way, but ... .

The two constants which I think should be absolutely constant are c and ħ. These are in naturalized units dimensionless. The other parameters, what are considered constants, might change in relationship to these. The fine structure constant, which in all units is dimensionless, will renormalize accordingly or vary according to various theories or renormalization group flows.

The speed of light is a conversion factor between space and time. The Planck constant ħ is a conversion factor between length and momentum for a quantum wave. I tend to think that what ever physics we can access in the forseeable future these should be absolutely constant. I can't say whether that will be the case for physics in the year 2250 --- asuuming there is the study of physics then or much of anything else.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 21:31 GMT
If c is forever fixed, then any ideas of traveling somewhere faster than c are hopeless. The Alcubierre drive requires more energy then exists in the universe, so that won't work. Maybe the best we can hope for is to avoid travel using anything that involves mass/momentum/velocity; perhaps a jump drive, something that lets us skip or avoid a vast length of space altogether.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 00:42 GMT
That is probably the case. In fact due to expense and other matters NASA can't get the US manned space program out of Earth orbit. The speed of light is an invariant. I am not a strong exponent of McGucken's idea of moving dimensions, he has a paper on the essay page, but he keeps making a point that along the 4th dimension we move at x_4 = ct, or the speed of light. So everything in a way is moving the speed of light, no faster or slower. This is a rather elementary fact of special relativity, but it makes a point of this ultimate invariant of the speed of light.

Jump drives or wormholes suffer from the same problem as with warp drives, the energy required as the source of the spacetime configuration is negative. These things likely to be appear ruled out.

We are most not only stuck to speeds slower than light, but probably we are simply stuck here on Earth. Space is interesting to study and send probes or instruments into, but I doubt we are really going to live there.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 04:40 GMT
Hyperdrive capability is beyond both our technical capability and our ability to understand. It might be a lot easier if we could actually watch the technology at work.

The idea of a particles-space is that a particle in one universe can contain the space of another universe. If branes can really be manipulated, then we might have to take a p3-brane (for our space ship) and connect it to a particle in a hyperspace. Our spaceships mass is only relevant on our p3-brane (where are physics is in operation). By finding the right particle in the right hyperspace, we should be able to hide our small piece of space within a particle whose speed of light is c' > c.

I believe that particles of higher dimensions and brane-space of lower (fewer) dimensions will have identical mathematical expressions. That's what makes it work.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 11:22 GMT
Jason,

He will give you a superluminal skateboard to slip on the ramps,the slopes between the multispheres hihihi the ramps between BH are supers too ,the aim is to take a velocity with the ramps of BH and with a big impusion you will reach the ramps between Multispheres hihihii branes by branes betwenn the local physical laws ...don't forget the protections ,it's dangerous .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 14:47 GMT
It is likely that faster than light technology exists in the same category as perpetual motion machines. For instance, a worm hole could be connected in principle to the interior of a black hole to access information in the interior. This would reduce the entropy of a black hole without reducing its mass. This run afoul with the thermodynamics of spacetime and black holes.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 16:40 GMT
Lawrence,

First, I think it's helpful to push the limits of our understanding of physics by forcing it into peculiar scenarios. In this way, we stretch our ability to conceptualize what is ultimately possible.

Second, I can't change the fact that starts are lightyears apart. Things like mass and the speed of light are simply obstactles. The Higgs field makes everything energetically expensive to move around. It's like walking to another city because you don't know that busses or planes exist, or that tickets are reasonably priced.

We use String Theory/M theory to mathematically explain what black holes are. Why don't we use it to explain what we would need to device a practical hyperdrive system? A blackhole can be described as a particle-sized singularity. Furthermore, every one of these hypothetical spaces has fermions (particles) and bosons. A "particle-space" relationship means that a particle in a higher dimensional space can also exist as a volume of 4D space-time. If one particle is not enough to contain the volume we need, then use the minimum number of particles to create a boundary. From the higher dimensional space, it looks like particle or glob of higher-Dimensional material that obeys the laws of motion of it's universe. But what is not obvious or observable is that this particle or glob contains within it a lower dimensional space with completely different laws of motion (a 4D space-time with a heavy space ship inside). But "heaviness" depends upon the Higgs field. The higher dimensional particle, which might have to be a glob of material, has one Higgs field inside of it, and also exists within its own Higgs field. For faster than light travel, the glob of material with the 4D space-time inside, only has to obey the laws of motion for its own mass, not the different Higgs field inside of it. In this way, this higher dimensional particle (which may have to be a glob of material) can be as minimal as possible, but large enough to contain a sufficient volume of 4D space-time inside of it. The speed of light can be higher, but the mass requirement is significantly less, and independent of the mass content inside of it. This is the particle-space idea/concept.

Steve,

I would break my neck with an ordinary skateboard; and you want to give me a hyperdrive skateboard?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Jason,

ahahah I have discussed with him a little about your hyperdrive ,his answer is be patient Jason ,we evolve .That's all hihiahah thus it's positive for the hope ,indeed if some systems loose their physicality thus these vaccums are relevant ,but for the check of the velocity ,a propulsion and a correlated shields for the check of gravity thus a spherical shields is necessary ,how create this kind of shields with an adaptable system balanced with propulsion and protection ,the most important is the force of gravity during the propulsion .

The rotations is probably the key to create this kind of spherical shield .

Have some ideas to create a spherical shield ,with adaptable variable to balance the propulsion more the cosmological protection ,I think really what all is there ,the shield is important ,we must invent a new technology focus on the spherical field and properties ,and for that I am persuaded what the rotating spheres and the rotations of bodies is the key .How can we check the rotation,the mass ,the gravity ...Perhaps with a balance with a central sphere and specifics orbitals in rotations too around a specific system.

I think it's the key of the voyage in the Universe .

You are right in fact Jason ,the linear velocity ,constant of the light is a real problem when we see our dimensions ,even our planets about 27000 AL from the center .

Probably it exists some places ,relevant where the physical laws are different and perhaps there the velocity is more high.

But if it's like that ,what is our complemenatry system is our solar system ,I am persuaded it exists many secrets still to discover in our others planets ,some interesting properties perhaps ,it's a little if we must find the secrets in fact ,the secrets, stables of our Universe after 13.7 billions years of polarisation .Probably it exists interesting minerals ,gas ,or others ,all has a rule ,it's sure and certain .We must accept our actual step .

Let's imagine all scientists focus on this kind of spherical sciences ,we could quickly evolve if the focus is a reality .

Sometimes I am frusttrated to see our evolution step ,it's incredible ,we could make so many interestings things in complementarity .

Let's take the number of labs in competition and that and that ,frustrated really but it's our Earth ,fortunally we evolve .

Friendly

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
Steve,

Maybe I should take a closer look at rotating spheres. I'm drawn to the idea of two spherical p3-branes, one within the other. When their centers are overlapping, nothing unusual is observed. But when the inner sphere is displaced from the center, it causes space to expand behind it, and contract in front of it. This is based on the idea that the Cosmological constant is adjustable.

If our universe can be described by a tesselation of space-time, and still be said to expand, then the spheres of this hypothetical lattice would have to behave very strangely. They would have to be inflatable. This brings us back to the cosmological constant. If this constant is due to a phase change on a stack of M2 branes like what Lawrence says, then what causes the phase change?

Anyway, rotating spheres? The effect of rotation depends upon what, exactly, is rotating. I'll think about it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 11:10 GMT
Hi Jason,

Yes indeed ,the rotating effects have a cause ,probably the entropy and the code and the sense and velocity of rotation intrinsic of the spheres are linked ,(the centrifugal force is an effect and a cause ,but the cause is the code and the code???),like a balance between the walls.Like an atrraction and repulsion balance .

The lattices between are a kind of tesselation with a specific entanglement ,Their comportments at this local system are probably surprisings .

For the voyage ,the topology must be optimized I think ,if we want play with the space in our spherical Universe ,the topology and our situation are essential .If all turns around the center ,the effects of theses rotations around the main central sphere are relevant to play with them and with inflations .

If the Universe have a specific dynamic with expansion and contraction ,it's important to know how is our actual dynamic thus where are we in fact and where are we go too .The problem is our dimension ,let's imagine how check the 27000 AL to the center .Howw give to this sphere an incredible velocity if we rest in our physicality whare the light is constant .

Let's imagine if the key was the topology and the codes to rebuild ,thus if some spheres are in non rotation like the dark matter ,thus we can take off the polarity thus rotations and with a symmetry probably we insert the codes to imply the same polarisations after 13.7 billions years ,the we must class all rotations and there is a secret ,the cause to rebuild these specificities in a local chosen place to discover ,like an universal teleportation with a rebuilding of all spheres in rotation .

Very very difficult ,the centrifugal energy is fascinating ,and all is linked in this logic I think ,how check the rotation ????

With spherical branes and the codes of rebuilding and with oscillations ,we can adapt thr frequences and thus the voyage of discovery .

It's frustrating our actual technology ,really really frustrating .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.