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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:15am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/22/10 at 11:12am UTC, wrote Hi Lawrence, On Advanced Physics Forum APF , I knew a scientist and I...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 3/21/10 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Spacetime does not have the degrees of freedom necessary to describe gauge...

Anonymous: on 3/21/10 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Why can't a four dimensional space constitute what is a six dimensional AND...

Anonymous: on 2/2/10 at 10:20am UTC, wrote Hi Ray, You know my model needs many improvements, I am young and I have...

Ray Munroe: on 2/1/10 at 18:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Sphere-keeper Steve, I know we approached the problem from different...

Anonymous: on 2/1/10 at 17:46pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr Cosmic Ray, You know I like read your extrapolations and your skills...

Ray Munroe: on 2/1/10 at 13:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, If you prefer to believe in the Standard Model, that is fine....

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

RECENT 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
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Dark matter found! Or is it all just hype? [refresh]

Blogger Mark Wyman wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 14:59 GMT
Yesterday, there was a widely hyped (though not, at least publicly, by the experimental team itself) announcement of the results of one of the premier dark matter direct detection experiments, the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search. Rumors had been flying wildly across the blogosphere -- and through informal conversations -- that this announcement would be of the discovery of dark matter. Since dark matter is thought to comprise 25% of all the energy density in the Universe, as well as 5/6ths of all matter in the Universe, this would have been a big deal. It would have been among the most significant scientific discoveries of all time. However, the actual result that was announced was quite mild: an anomalously high background signal that could either be a statistical fluke (23% likely) or, possibly, the first indication that our dark matter detectors have gotten sensitive enough to see this nearly invisible form of matter.

How did what was likely a statistical fluctuation -- the odds of this being an accident are nearly the same as the odds of flipping first a heads, then a tails, on a quarter -- become the talk of the town even before there was anything announced?

The answer is that particle physicists are energetic, highly skilled, competitive ... and data starved. In contrast with my own field of cosmology, whose culture was formed during a long era of weak and inconclusive data, particle physics began as a precise experimental science with decades of spectacular interplay between theory and experiment. In the past years, though, the Standard Model of particle physics has been so well established, and so well verified by experiment, that the field has been left, like Alexander the Great, with no more worlds to conquer. Unlike the Macedonian, though, particle physicists didn’t cry and then die young, but instead began to invent problems for themselves to solve. I don’t mean that disparagingly: they have located many points of technical progress and principle without which the field would be unready to confront whatever the physics that lies beyond the Standard Model turns out to be. But like in Ithaca during the Trojan War, for every quietly toiling patient Penelope there are a dozen of frustrated folks who can’t stand the wait.

It is this latter group that has, in the absence of real data to grapple with, come to drive the field’s culture. The practical upshot is that the field, while always competitive, has become ruthless. The uptake of new ideas, while always rapid in this area, has developed to the point of being nearly faddishness.

With this backdrop, the frenzy over the CDMS result, like the frenzy a few months back over the results of the cosmic ray satellite Pamela, makes perfect sense. Like prisoners fed nothing but moldy bread for years, the scent of red meat can be enough to drive a human wild with desire.

Until a dark matter search experiment or, even better, the Large Hadron Collider, actually sees something unambiguous, this sort of boom and bust cycle will, alas, likely continue. Let’s all hope for something soon.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 19:30 GMT
I am looking at their paper. It appears they might have detected a 70GeV/c^2 particle, which statistically could be something other than noise. This does look promising, though not as yet conclusive as far as I see.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
The statistical uncertainty in a measurement of 1 event is +/-1 -> 100%. The statistical uncertainty in a measurement of 2 events is +/- SQRT(2) -> 71%. Are they certain that they have properly modeled their background? I thought that Gordon Kane's FQXi essay and PAMELA data was much more convincing.

If the LSP is as light-weight as 70 GeV/c^2, then why didn't the Fermilab Tevatron produce Charginos in abundance?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 20:39 GMT
Ray,

If you look at their paper on the Berkeley website they do lay out some arguments for the stats. The stastics involve some sort of Bayesian or regression analysis on the probability the event is due to a nuclei instead of a WIMP particle. This appears close enough to be possible. We will have to stay tuned to see how this goes.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for that lead. I had read Gordon Kane's essay, but I clearly didn't concentrate and learn what I could have. I rated it a 10 so I gave the respect that it probably deserved. However, all that emphasis on string theory and living in a world with extra dimensions. I let my bias cloud my mind from learning what I could have from him. I am re-reading it because of your recommendation here. I still get turned off by extra dimension theory, but I don't know. It seems to me like an artificial solution forced upon us probably by earlier misinterpretation, but I don't know. Anyway, if you recommend it, then I know I should study it. With regard to this blog, I am always interested in empirical knowledge and am trying to follow it. Empirical knowledge for me is the key to understanding. I see theory as a risky excercise full of pitfalls. Now I am digressing to no one's interest but my own. Anyway, thank you for mentioning Gordon Kane's essay.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 18, 2009 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear James,

The most critical part of Prof. Kane's essay was the possible discovery of a 180 Gev/c^2 Zino-like LSP by PAMELA. This is an important part of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). I have friends who use the MSSM as a phenomenological model without further justification - it is the natural Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model. As such, it will be right or wrong, but might not direct us towards a GUT or TOE. Prof. Kane is pushing towards an 11-dimensinal String theory with a G2 holonomy (it sounds like Lawrence!) because Supersymmetry is consistent with String Theory.

I'm just a little bit 'crazier' than the rest of them. I think there are 12 important dimensions and we need to understand why the 12th dimension (perhaps Imaginary Time) disappeared.

Here is Prof. Kane's PAMELA paper from arXiv.

Ray

attachments: 0906.4765v3.pdf

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 04:55 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for attaching Dr. Kane's paper. I am reading it now. I clearly and certainly understand that you are not 'crazy'. I also understand that your education is far superior to mine. I am so glad that you are participating here and are remaining informed and active as a physicist. Dr. Barbour left the confines of the academic world very soon after receiving his Doctorate. He wanted his independence and supported himsself by other means. He remains a force to be reckoned with. Please, I hope that you will take advantage of your personal situtation for the benefit of freely advancing scientific knowledge.

James

report post as inappropriate

RLO wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 04:56 GMT
A Null result would have been 0.8 events.

CDMS recorded 2 events.

There is a 23% chance that this is a false positive.

Therefore it is not a significant detection of anything.

My prediction: 99.9% chance that the 2 events are background neutrons that are naturally produced by local radioactivity in the mine.

This prediction will be tested in 6 months to one year by bigger experiments already nearing final results.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[where significant DM results can be found: Paper #5 of "Selected Papers", published in Fractals, 2002]

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 14:29 GMT
The probability these events are background noise, such as neutrons, is 1:4. In fact they are not likely neutrons, that would be fairly off the energy spectrum for this event. The results are suggestive, but not conclusive.

As for Ray's question about the Tevatron, there may have been DM production of neutralinos or related SUSY particles. The problem is that if you are not set up to detect such a weakkly interacting particule you might miss the event.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 02:39 GMT
Here is a co-author paper that may throw some light onto DM {link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3003]problem ?

I think that particle interactions being envisaged are more likely to cause intepretation error's. If I stand in the centre of a spinning roundabout and jump into the air, I will fall back onto the centre. If I was at the extreme edge of roundabout,jump up into air, then Iwill be flung off,outwards?

If someone was to look at the data,(form within the roundabout) they could envisage that the outer most "me" was ejected by a non visable matter source?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT
Neutrons could have done this, but to quote the authors of this paper, on page 3 they write:

Neutrons with energies of several MeV can generate

single-scatter nuclear recoils that are indistinguishable

from possible dark matter interactions. Sources of neu-

tron background include cosmic-ray muons interacting

near the experimental apparatus (outside the veto), ra-

dioactive contamination of materials, and environmen-

tal radioactivity. We performed Monte Carlo simula-

tions of the muon-induced particle showers and sub-

sequent neutron production with Geant4 [16, 17] and

FLUKA [18, 19]. The cosmogenic background is esti-

mated by multiplying the observed number of vetoed sin-

gle nuclear recoils in the data by the ratio of unvetoed

to vetoed events as determined by cosmogenic simula-

tion. This technique predicts 0:04+0:04

��0:03(stat) events in

this WIMP-search exposure.

So as I said these results are not likely due to neutrons, but then again that is different from saying they were not due to neutrons. There are two misguided conclusions one could make from this. The first is to say DM has been detected. The other is to say these results are pure noise. I can only be said this is a work in progress.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 15:36 GMT
I do think that trying to detect "undetectable" non-interacting WIMPS or MACHOS for that matter,needs no more understanding than the theory itself, that of Dark Matter! Any interactions cannot leave a light source?..the fact remains that our Star is giving of vast quantities of background energy "noise" . Even deep withing the Earth, there must be decay events that find their way in to the detector?

Galactic Rotation being uniform across spiral galaxies, does not explain the "shape" of spiral "arms", which clearly are not linear, or spoke-like?

The reason Dark Matter was envisaged was to offset galactic anomolies? Untill we can send a detector to the Galactic edge, then I will be skeptic about any amount of over hyped flagwavings !

paper

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear GOW,

I reported your posts as inappropriate. I think that "General Omar Windbottom" is a "sock puppet" - not a real person. Come out of this pseudo-name hiding place and "man up" to your real identity.

Lawrence Crowell is one of the most talented guests to regularly visit these FQXi blogs - he is not a "poser". And we all recognize the reference to "Take your meds" as an implied insult.

My Doctorate was in Supersymmetric Phenomenology. I have run ISAJET/ ISASUSY and GEANT simulations to model the discovery of Supersymmetric particles, and to analyze cosmic rays. My supervising Professor, Howard "Howie" Baer has been involved in these simulations for a couple of decades. Some of Howie's students were Chih-Hao Chen, Michal "Mike" Brhlik and me. Chih-Hao modeled the discovery of SUSY at hadron supercolliders such as the Tevatron and LHC. I modeled the discovery of SUSY at electron-positron supercolliders such as LEP2 and the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC). Mike modeled the discovery of SUSY in Dark Matter searches. Howie has also worked with Xerxes Tata and Frank Paige over the years. Chih-Hao went to work for John Gunion, and Mike went to work for Gordon Kane.

I have my "partisan" favorites. If any of these people had been involved in this collaboration, then I would feel better about two events and the background simulations. As it stands, I am biased in favor of Gordon Kane's PAMELA data, and honestly think that everyone is rushing to publish results (that they know are inconclusive) prior to the first batch of LHC results.

Time (and LHC results) will tell us more about the LSP.

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 20:40 GMT
There is a prospect that the primary constituent of DM is the neutralino If so we might then be able to produce and detect these in the LHC. Now these are tough to find and detect, similar to neutrinos. Remember, it took 60 years from Pauli’s first suggestion about neutrinos to the Kamiokande detection of neutrino masses to properly figure neutrinos out. It was not until the 1950’s they were even first detected. Understanding ark matter empirically is likely to be one or more decade long problem to nail down. DM should be present in small quanitites around us and these particles should interact with ordinary matter by weak processes. The CMDS result is not conclusive, but it is interesting enough to warrant attention.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 02:01 GMT
Its just a matter of getting to high enough incident energies, and choosing your event signals, cuts and 'missing mass' bounds properly. Although the LHC won't directly detect the LSP, it would detect the decay of pairs of unstable Charginos, Squarks, Sleptons, or heavy Neutralinos (there are four Neutralinos in the MSSM and only one is the stable LSP) and deduce the presence and properties of an LSP via 'missing mass' vectors.

report post as inappropriate

RLO wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 18:15 GMT
In the spirit of the season, all is forgiven.

Let joy and peace rule the infinite fractal universe!

"Go and sin no more" - I think Spinoza said that.

RLO

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 22, 2009 @ 03:11 GMT
Dear Ray/Lawrence,

On a change of topic, is there any way to relate frame dragging caused by angular momentum (of a galaxy, black hole, etc...), to some kind of measureable effect upon the velocity of light? In other words, Let's say I have a laser apparatus that is set up to measure the velocity of light between two points A and B. Now, what if I place near points A and B a cylindrical object (200lb lead cylinder); the cylinder has some radius R. What if rotate this cylinder to some extraordinarily fast angular momentum. If the line that points A and B create, come very close to the spinning cylinder of radius R, at R+1mm, will it be possible to get a frame dragging effect in such a way that the velocity of light is changed by a tiny amount, c+Rw, where w is the angular momentum?

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Dec. 22, 2009 @ 14:55 GMT
Frowning on attempts to change topic.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 22, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
The speed of light is an invariant or a constant which converts time measurements to spatial distances on a locally flat frame. General relativity is formulated according to how locally flat spacetime regions are linked together on their overlaps. It is a form of calculus. The speed of light is a local regional result tied to the invariant interval ds^2 = g_{ab} dx^a dx^b, or distance in a general spacetime with a Lorentzian signature. If you go to inside black holes you will see some interesting graphics on what it would appears as if you entered a black hole large enough so you are not ripped apart by tidal forces. If you proceed to the section A Black Hole is a Waterfall of Space , you will see how in the Schwarzschild black hole there is the sliding of points, which across the event horizon is “faster than light.” Now caveats are in order here, for the motion of such spatial points is coordinate dependent. This motion as described is something which is dependent on the coordinate condition imposed on the problem, similar to a gauge condition in electromagnetism. So this is not a covariant or proper description of things, but something which is dependent on a particular frame bundle.

So to make a quick answer; no you can’t change the speed of light through a frame dragging.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 05:09 GMT
I looked up the velocity of light in wikipedia.com. It says that

c = sqrt (stiffness/density).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of
_sound

So this Higgs field/space-time that makes up space also seems to flow into black holes and other gravitationally significant objects. By the way, I checked out those websitss, they were enjoyable. Maybe the very phrase "flow of space-time" is meaningless because 1) all we see are gravitational forces acting on particles and 2) we don't even know what space or space-time is really made of, so we are not really in a position to talk about what space-time is constituted from. If we knew that, we could hope to change the stiffness or the density.

I can come up with ideas all day long. I can even come up with ideas that satisfy Occam's razor. The slim evidence is a problem. But the real problem is the unexplained absolute, c. Why can information not travel faster than c? Galaxies can move faster than light if they're really far away and we can't really see them that well. Space moves faster than light inside of a black hole where we can't watch, but then the model starts acting funny and predicting two opposite movements of space. Lawrence and I have engaged in intellectual battle over whether causality wins over space-time (FTL propulsion/no time travel) or if speed of light wins over causality (time machines). In an Occam's razor fight, it's more likely that FTL propulsion wins over time travel because a "past" requires that a whole universe just spring up out of nothingness. The real problem is there is nothing that is made from the space-time that can accelerate FTL. Furthermore, I just don't know where to find materials that can manipulate space in such a way as to produce FTL. My clock runs at different rates depending upon my elevation on the energy scale with respect to the rest of the universe. If I leave space-time and become separated from the time-keeping system of the universe, can I be reinserted later? If I can come back, does that remove all hope that hyper-drives can be described by any space-time mathematics? Do I end up with two times or two velocities; the time/velocity space-time observers say I took/traveled and a second time/velocity from my spaceship's navigational/time keeping system? Once I come out of warp, everyone agrees it was 10 lightyears. But there might be some disagreement over how fast I was traveling/ how long it took.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 07:22 GMT
By the way, if the universe is expanding, and the cosmological constant is an energy density, doesn't that mean that energy, by virtue of volume, is continually being added to the universe? It's subtle, but this is violation of the conservation of energy, right?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 09:40 GMT
Very relevant ,but if the expansion is specific in its sequence with acceleration ,deceleration ,max volume ??? The contraction is a possibility too after the max volume towards the balane between spheres .The conservation of energy thus is relative ,that depends of our locality or globality ,static or in movement ........

The Dark Matter is for ,quantum entangled spheres coded but without rotation implying mass thus an activation is probable .The pression ,mass ,nenergy volume in a thermodynamical point of vue about the universal spheres are very interestings if all is linked in this logic in my opinion.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 13:15 GMT
The universe with a constant energy density due to the quantum vacuum expectation would increase its energy by expanding. That is correct, for a finite spherical universe. However, this can be understood by a couple of means. The vacuum energy density ρ defines a momentum-energy tensor as

8πGT_{ab} = Λg_{ab} = 8πG(ρ + 3p)g_{ab}

where p is the pressure (momentum term) with p = -ρ in the de Sitter phase. So given this is an energy density then if the volume increases the energy in that volume also increases if the energy density is constant.

So how do we understand this. There are two ways. The cosmological constant Λ determines a Ricci curvature Λg_{ab} term. The time-time component of the Ricci curvature (R_{tt} = R_{00}) determines the expansion of points on a spatial surface, here usually considered as the spatial surface of the Hubble frame. The g_{ij}, for the metric indices i and j may be zero if the FLRW number k = 0. So the Ricci curvature for the spatial component of the metric is zero, which means the spatial surface is flat, topologically R^3, and infinite in extent. So in this case the volume of R^3 is already infinite and as nx∞ = ∞ the apparent creation of mass-energy is removed.

Another way of seeing this is that a spacetime conserves quantities according to the symmetries of that spacetime. These symmetries are determined by Killing vectors K_a which when projected onto a momentum in the “a” index or coordinate determine K_aP^a = constant. This is an isometry that preserves the momentum P^a. The time component of spacetime momentum is the energy P^t = E, and so a time Killing vector is required K_t = k∂/∂t, for k computed from the metric. The problem is that the metric components are time dependent g_{rr} = exp(sqrt{Λ}t/3}, which forbids the existence of a K_t. So energy conservation is only defined locally, and the global transport of E around the spacetime may literally create energy. However, this global transport can’t happen if the spatial surface is infinite. This has connections with something called the NUT parameter, which is a gravi-magnetic analogue to the dual magnetic monopole to the electric charge. The removal of the NUT parameter, as well as magnetic monopoles, occurs for the same reason. There is no global loop one can construct by which a quanta of magnetic monopole flux can be measured (in theory).

It is also of interest that the k = 0 condition on spacetime is where the holographic condition in quantum gravity is consistent, and the cosmological constant defines a cosmological event horizon which bounds a region (a sphere out to 12 billion light years) which conforms to the Bekenstein bound.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 14:26 GMT

The referential thus seems personal .

I am going to say you my point of vue,(ps sorry for my english and the lack of re reading ) .An important thing for me is the relative perception of our past .All thus is relative in its perception for the large scale ,even the quantum scale in fact .The density of mass and energy thus is in increasing on the line of time .But it is irreversible ,like the complex mass systems in all localities in one globality.

The utilisation of the refential and thus the topological link with the evolution is important,

for exemple considering a rotation around a static center in a finite system if we consider the moment like an instant ,of course on the line time the variables are in a specific serie ,sequence ,a specific period of harmonisation .The superimposing in rotation more the variable of volume seems interesting.

The curvature seems an effect of the gravity and if the evolution is inserted more the rotating spheres ,thus the increase of mass is correlated with the spherisation towards the perfect balance ,the mass seems purely linked thus .

We have many unknew about the real dynamic about this specific serie of rotation around the universal center ,the expansion and the contraction are possibles with their specificities .If the dark matter are elementary particles ,with a specific number of entangled spheres without rotation ,thus the evolution could imply an increase of lattices ,a decrease of space and an increase of mass .The contraction if it is a reality could be directly linked with PV nRT ....the density and the mass too with the volumes of spheres and the universal sphere more the central quantum sphere .The fact to have a increase of pression is relevant I think about the activation concept of dark matter ,considering them like spheres without rotation thus without mass .Thus we can correlate the code of informations with these thermodynamical variables .In all case this system inside a finite system with a finite série can give us many new datas about the real topology I think .The infinity implies a confusion in the physicality in my opinion.

It is interesting that the ricci curvature ,the time is essential to perceive our real dynamic since the begining .If we turn around the center ,thus our distances are differents .The increase of mass can be a technic to see the rotation ,with the curve which probably is correlated in this increase of mass .The dark matter too can be correlated in this logic .

About the NUT I don't know well ,could you develop a little please ?

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

When you said,"So energy conservation is only defined locally, and the global transport of E around the spacetime may literally create energy.", you appeared to challenge what I thought was a fundamental of physics.

Could their be a simpler explanation? My explanation works like this. A volume of empty space has an energy associated with it. If space is added, then energy is added. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it has to come from somewhere. The energy is coming from outside of this universe, it is leaking in or flowing in from the outside in the form of empty space. We had talked about Schwartzchild spheres as having energy levels where n=1 is our space-time and n>=2 are tachyonic. If more space is appearing, perhaps it's because some of that tachyonic space is losing it's tachyonic status and becoming standard space-time. This explanation allows energy to be conserved because it's being converted from an excited tachyonic space into regular space. Can you think of a reason why this explanation can't be true?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 18:08 GMT
I see several works on wiki. about the tensors ,Ricci ,Riemann,Einstein...That seems very relevant about the gravity ,the mass and the effects on the space time .

The confusion appears for me when the time is considered with reversibility and decoherences ,if we take the evolution .

In the logic ,the good tensors superimpose themselves in rationality .

I am not a supporter of the superimposing of dimensions but if the time constant is considered and the mass .That becomes very interesting.But if I superimpose the dimensions by tensors ,that implies confusions in my mind .

On the other in a simple superimposing in 3D where the mass curves ,it is more interesting in my model .There the rotating quantum spheres and their specific number can be insert with pragmatism with otehrs foundamentals like the volumic mass .The evolution seems essential in its complexification and increasing of mass near coded centers .The general relativity there is respected and it is well lke that fortunaly .

The rotating spheres can be correlated with the mass and the evolution .There too the general relativity is correlated and the universal gravitation too.

If the tensor space is separated with time ,I agree ,if not the tensor energy impulsion becomes confusing .The mass ,the curvature ,...all is correlated with the gravitation and the relativity .I return about the referential ,it is essential to be in the good sequence .

The volumes are so importants .The mass volumic seems a gravitational link with the rotating spheres .Laplace and Poisson seems relevant in this rationality if the numbers are knew ,correlated with the volumes and the mass ,and the energy .The pression in an "expansion/contraction dynamic" can imply interestings links .There is a big unknew about the volume and the pression on the line time in an universal point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 19:01 GMT
Once you start talking about anything outside the universe as a way of understanding the universe it becomes a part of the universe.

There are things about general relativity which are strange, and that violate some of our cherished “laws.” I want to limit the amount of mathematics I lay down here, so I am keeping this brief. There is a business of conformal transformations, and the de Sitter vacuum or spacetime which our universe is asymptotically evolving towards, is conformally equivalent to a flat Minkowski spacetime. The metric term g_{rr} = exp(sqrt{Λ}t/3) is a sort of time dependent conformal function, which can be derived from conformal arguments. So energy conservation in a strict sense only obtains for the spacetime mapped to its conformal equivalent flat spacetime. General relativity does not respect conservation of mass-energy in a general setting. The closest thing there is to it is the continuity of the stress-energy tensor D_aT^{ab} = 0, where D_a is the covariant differential.

If the spatial surface in cosmology in the FLRW setting is a closed spherical S^3 space, then as it expands energy is literally generated from nowhere. I know this sounds odd, but the lack of a Killing isometry which preserves the energy component of general four vectors means there is no conservation law of energy! What saves our tails is if the spatial surface is globally flat ~ R^3, or k = 0 in the FLRW approach, and the expansion expands local volumes of space, but the global spatial surface remains. This also is the condition where a cosmological holographic principle can hold.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 19:21 GMT
I fear there might be a confusion here between dark energy and dark matter. This article involves the detection of dark matter, which is a strange form of matter which is known to exist, but which does not interact by the electromagnetic interaction. As a result it is nonluminous. We do know it exists by galactic dynamics. Further back in 2006 the Bullet Galaxy illustrated its existence. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said,"Once you start talking about anything outside the universe as a way of understanding the universe it becomes a part of the universe." I thought that the physical universe was the space created by the Big Bang? Also, I thought that our universe had a consistent set of physical laws. For space, and energy, to appear out of nothingness, the whole model becomes vulnerable to philosophical attack.

You said,"General relativity does not respect conservation of mass-energy in a general setting." So you believe that GR wins out against conservation of energy?" I do understand that you have a doctorate in GR and teach it; your preference for GR over other things is certainly understandable. But if magicians cannot pull rabbits out of nothingness, then I'm afraid that GR physicists cannot pull energy out of nothingness either.

I want to read more about your Killing vector argument (GR band-aid). I think there is a soft spot in General Relativity. Violating conservation of energy constitutes blood in the water. You, Albert Einstein, and all of your relativistic mathematics are going down.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
Dear Lawrence ,You make me crazzy with always new things , yes he makes me crazzy hihihi and you Jason with the spheres of Swart too. I am going to learn more .There you make me crazzy ,I mix all the laws now,it lacks Ray the Dr Cosmic Ray and go to the hospital for me .I am laughing of course ,happy to have known FQXi ,

I pass The christmass ....a little of quiet .hihihihi even on my Christmass trees ,there are spheres dear Lawrence ,Jason ,...,you imagine thus the effects on my mind.

merry Christmass to all and your family .

Take care

Steve from Belgium ,the crazzy spheric man

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 19:57 GMT
General relativity by itself permits all sorts of odd things. The Godel universe is a cosmic time machine, there are dual universes with a magnetic monopole analogue of mass, called Taub-NUT spacetime. There are all sorts of strange stuff, and spacetimes which do not represent our observable cosmology. In the case of k = 0 or a globally flat space, but with curvature in the time direction which induces the "accelerated expansion." the lack of energy conservation does not create the problem we might suppose.

What appears to require the universe to be flat, or k = 0, is the holographic principle, first suggested by 't Hooft and developed by L. Susskind. There is I think something even deeper than this, but I will not go there. In fact describing the holographic principle requires that one must abandon ideas about what is meant by a sequence of events or a consistent trajectory. Things are very strange, where the quantum principles of entanglements with spacetime indicate how a string interacting with a black hole can have to completely different configurations. My FQXI essay is in part an illustration of holography.

The problem is that things are just, ... errhm, uhmm really strange. An impediment in physics often occurs from obstructions that are not necessary on a deeper level of description. That is what is happening here, and frankly things are just simply bizarre because you have to abandon many ideas about things which we take as almost axiomatic.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Jason,

This thread is on Dark Matter. I have already stated that I was more impressed with Kane's paper than the CDMS paper.

If we are going to mix up Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Mass-Energy conservation and such, then I have something to add to your discussion with Lawrence. Creatio ex nihilo makes no sense from a philosophical perspective. What defined the transition from nothing to something? Creatio ex materia might make sense if the visible Universe is the inflated part of a multi-dimensional lattice/ strings/ spheres (Twenty-six dimensions collapsed, due to broken symmetries, to yeild the three plus one dimensions that we presently experience). And Creatio ex Deo is an arguable Theological perspective that Science cannot prove or refute, and therefore is excluded from scientific consideration.

Consider this simple possibility. A 26-dimensional lattice always existed. A Higgs boson (or something similar - I don't care how we name our symmetry-breaking mechanism) broke the initial perfect symmetry such that four dimensions (why four? we need to better understand this lattice's symmetries)recieved preferential treatment. A phase transition (I presented a possible phase transition in my book) fueled the inflation of these four dimensions from tiny invisible to large visible dimensions by borrowing energy from the other tiny invisible dimensions (Hyperspace). This energy was paid back to Hyperspace follwing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle's requirements, Delta(E)*Delta(t)~h-bar. Gravitational energy is negative and could have counterbalanced the positive energies of mass and quanta prior to the weakening of the Gravitational coupling strength. This is the Free Lunch Hypothesis, but it makes no sense in the framework of creatio ex nihilo. Astrophysics text books bring us from that point of inflation to today.

How does this affect General Relativity? Up through inflation, we expect String Theory and Quantum Gravity (more general than General Relativity) to rule the cosmos. Therefore, you can't fault GR for apparent energy conservation violations at the Big Bang. You need to blame String Theory or Quantum Gravity (and they can explain the energy violation with Hyperspace). If the Cosmological Constant is positive and non-zero, then it will force Universal expansion and so-called 'Dark Energy'. This is a problem for GR energy conservation. Perhaps we have large invisible currents of tachyons that are immediately attracted to Black Holes and subsequently decay away.

Dear Steve,

Have a Merry Christmas, but don't go to the 'crazzy' hospital. Laughter is good for the soul.

Dear Lawrence,

I think I had a breakthrough with the G2 Holonomy. This is an unexpected tiling that implies the importance of the Spin Algebras. I'm still double-checking and mulling it over. I don't want people to think I'm 'crazzy'.

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I don't have a problem with strange happenings. I've been face to face with strange things. I've met and talked with countless people who have experienced strange things. There are simply more observations of my kind of strange things, then there are of this new discovery that physicists have their own strange things.

I agree with you that mathematics is beautiful. However, I suspect that the naturally occurring universe will not, and in fact cannot, violate conserved quantities without using a more generalized phenomena or a process that is higher order in the hierarchy.

I just cannot accept that our universe can be described as a cosmic time machine. You've seen movies like Back to the Future, and the sequels? Every time a change is made, a new time line springs up. Every new universe that springs up requires a Big Bang worth of energy to manifest. So time travel has to be impossible for that reason. I cannot accept Godel's cosmic time machine as being anything more than an indication that the mathematics is suspect. I can consider the idea that flatness of space might make conservation of energy impossible to verify and therefore, subject to violation; but I cannot accept new universes springing up out of nothingness. I also cannot accept reverse causality because of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases, right? For quantum systems, it might be possible, but not for classical scales.

If you want to consider the strange consequences of a holographic universe, I'm ok with that. But in doing so, you really must abandon your derision of occult and metaphysical events. You must accept that physics and mathematics cannot explain some parts of reality. Do you agree that some things can occur and be observed by sane and reasonable people, but fundamentally cannot be accounted for by physics?

We're still not done with FTL propulsion. But I'm being dragged away by my girlfriend. I'll comment more later.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 23, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
I attach a diagram which illustrates how cosmologies fit into the 26 dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Each of these are connected to each other by quantum singularities with seed vacuum energy from one to another. There is also not unique direction to time for these.

LC

attachments: Multiverse.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 06:29 GMT
I checked out the attachment. I remember episodes of star trek where time travel was possible. I remember the episode where Capt Jean Luc Picard watched his enterprise explode, and then unexplode. I guess I just don't accept the premise that causality can be bidirectional. Things change, and they change because motion is possible. They change because they have a reason to change. I've never had any experiences that suggest that time travel is possible. If you believe that ct is a bidirectional temporal dimension, then that is your truth and your interpretation. Maybe you can build a time machine.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 12:16 GMT
Thanks dear Ray ,Happy ,mery Christmass with your family too .Here in Belgium it is this night .There is still a little of snow .

PS dear Jason ,I have seen some weeks ago ,the last film of Star Trek ,very very super this film .I am going to see the new film Avatar at the cinema ,I wait ,it is the kind of film which makes me in the dream and happy .It is wonderful this film I am persuaded .A splendid imagination ,The biological worlds in this film are correlated with the Ocean and the astrobiology ,fascinating,James Cameron has a big imagination.If I can visit planets ....in a sphere as shield.I think I will rest on a better planet than tis one ,The Earth hahahah we are crazzys ,us te humans No ?Fortunaly I suppose that only here it is like that .Thus Jason if you invent this space ship ,and you are the captain ,we shall be a beautiful team with georgina,Ray ,Lawrence ,Narendra Nath .....and go for the discoveries .I built my ticket .But quiet with the velocity please hihihihi you are going to desintegrate us with your propulsion .

Merry Christmass dear FQXi friends ,Jason ,Ray ,Georgina,Lawrence,RLO,Narendra Nath ,Jayakar,James,Mr Klingman,Amrit,Don,and all others I forget of course .Hope 2010 will be a beautiful year for the humanity in its whole.Sometimes I imagine all your extrapolations focus on priorities for difficult localities .The science of the soil is a complete science where the physics dance in harmony .What is the solution if fact for our globality on Earth ,perhaps only a global universal adapted and harmonious sciences .In fact the sciences community has the solutions .The ecology seems a priority due to the mass and its decreasing.

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 15:21 GMT
There is still no time travel, but in the 26 dimensional Lorentzian space there are pockets with different time directions. In the pure recovered symmetry of the 26 dimensional spacetime, or equivalently the supersymmetric space of 11 dimensions symmetry is recovered, as well as time direction. In the unbroken phase there is no arrow of time, but rather a signature difference in one direction which is “time,” but quantum field or strings see no preference for going + or – in time. Yet when you have recovered symmetry you have less structure. An example is with the motion of atoms in a gas. There exists symmetry for equiprobability of an atom being in a unit cell of volume, which we think of as being a symmetry. Yet at lower temperature that gas may form a solid, where the atoms are frozen into a crystalline lattice. Now in local regions a direction of symmetry is “locked in,” so the symmetry is broken, but in exchange there occurs structure. Think of the snowflake, with the vast number of possible configurations. The particular cosmologies in the superspace I outline are the occurrence of structure with a unidirectionality of time. We happen to exist in one of those, while there can exist a vast number of others ~ 10^{500} of them. This is also why the universe starts out in a very isotropic and homogenous configuration with high symmetry, but now exhibits a wide range of diverse structures and configurations --- which includes life.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 18:56 GMT
This looks like some kind of entropy balancing system; where entropy is recycled. I happen to like that idea; Georgina was the one who proposed it. But I think there is a more sensible way to recycle entropy.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 24, 2009 @ 19:52 GMT
Entropy is a coarse grained result. It is something which holds on a larger scale where symmetry is lost, but structure occurs. If you were looking at the 26 dimensional Lorentzian space, or equivalently the superspace in 11 dimensions on a very small scale you would observe a time coordinate (two in fact for the AdS case) but as you observe outwards on a larger scale some of these dimensions get compactified or curled up and you observe local 4 dimensional spacetimes with a unidirectional time. It is a bit like water and the snow flake. At high energy (temperature) there is symmetry for the distribution of molecules in space. Then at lower temperature (larger scale) that symmetry is lost and there emerges a structure --- the snowflake. The particular universe is a case similar to the snowflake where a structure has emerged with a unidirectionality of time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 04:36 GMT
A temporal dimension cannot be identical to a spatial dimension. Spatial dimensions do not have causality restrictions. I can swerve left or right; but I cannot go both backwards and forwards in time. Also, spatial dimensions generally exist forever. The "present", which is the "make stuff happen" part of the temporal line, only exists in the present. In the past, it's history, and in the future, it's murky and difficult to predict. I'm not sure that mathematical rules can be applied without due consideration of these differences. However, if you don't mind abandoning free will, then we can live on a cassette tape; we can be on a reel to reel universe. Is that what you believe space-time really is?

report post as inappropriate

General Omar Windbottom wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 05:18 GMT
L.B. Crowell says:

"If you were looking at the 26 dimensional Lorentzian space, or equivalently the superspace in 11 dimensions on a very small scale you would observe a time coordinate (two in fact for the AdS case) but as you observe outwards on a larger scale some of these dimensions get compactified or curled up and you observe local 4 dimensional spacetimes with a unidirectional time."

------------------------------------------------------
-------

My question: Is there any way to empirically test these ideas or are they just untestable pseudoscience?

What observational evidence justifies the addition of so many epicyclic dimensions beyond the observed 4 dimensions?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 25, 2009 @ 14:19 GMT
There are potentially oblique tests of this. Quantum fluctuations associated with how our observable spacetime is embedded within this large system will have certain signatures. AdS correspondences with QCD physics may carry such signatures as well.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

General Omar Windbottom wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 03:48 GMT
Oh very "oblique" indeed!

Recent timing of gamma ray arrivals as a function of energy by the Fermi Team, which was well-covered in the scientific news, put a serious crimp in any theories of "quantum fluctuations", "spin foams" and other such fantasies.

Can you specifically give me ONE DEFINITIVE TEST of the string theory just-so story?

The arm-waving may impress some, but to a scientist, it is meaningless.

Let's have a straight answer: Is string theory untestable pseudoscience, or can you identify a definitive prediction of string theory?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 12:52 GMT
The results of Fermi put falsification constraints on loop variables. It does not confirm a prediction of string theory so much as it falsifies its competitors.

Holographic principles with string theory predict that spatial surface of the universe, say on the Hubble frame, is flat. The observations so far conform to an expected flat spatial universe. Another prediction is that quantum chromodynamics has a duality with AdS_3 spacetime physics or the AdS group. Data from the RHIC indicates small channel productions of such in quark-gluon plasmas.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 21:00 GMT
Jason,

you said "A temporal dimension cannot be identical to a spatial dimension. Spatial dimensions do not have causality restrictions."

I haven't read everything here so I don't know how this fits with the general discussion. I am addressing your particular point.

The "temporal dimension" which I call the 4th spatio-energetic dimension is not the same as the other spatio energetic dimensions because there is continuous change in position of matter along it, when that matter appears to us to be stationary. All matter is effected by this one way change, giving the arrow of time. It is the change in position of all matter that makes it temporal. It is not the dimension itself that is measuring different "stuff" to the others. A present moment experience changes. The position of matter along the dimension changes. However the dimension is just a dimension, that is unchanging like the others. It is just the static framework of a model utilised so that comprehension can occur. Just like static grid lines on a map, that have no existence on the real world but are very useful.

I read elsewhere your comment that "space-time obviously exists". I think that when something has been taught and learnt in a particular way it becomes a part of the way that one thinks about things, that make it seem obvious. It becomes the framework used for further analysis and comprehension and becomes increasingly difficult to unlearn. Just because something seems obvious does not mean that that assumption is necessarily correct. Space-time is a misinterpretation in my opinion.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Space-time exists because every object in motion has its energy and velocity compared to the speed of light; three dimensions are spatial and one dimension is speed of light-temporal, ct. As someone whose goal in life is to punch through the FTL barrier, I know that the speed of light is a real obstruction. I understand that you want to describe it as motion along a 4th...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 02:35 GMT
Dear Frank,

You may not realize it, but I have read many of your posts. Sometimes they sound too repetitive, and I get tired of reading them. Dr. Lawrence Crowell is very talented. If I am a mathematical genius as you say, then he is more genius than me.

You might be a genius among geniuses, but I'm not convinced. I still think you are analyzing spectra inconsistently and mixing up Rayleigh scattering with the Relativistic Doppler Effect. Perhaps I misunderstand your point. You may need to analyze some raw data using your methods to see if your results are consistent or not (I suspect not, but I won't beat a dead horse).

I am concerned for your mental health. On one of your blog sites, you admit to struggling with depression. I am not making fun of you - Depression is a serious illness, and I don't think you are coping in a "normal" way. You seem to have visions of grandeur. Should I send a rumor to the Paparazzi that you will win the next Nobel Prize in Physics? Seriously, I don't think you should hold your breath while waiting. Please take care of yourself.

Sock puppet is an expression for a pseudo-name. GOW is obviously a pseudo-name that someone (RLO?) is using to make rude comments. I consider many of the people on FQXi friends, and don't appreciate people saying rude things about my friends or me.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

General Omar Windbottom wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 03:55 GMT
Crowell says:

"Holographic principles with string theory predict that spatial surface of the universe, say on the Hubble frame, is flat. The observations so far conform to an expected flat spatial universe. Another prediction is that quantum chromodynamics has a duality with AdS_3 spacetime physics or the AdS group. Data from the RHIC indicates small channel productions of such in quark-gluon plasmas."

----------------------------------------

Windbottom says:

(1) How many theoretical constructs can be used to "predict" large-scale flatness? More than one! Your candidate "prediction" fails the uniqueness criterion [Definitive Predictions are unique to the theory being tested].

(2) How do we specifically observe that 'QCD has a duality ...'? Would you please clarify exactly what we would observe for a successful vindication of the "prediction" and exactly what we would observe if the "prediction" was falsified?

(3) Most educated physicists are quite willing to admit that string theory cannot be definitively tested at present. Do you argue that they are wrong?

OW

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 06:31 GMT
Jason,

you said "what do you mean by "exists"?"

It is important to me to differentiate physical parameters and existential material substance from the perception by the human organism. The foundational physical parameter is space. Change of position in space is energy. Therefore the 4 dimensions are 4 dimensions of space and they also are 4 dimensions of energy.

There is no need to consider time a foundational physical parameter, as continuous change in position of all matter along one of the 4 dimensions will give rise to the perception of time. Time therefore does not exist as a foundational parameter of the universe but does exist as a facet of human perception.

Space time is not entirely satisfactory because it mixes human perception with the foundational physical parameter of space. This leads to paradoxes and strangeness. Sub atomic particles do not have to move continuously afore along the 4th dimension but can move in either direction. As this not actually space- time but just space, there is no temporal problem with this, only human confusion.IMO

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 11:38 GMT
Georgina,

I just don't see any point in making a 4th spatio-energetic/temporal dimension on equal footing with spatial dimensions. That is just another way to avoid the ongoing web of causality. I'm not trying to be metaphysical. Causality has everything to do with the correct interpretation of time. If you don't include causality into your descriptions, then physicists get lost and come up with outlandish ideas involving forward and reverse time lines.

As for your concerns about mixing human perception with physics, the physics is supposed to model, as closely as possible, the behavior of physical systems. I don't see what is gained by deliberately making it as hard to understand as possible.

If you don't like the term space-time, I can understand. I think it's confusing. Let us say there are particles and forces in 3D space; furthermore, let us say that particles interact with each other at the speed of light or slower. The speed of light is some kind of constant that appears to defined the properties of space itself.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 20:51 GMT
Jason,

if you have seen optical illusions and I am sure you have seen many, what is obvious, such as the lines converging may not actually so when carefully analysed. Saying that what you consider obvious, and therefore easy, must be correct is like saying that because the lines of the optical illusion appear to converge that must be correct. It is much harder to accept that the lines are parallel when they appear to be converging, but that is the correct solution. This is the difference between perception and foundational physical reality. So I am not trying to make it as hard as possible but as correct as possible.

I am not avoiding causality. Causality arises because of change in spatial position including a component along the 4th dimension for macroscopic objects. For macroscopic objects there is continuously aforewards change in position, giving the arrow of time and therefore the appearance of causality being tied to time. Macroscopic objects do not ever have net aftward change in position so causality is always tied to time in that way. For a sub atomic particle causality does not have to be tied to time in the same way as it can move in any direction. This causes no problem, it is just moving within space with 4 degrees of freedom. The problem arises when one tries to impose an artificial temporal explanation. Time arises from human perception not foundational physical reality, IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 21:04 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Two lines might appear to be converging, but are really parallel; ok, I get your point. But I wouldn't be so quick to throw out subjective perspective. Even particles have their perspective. From the point of view of a particle, something might look like X even though it's really Y; to a close approximation, the particle will behave like it's X.

You said: "For macroscopic objects there is continuously aforewards change in position, giving the arrow of time and therefore the appearance of causality being tied to time." I believe you have that backwards. Nobody has ever observed an arrow of time. However, everybody observes causality, unless their not paying attention. Causality is fundamental and is reality. If it were not, that would mean you could transmit a signal to the past. You could create a machine that chooses lottery numbers you want. When the lottery numbers are called, you could transmit the numbers back in time to the machine that generates those lottery numbers. Then, lo and behold, you have the winning lottery numbers. Do you believe that physics will allow that? I do not. I believe that causality is therefore, by default, fundamental.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 27, 2009 @ 23:26 GMT
Jason,

For macroscopic objects causality and perceived passing of time both occur together. Whether you say it is causality that gives you perception of the arrow of time or other linear changes that give perception of time passing, that occurs in sequence with causality observed elsewhere makes little difference. It can be either. For macroscopic objects causality and perception of passing of time occur together.

I do not disagree about causality being fundamentally important and real. In this model spatial change in position within 3D space occurs together with change in 4th dimensional spatial position. So causality is necessarily tied to perception of passage of time for macroscopic objects.

You know that I do not believe in a past realm so, of course, I think that nothing can be transmitted to the past. There is only space, not space-time. There are no temporal realms, past, absolute present or future in objective physical reality. IMO.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
The notion of how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is not only applicable to dreams, but it is also applicable to "dark matter" (and astronomical/telescopic observations). The physics of what is seen/sensory experience is also necessarily a theory of vision. In going from Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's GR, there is an evident transitioning involving electromagnetism/light.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 16:49 GMT
Georgina,

You can call it potential energy if you like, but causality carries more meaning. Also, I'm still not very enthusiastic about arrows of time and the bi-directional flow of time.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 20:52 GMT
Jason,

I am not calling causality potential energy and I am not talking about bi directional time.

Time is uni directional because all matter moves continuously afore-wards (that is towards the centre of the hypersphere along the 4th dimension). We perceive time to be uni directional and it can not be otherwise. There is no going back, because of the continuous afore-ward change of position. So the causality that we observe also is unidirectional with time.

I don't know where bi directional time that you mention came from came from. Objects just move within 4 dimensional space. A sub atomic particle moving within that space with 4 degrees of freedom is not moving around in time. The passage of time is just human perception of the linear unidirectional changes that are observed at the macroscopic scale (changes resulting from change of position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension as well as within 3D space.)

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 21:14 GMT
One can always work with a model which is flat, and if without cosmological constant you have a "zero energy" constraint you predict flatness. Overduin advances this sort of cosmology. The problem comes in when you introduce the cosmological constant. This appears to exist as what is labeled dark energy, as a source which induces a type of Ricci curvature. Now if you bring quantum holographic principle of strings and event horizons (a considerable topic I can’t write on at length here, but is partially discussed in my recent essay here) the condition for holography holds when the Bekenstein bound on entropy holds. This implies a k = 0 in the FLRW type of cosmological spacetime. Then all the Ricci curvature is in the “time-time” components and the spatial surface is flat. It is a remarkable prediction, and pretty unique to string/M-theory

As for QCD duality and AdS “stringy” physics AdS-CFT and the RHIC fireball

Horatiu Nastase
gives an interpretation of some data from the Relativistic Highenergy Ion Collider at Brookhaven.

I am not saying string theory can be definitively tested. At best currently it can only be tested rather indirectly or obliquely. This is different from saying there are no tests at all possible. It will be a long road towards testing these theories, which are more of a framework (metatheory) of sorts than an actual theory. Remember, general relativity is almost 95 years old, and we have yet to get a definitive test for gravity waves. The Hulst-Taylor result on pulsar orbital periods is an oblique or indirect test for gravity waves. With string theory and quantum cosmology we might do well just to accomplish a few of those.

Ultimately the problem is that we are talking about things on such divergent scales, from the Planck scale to the Cosmos, and we are just these little critters running around one particular planet.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 01:10 GMT
Georgina,

One of Lawrences posts last week showed a picture of universes that were symmetric in time. The picture of these models was based on the idea that the arrow of time can be bi-directional. I can't make sense out of a bi-directional temporal dimension. I got the bidirectional time idea from Lawrence.

The chain of causality is something that you work backwards from, like a Crime Scene Investigation. A caused B which caused C. The 4th spatio-energetic dimension sounds like a potential energy that causes motion in time or causes objects to move forward in time. I wish I could be more open to your spatio-energetic dimension, but I find it too confusing to really be able to work with.

report post as inappropriate

General Omar Windbottom wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 01:31 GMT
Crowell: "Remember, general relativity is almost 95 years old, and we have yet to get a definitive test for gravity waves"

Windbottom: General Relativity was definitively tested within 4 years of publication[1915-1919]. Your comment above is highly [purposely?] misleading.

Crowell: "Ultimately the problem is that we are talking about things on such divergent scales, from the Planck scale to the Cosmos, and we are just these little critters running around one particular planet."

Windbotom: Or the little lunatics are running around thinking that they are so brilliant when in fact they have no intellectual clothes on at all. Have you thoroughly consdered that possibility, Oh great and magificent Oz?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 03:11 GMT
General Windbottom,

I can't seem to convince Lawrence that FTL propulsion does not necessarily lead to time machines. I think time machines are impossible. Any wormhole that attempts to violate causality will simply not be able to work. However, I do believe that there is a way to speculate about FTL propulsion without violating causality or traveling back in time. My approach is to generate a bubble or barrier around the FTL spaceship. The surface of the bubble is hyperspace space and is interactive with the laws of motion for hyperspace. Inside the bubble is ordinary space-time. When the spaceship, inside of the bubble, accelerate faster than the speed of light, the spaceship vanishes from space-time. The spaceship is the inside of a hyperspace bubble that is allowed to move at v>c. The spaceship can re-enter space-time, presumably near some other star or within some other solar system. To re-enter space-time, the spaceship has to reduce the velocity of the bubble to sub light speed. When its velocity is slow enough, it can drop or dissapate the bubble.

I am merely speculating about how a hyperdrive propulsion system might work. Have I described anything that forces time travel? Do you think it might be possible to break out of space-time as a means to travel faster than light?

Thanks,

Jason Wolfe

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 03:33 GMT
GOW: The general theory of relativity has been subjected to a sequence of tests. The first was the Eddiington expedition to measure gravitational lensing of light around an eclipse. Other followed. and rather slowly, and we are still awaiting results from the LIGO for gravity waves. Gravity is a weak force and hard to measure and test theories of. With quantum gravity or strings and M-theory the situation is going to be even more arduous, since this does involve extreme ranges of scales.

Anyway, I am going to have to clip this off. You are getting a tad on the insulting side and frankly I prefer not to be so regarded by a sock puppet.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 03:48 GMT
Jason,

Lawrence is right about FTL leading to time machines. This was first realized by Tolman in 1917: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone Hope this links helps explain why.

Any FTL motion (i.e. tachyonic motion) which can carry a message, can be used to receive an answer before asking the question on an "antitelephone".

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 05:40 GMT
Dear Florin,

I want to thank you for attempting to set me straight. I looked at the link and read about Alice and Bob's antitelephone. I noticed that the article introduces the same error that Lawrence did.

FTL propulson, the way I am trying to do it, pulls the spaceship out of space-time. The space-ship vanishes into hyperspace. The forces that cause it to move in hyperspace are inherently faster than light forces which act upon the protective bubble that the spacecraft resides in. That bubble is being propelled through hyperspace at a mind boggling velocity v > c.

You cannot talk about Lorentz transmformations for this spaceship because Lorentz transmformations only work on objects that exist in space-time. This spaceship has separated itself from space-time. It will arrive at some destination well in advance of when physics says it should. Upon arrival, the spaceship will slow down to a sublight speed, and then reappear in space-time.

Please help me understand why a spaceship that is removed from space-time can still obey a Lorentz transmformation. I don't see how it can.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 10:52 GMT
Thank you for explaining Jason,

According to the model I am proposing nothing moves in time. Time is not a parameter of the universe itself but interpretation of the observation of certain kinds of spatial change by the mind. Things change position within 4 dimensional space. The continuous change in position of all macroscopic entities along the 4th dimension can give rise to linear changes interpreted by the mind as passage of time.

Causality is as you say A causes B causes C, etc. If one thinks of a metabolic pathway for example, a sequence of chemical reactions occur in a certain order. There is a necessary sequence of spatial configuration of the reactants and enzymes. Each stage in the pathway relies upon the particular spatial configuration of the reactants and enzymes necessary for that reaction to occur. As each step occurs a product of the reaction feeds the next step in the pathway so that that reaction can take place. It is that particular sequential spatial change that can be described as causality.

At the macroscopic scale that kind of particular sequential spatial change that leads to noticeable cause and effect proceeds together with change of position along the 4th dimension or loss of universal potential energy, and the subjective experience of the passage of time.

The reverse direction of spatial change in position along the 4th dimension does not mean that sequential change and causality can not occur. There can still be causality. There is no problem unless you say that a particle is moving in time rather than just 4 dimensional space. According to this model nothing moves in time. There can be no time travel. It is fantasy not an accurate interpretation of how the universe works IMO. This reverse direction of spatial change is not seen for macroscopic objects because they are continuously moving afore-wards.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Jason,

General Relativity is your enemy. GR effectively says that space and time are interwoven - with different metrics, but interwoven nonetheless.

You need to hope that something beyond GR, such as Quantum Gravity or String Theory allows the phenomena that you desire.

Even if you do manage to find a wave that travels faster than the speed of light, can it transport information faster than the speed of light? Or will the Second Law of Thermo/ Entropy/ Information Theory reinforce our inadequecies.

As Steve says, "We evolve". Perhaps we will overcome these obstacles (the speed of light), or perhaps it is a solid wall that cannot be circumvented.

My models have a second time dimension - I think it is imaginary time (and time isn't bidirectional, but may be complex). This may or may not help your ideas.

Dear GOW,

You sound intelligent. Please play nice. Most of us are friends. I suspect that Dr. Lawrence Crowell knows more about GR than the rest of us.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 15:01 GMT
I second Ray's assessment here, general relativity is the enemy of FTL. To put this on a different frame, I will confess that when I was a freshman and sophmore in high school I became interested in physics in part because of space flight and I loved to come home in the afternoons to watch Star Trek reruns. I was also a big fan of Dr. Who (still am in a way) and was fascinated by whether physics could deliver up warp drives and other things. By the time I went to college my interests had shifted as well. Of course with that comes considerable knowledge. Even with recent work on worm holes (Kip thorne) and warp drives and so forth, the quantum mechanical aspects of these matters cause serious difficulties.

It would be fun to think we might have a future with warp driven spaceships that take us across the galaxy, or Dr. Who's TARDIS that takes us across the universe or into other universes. Yet those things don't seem at all likely. Our future is far more filled with questions of whether we can survive on Earth, or whether we can end chronic famine and deep poverty. We may be able to experimentally or observationally plumb considerable depths to the universe, but we are not likely to be going out there. Our future involves far more dire issues. Read Jared Diamond’s “Easter’s End” or read his book “Collapse” to see what it is we have to avoid in the near future --- if we can.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Such Doom and Gloom! I might agree with your assesment of humanity's future IF we don't come up with any new significant Scientific or Technological advances. Imagine the fix that we would be in today if wood was our only fuel (deforestation may have led to the collapse of the Mayan civilization)! Perhaps our governments can trick us into watching TV and playing video games and thinking everything is just fine right up to the complete collapse of our economies and resources.

I also remember Watergate and Vietnam. There was a time when I didn't trust the 'Government' or the 'Military'. But it isn't these 'Institutions' that are the problem - they are all just people - most of them probably mean well, and some are probably crooked. As Steve says, you find that in all parts of society, but "We evolve".

You consider yourself a liberal, the liberals are in charge of America, and yet you are still pessimistic. We can only do our best for humanity, and hope that others are doing the same.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 18:38 GMT
I will accept that FTL appears to be impossible. I have to mangle it quite a lot to get it to do what I want. If spaceships with aliens aboard ever arrived on earth, for a galactic block party, I can tell you that they figured out how to manipulate space-time itself using very reasonable amounts of energy. I can also tell you that they proved the existence of a multi-verse with inter-verse forces (forces that move between universes).

I know lots of people who are blissfully unaware of the obstacles that physicists face. Oddly enough, they are some of the most happy and well adjusted people I know.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 19:31 GMT
I am not meaning to be pessimistic, but we do have difficulties of this sort. I have questions about whether we are going to really address these issues effectively. The "liberals" might be in charge, but as I indicated the political system has been reduced largely to a sort of theater. The Democrats have one major advantage over the Republicans, they are not as often authoritarian personality types with mental problems ranging from delusions to psychopathology. There is a regrettable trend in history where no matter how noble teh principles a system might be based upon that eventually it is debased by people who are, should we say, disordered in the mind. Notice the frequency of mad kings, war mongering dictators, and even here with McCarthy and so forth.

Anyway I illustrated that to indicate that we have a range of issues which are likely to require more dire attention than building warp drives.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Jason,

Faster than light travel through space might be impossible . However this does not mean that objects can not change position along the 4th dimension beyond the continuous afore-ward change in direction. This is an atemporal spatial change in position outside of the usual perception of steady passage of time. A violent astronomical event could potentially cause change in 4th dimensional position ( evidence seen in anomalous dating of certain astronomical structures.)

General relativity works. However having time built into the framework itself causes paradoxes. If a framework of 4 dimensional space was used with time as a proxy and approximation for 4th dimensional spatial change and a temporal interpretation is sensibly applied (bearing in mind that objects are not actually moving through time but observations are being interpreted using time measurement), the problem can be avoided.IMO.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 20:20 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"...The Democrats have one major advantage over the Republicans, they are not as often authoritarian personality types with mental problems ranging from delusions to psychopathology. ..."

I presume that you mean that those with whom you agree are by that association deemed highly rational and good. The very derogatory descriptions you apply to those with whom you disagree, I presume again, are earned by virtue of not seeing things in the same light as do you. Well, I disagree with your political opinions and your theoretical physics opinions.

Respectfully,

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 20:38 GMT
Georgina,

Your describing what I am describing: removing the spaceship from space-time. Before I go further, do you agree with me on that?

Lawrence,

War is hell, everyone agrees on that point. But being tortured and abused (severely, not trivially) by your government is also hell. The only reason I supported the second gulf war was because I believe that torture is wrong. I'm not referring to trivial torture or stress, I'm not referring to name calling or hurting someone's feeling; I mean excruciating physical pain. I catch people trying to wiggle out of what torture means. I don't like rap music, but listening to it is not what I mean by torture. In any event, I believe very deeply that removing Sadam from power was a good idea. I don't think I've ever met a liberal who supported the war. My opinion about liberals is largely influenced by their lack of concern for the severe suffering of others at the hands of a truly evil dictator.

As for hyper-drives, I'm not finished beating on space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 21:10 GMT
Jason,

I'm not removing it from space-time it is not, in my opinion, in space-time anyway but within 4D space. However if you mean by space-time just the "flat" 3D plane of the material universe, then yes travelling through hyperspace will involve leaving the plane of the material universe and travelling outside of it. According to the model I am using this will not be travel to the future or past but to other 3D space afore or aft of the plane of the material universe. That is either vacant space already passed through by the material universe or space not passed through by the material universe ahead along the 4th dimension.

There are no time paradoxes involved in this kind of spatial travel.One returns to the earth where the earth exists in 4D space. The date on the calender is what it is and the time on the clock is whatever it is. If one arrives back at a different 4th dimensional location, one will not encounter the earth at a different time, it will just not be there. The earth either having moved on or not having arrived.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 21:14 GMT
That post was me.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
Georgina,

You have to remove the spaceship from space-time and place it in hyperspace. Lawrence, the King of the Land of Space-time, will not allow information to travel faster than c. To do so is commit the crime of sorcery, the punishment is: to be labeled a sci-fi junkie. In any event, I have already placed an FTL propulsion generator inside King Lawrence's throne. When he sits down, the chair will activate. He will be snatched out of space-time, hurled wildly through space towards Alpha Centauri, around its sun, then back to earth. Unfortunately, King Lawrence won't be able to actually watch the trip because light can't cross the hyperspace barrier that separates the bubble of space-time around his throne, and the rest of the physical universe. However, everyone in his court will see King Lawrence vanish from space for a few minutes, and then reappear. They will scream at me: You sci-fi junkie sorcerer, where is our blessed king of relativity?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 22:11 GMT
My assessment has less to do with opinion than with facts. Let us look at the Reagan administration, which most Republicans look upon with great fondness. One of the pillars of that administration was to reinstate the cold war to its prior 1950-60’s level. Reagan and in particular those such as Weinberger and Abrams wanted to abrogate the SALT treaty agreements on nuclear armament levels. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 22:14 GMT
Jason: It is good that you are against torture. I suppose the events at Abu Ghraib really put an end to torture!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Jason,

Last time, you tried to dump me into hyperspace.

I am an eldest son (of three), born under the Zodiac sign of Leo (king of the jungle), and trained to be a leader (I have mentored to be a CEO). I guess that makes me an unstable authoritarian personality, and explains my interactions with Frank. Can I be the mad tyrant for a day? At least I wouldn't use WoMD on my own citizens.

I worry about the stability of the two party representative democratic system. Our modern socio-economic problems are more complex than a simple "0" or "1", and yet we don't want the sort of chaos that led to the election of 1860 where Lincoln won with less than 40% of the popular vote versus 3 other candidates, and significant parts of the country rebelled. A few decades ago, there was a greater distinction between a southern democrat (conservative blue dog) and a northern democrat (liberal blue donkey), and this rivalry led to some interesting alliances between republicans and blue dogs. Now it seems that the parties are more doctrinized and less likely to split party allegences.

But we're still living the American Dream - Right?

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 22:52 GMT
Ray: I didn't dump you in hyperspace! Did I?

Lawrence: I had assumed the soldiers who abused detainees at Abu Ghraib were court marshalled.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 23:13 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Your opinion is based upon your restricted, biased selection and interpretation of "facts". Your opinion is an opinion. Others who would disagree with you are not uneducated, uninformed, insane, evildoers. You have adopted similar procedures for analyzing politics as you have for analyzing empirical evidence and theoretical ideas. Your biases in both severely restrict your overall vision. You pass over the fundamentals as if those fundamentals were clearly established in the manner that serves your biases well. I doubt that you even understand what those fundamentals are. Even your physics' fundamentals are not clearly established and that is your field of expertise. You do not know what it is that you do not know. Do you think that you know the nature of cause? The subject of this forum has to do with learning about 'dark matter', do you think that you know what 'light' matter is? You know about effects, the experimental physicists teach you about those; but, what is cause beyond giving theoretical names? I doubt your opinions. I doubt your theoretical physics conclusions. I do not agree with your political analyses nor your theoretical physics analyses. What is mass? What is force? What is energy? What is electric charge? What is temperature? What is thermodynamic entropy? What is matter?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT
They were the fall guys! The decision to torture went way up, likely to Rumsfeld's desk--- maybe GW's oval office.

To be fair I don't regard the Democrats as saviors particularly, and they are after all beholden to the same puppet masters who manipulate the whole process. After all Obama has been bailing out the same crooks who got us into this economic mess by following the footsteps of GW. They had no choice, the big banks, bourses and investment industry in general has us by the gajones after all. Without the bailouts, with the big CEO bonuses which followed, we would be in a much bigger mess.

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans say and do crazy things, like invade other countries based on lies or chomp at the bit to win a nuclear war. The Democrats, accused of being girly men as a result, are a little more cool headed about things. Maybe this could be construed as timidity by those on the right, but given a choice between girly men and nuclear warriors I will wear women's clothes for the rest of my life --- thank you.

Again to be fair, for my entire life when I look at national or world issue in general nothing has been really solved. Since I was in grade school I remember the war on drugs, and well --- we're still fighting that one. We got out of Vietnam to now be involved in two wars which tax the nation about as much as that, so we have not really figured that general problem out. The environmental problems have only been solved in small piece meal bits, but the general systemic problem remains. Further, the environmental problems have assumed a global scale and frankly are far worse. Energy, crap we are in far worse shape now that when Carter tried to address that. The fall of the Soviet Union was thought by some to bring about an age free of nuclear arms and conflict. Wow did that turn out to be a box of fool’s gold. I suppose we sort of solved the civil rights problem, “sort of kind of,” but that has been in reverse gear for a while now. That happened largely before my reckoning on political issues. So have we really solved any of these pressing long term problems? Not as far as I see it. On a large scale we are faced with the same problems we had 40 or 50 years ago. They have changed their form, a bit like trying to compress a liquid that just presses into another volume, but in general as I see it when it comes to world problems we have not solved a God damned thing in my lifetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 23:43 GMT
@ Putnam: The problem with discussing the foundations of physics with you is that as I recall you reject special relativity and basic quantum theory. This means there is really no basis upon which a fruitful discussion can occur. Attempting to illustrate quantum holography and quantum gravity just simply can’t lead to anything. So long as you think that physics should be returned to some neo-Newtonian framework there is nothing upon which I can impart what is going on. I will say that issues on the nature of mass and charge are far better understood than they were a few decades ago. Yet if you can’t accept certain canonical things like special relativity it will be fruitless to try to illustrate these matters to you.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 29, 2009 @ 23:51 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Say at least one thing about either mass or electric charge that will enlighten me as to what it is.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:00 GMT
Electric charge is a root of the gauge group for the electromagnetic field. This is extended to weak coupling constants and so called colour charges in quantum chromodynamics, where these are roots of extended gauge groups.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:04 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

What is the root?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:24 GMT
A root is an eigenvalue of a group, or as the term suggests a solution to a polynomial equation. For electromagnetism the phase term is exp(iθ), and its real valued terms are {1, -1}. This is related to where the roots come from which are the charges.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:29 GMT
You physicists should, but don't, know what TV is and does. I will enlighten you. This will make you alot smarter, so maybe a few of you can then understand me.

The overeating during television occurs in keeping with the fact that TV is an extended, interactive, and unnatural form of dream vision AS waking vision. Bodily feeling/sensation is therefore reduced during TV (as is the case...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:33 GMT
You all might as well be stone statues chasing me!!!! LOL

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 00:57 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

What are the charges that you mention? Charge is either introduced as a given into your equations or it cannot appear at all in them. Are you saying that electric charge is a solution to a polynomial equation? Your equations are about patterns observed in effects. Are you saying that a fundamental cause is actually a result of effects? How do effects exist before their cause?"

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
I am not sure how to respond. This is not a matter of causlity, it is an eigenvalue problem, or a trival version of Clebsh-Gordon coefficients. The problem is that you are not even asking the right questions here, and I think this is at the heart of the problem. You are not thinking about physics, but rather something else.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 02:45 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

I think I am asking the right questions. I think that you are giving theoretical endpoint answers to justify an unclear beginning. What was it that Coulomb's equation included? Was it electric charge? I assume you are not saying that he discovered: "...that it is an eigenvalue problem, or a trival version of Clebsh-Gordon coefficients. ...". Make it trivial and simply answer what is q in Coulomb's Law? What is it that electrons and protons exhibit that makes them sources of such very important and complicated effects? I am saying that your equations are based upon patterns in effects and that that is all that they include. The only way that you can name a cause on either side of the equal sign is to theoretically invent it. The reason for this is that cause is never a part of either side of the equation.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear Frank,

That was one of your more interesting blogs in a while. Was it from your book? Is TV how Big Brother keeps us under the hallucinative illusion that everything is OK? Should we avoid TV for the next week and spend that time on this blog? (Or is this another illusion?) Can this many strong personalities get along with each other for a week?

Dear James,

As a senior, I remember doing the Millikan Oil Drop experiment and measuring the value of the electric charge directly. In Quantum Electrodynamics, the strength of EM interactions is alpha, which is proportional to the square of the electric charge. This factor of alpha enters into our Feynman Diagrams involving EM interactions. We can measure the history of the value of alpha from the Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor and distant stars, and know that it hasn't varied by more than 1 part in 10,000 over the past couple of Billion Years.

"Light" matter is baryonic matter and electrons. Baryonic matter is anything that can be composed of our lightest stable chromo-particles: up and down quarks (and "glued together" by gluon interactions). All of these particles interact in Electromagnetic and Gravitational interactions, and we have good models for the density and brightness of general baryonic matter (the elements in the Periodic Table). The "Dark" Matter is something different. It has Gravitational interactions, may have Weak interactions, but does not have Electromagnetic interactions (in the sense of having a bare electric or magnetic charge like an electron or proton).

Within this definition, we could call Neutrinos dark matter - especially since neutrinos seem to have a positive definite mass (however small). But the three known types of neutrinos most likely are not abundant enough and massive enough to account for the amount of Dark Matter that we measure via Gravitational phenomena.

Supersymmetry (SUSY) proposes a Lightest SUSY Particle (LSP) that is electromagnetically neutral, stable, and capable of participating in Weak and Gravitational interactions. In this sense, we could think of this LSP as a stable (no mass oscillations like neutrinos) and super-heavy neutrino-like relic of SUSY. Perhaps some of these LSP's are remnants of the Big Bang. Perhaps some astrophysical events are creating new SUSY particles. This is a very popular hypothetical explanation for Dark Matter.

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

General Omar Windbottom wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 02:58 GMT
That's right Mr. Crowell.

If the chess game starts going badly, just kick over the table.

String theorists will ride their cartoon-physics jaloppy right over the cliff before they will admit they are peddling a piece of junk.

And good riddance!

OW

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 03:31 GMT
General Omar: You disappoint me. I was hoping for some brilliant and enlightened response to a question or two. What is a charge? Charges interact via virtual photons, a completely hidden mechanism. Virtual photons, like real photons, move at the velocity c. So charges interact in a way that generates energy and force. We know about charges because we can easily interact with them. We don't interact so easily with particles that are chargless (as opposed to charge neutralized like neutrons). When don't see neutrinoes hardly at all because they have no charge to interact with. I guess we don't interact with dark matter and hyperspace charges either.

James: See if you can get Lawrence to explain charges and everything else, down to the point of showing observational insight.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 04:02 GMT
Dear Ray,

What you are saying actually helps get to the point:

"As a senior, I remember doing the Millikan Oil Drop experiment and measuring the value of the electric charge directly. In Quantum Electrodynamics, the strength of EM interactions is alpha, which is proportional to the square of the electric charge. This factor of alpha enters into our Feynman Diagrams involving EM...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 04:04 GMT
James, The electromagnetic field is an interaction which has a certain symmetry to it. That symmetry has root vectors which are what define the charges of the field. The field equations, starting from Coulomb, to Faraday to Maxwell are employed because they work. Hermann Weyl back in the 1930s worked how electromagnetism is a gauge theory, or determined by a symmetry on a vector bundle, and that the roots of the group defined the charges of the field.

I do think you are asking more philosophical questions along the lines of "why is such and such this or that symmetry, or why does physics operate by math or what is the initial cause for ... , and so forth. I just seems that you are thinking more along the lines of philosophy IMO. Charge is what it is because it is defined as such to work in the sorts of theoretical models we have. That is all there is to it, and it works. There are topological quantum numbers associated with charge and so forth, but I suppose you might ask why physics obeys topology or ... .

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 04:10 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Now I think we are getting somewhere:

"...Charge is what it is because it is defined as such to work in the sorts of theoretical models we have. That is all there is to it, and it works. .."

May I rephrase that: Charge is what it is because it fits our model. In other words charge is an imaginary necessity in order for theory to move beyond the empirical form of Coulomb's Law.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 04:11 GMT
Geez, I am anonymous again.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 09:37 GMT
Jason,

You said "You have to remove the spaceship from space-time and place it in hyperspace". I agree that the ship would have to be removed from what you are calling space-time. It would then enter another "space-time" , that is inaccessible under usual conditions. However I do not accept that it is actually space-time at all. Primarily because of the paradoxes which IMO show that it is an incorrect interpretation. The space time model will not work for you because of the time paradoxes that are an inherent problem with that interpretation.

The static quaternion dimensional structure enables explanation of observations of relativity. It works. Change in position along any of the 4 spatial dimension is equal to an amount of energy. Continuous change in position of matter along the 4th spatial dimension (which is thus also a continuous energy change) gives changes interpreted as the passage of time. This quaternion spatio-energetic dimensional framework solves the grandfather paradox and all other temporal issues. The 4th dimension gives another orientation through space not space-time. Running from the exterior to the interior of the hypersphere.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Georgina,

My model for FTL propulsion does not produce a time paradox because the spaceship that I yanked from space-time now resides in a bubble that interfaces with hyperspace. The bubble is a hyperspace object with a spaceship on the inside. That hyperspace object CAN'T travel FTL on its own space-time, c'. You can't make the wormhole-time travel argument because a wormhole is a deformation of space-time that spans time and space (time travel is built into it). I didn't deform space-time; I hacked off a piece. I completely separated the spaceship from space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 14:09 GMT
Charge is a quantity we assign to particles which move within an electric, magnetic or magnetic field. It is not though arbitrarily assigned, but is something which has a numerical value that fits within what we observe and within physical models. More fundamentally charge is something assigned to the source of the electromagnetic field from the symmetry principle of the field.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear James,

Blaim it on the scientific method. We take data, analize it, remove the pieces that don't fit, put together a model, and build up a theoretical framework that agrees with our data but can never be tested directly because it is removed via our modeling process. Pieces that don't fit are called anomalies and tacked on separately. Yes - There is bias in every step.

In retrospect, it seems coincidental that we called electric charge positive and negative. Why only two signs of electric charge (though many values)? Why not three like the Strong Nuclear Force? (Red, Green, Blue) Why not four or five like Flavor? (Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter, Umami)

These are the apparant (and somewhat beautiful) symmetries that popped out of the experimental data. I don't play with raw data. I play with models and theories that were evolved from data, and try to find the maximum symmetry in these models because I think symmetry is beautiful.

Is our world "bottom-up" and based on raw data? Or is our world "top-down" and based on pure theory? I think it is human to look for an explanation - perhaps the two approaches can merge together in the middle somewhere to yield a hybrid "bottom-up"/"top-down" explanation of nature. But someone will still see the biases and cry "foul".

Have Fun and Have a Happy New Year!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 14:39 GMT
p.s. - Another comment about symmetry...

A beutiful aspect of GUT's/TOE's is that the sum of 'charges' (any kind, electromagnetic, color, weak, etc...) within a particle multiplet often equal zero. My simplices enforce this condition, and therefore imply that these 'charges' are quantized and can be described via simple geometric patterns (see page 3 of my essay).

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 30, 2009 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear James,

You also mentioned the Higgs particle and Ed Klingman. I just received Ed's book "The Chromodynamics War" in the mail yesterday. I haven't had a chance to read it yet (its over 600 pages long but seems to be a relatively quick read), but he does address the Higgs particle in Chapters 10 through 12 (out of 125 chapters). Ed has already read and commented on my book.

I haven't yet given up on the idea of a Higgs or something similar. The Higgs breaks the initial TOE/GUT symmetry, imparts mass to all particles, and supplies the necessary longitudinal modes for the W and Z bosons. In an evolution of my own model, I am beginning to suspect a connection between my 'scalar fermions' = 'tacyhons' and a more sophisticated Higgs scenario (something comparable to the Higgs sector of the MSSM). But that is a work in progress...

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 01:25 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"Charge is a quantity we assign to particles which move within an electric, magnetic or magnetic field. It is not though arbitrarily assigned, but is something which has a numerical value that fits within what we observe and within physical models. More fundamentally charge is something assigned to the source of the electromagnetic field from the symmetry principle of the field."

So electric charge has to do with electromagnetic fields. Those fields are not yet introduced or proven to exist. What you have is a number in a simple equation called Coulomb's Law. The number comes before your theoretical field. The field is a theoretical idea. The number is real. What does that number represent? There are no causes represented by an equation that can do no more than model effects. The Introduction of a cause named electric charge is a guess as to the reason for the appearance of a mysterious constant value that appeared in Coulomb's Law. There is no free-bee invention of the mind escape. You do not get your field idea for free. If you put a cause into the equation then it is your idea and not a natural part of the equation.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 01:35 GMT
Dear Ray,

The point I am emphasizing is that theory consists of inventions of the mind about possible causes. Those inventions cannot be experimentally verified. Neither Dr. Crowell nor any other person knows the nature of cause. The only evidence that we have about the nature of cause is that it can move objects and give you an idea about why that object moved. What we can know for certain is that the mechanical ideas of theoretical physics are clearly insufficient to describe causes either for motion or for intelligence. They cannot tell us about the reasons for motion because they were invented to fit patterns in motion. They are guessed at after the fact. They cannot tell us about intelligence because they never include intelligent properties.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear James,

I understood your point. Blame it on the scientific method. Theory pretends to be top-down in origin, but - to your point - the reality is it was guessed at to fit bottom-up expectations. That's why I like to work both sides of a problem (top-down and bottom-up) in tandem. I am building my 12 dimensional model to be consistent with both extremes of the spectrum: Lawrence's 26/27-dimensional TOE and the Standard Model. At the end of the day, we have models that either fit every imaginable expectation (a successful Theory) or that don't and get discarded. Progress requires some trial and error.

Have Fun and Have a Happy Blue Moon of a New Decade!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 02:12 GMT
Dear Ray,

Theories are fine when they fit the patterns we observe in empirical data. I accept that your theory and Dr. Crowell's theory will fit the patterns in empirical evidence. However, the evidence always consists of patterns in effects. The evidence does not include the causes. We guess at the causes. This is not a problem so long as we do not inject our idea of a cause into the evidence itself. I asked about Coulomb's Law because it represents one of our early attempts to inject our idea of a cause into an equation. A mysterious unknown quantity appears and we do not know what it is. We also do not know what cause is. So, we solve our problem by injecting the idea of a fundamental cause onto the mysterious number. That is why the question of what is electric charge has not be directly answered. The mysterious number could not explain itself and we do not know the nature of any cause. Combining the two is an idea but not a solution.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 17:17 GMT
Hi all and happy new year ,

Dear James ,

I have the same kind of unknew that's why the activation for the rotation of spheres like the ultim information is interesting ,I consider like you know ,that the velocity of rotation of the quantum spheres imply the mass and furthemore the cosmological spheres and their mass and rotations are too linked in a constant .

The time of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Steve,

It is New Year's Eve evening in Belgium. Enjoy the blue moon - I hope it does not bring out too many lunatics!

You did not say 'Higgs', but that is what you are doing. 'Something' (Higgs) broke the original symmetry. In your case, the original symmetry consisted of all non-spinning spheres, or all like-spinning spheres, and 'Something' broke that symmetry.

I am playing with a complex Higgs multiplet. Strangely enough, I may have a composite 'Higgs' that is a chromo-tachyon condensate.

Dear James,

We must not confuse cause and effect. The data is real, the theories are imaginary, but some smart people figured out parts of the puzzle years ago. It seems to work. Is it magic? Or do we distort our data to fit our world-view? Or is the scientific method a reasonable approach to these types of problems?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi dear Ray ,

Thanks ,Yes indeed but like said Jason ,we are FQXi addicts .

Have a good evening in familly for this new year Ray .

But about Higgs no no no ,impossible because the codes are intrinsics ,the Higgs are externals .

For the non spinning spheres ,I consider they haven't mass ,I consider them like the real space .The rotation appears like the cause of the mass ,but the cause of this rotation is intrinsic I think like an activation in time .

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,I don't know well the broken symmetry ,could you resume me please the real sense at this quantum scale please .Thus if I understand well the fact to becomes mass ,thus rotation is due to a external cause ,I see that like purely impossible in my model and its intrinsics codes in the main central spheres .If I insert some causes which change the state thus the veloc of rot thus the mass ,it is with some thermodynamical links and with the time and the evolution ,it is the only causes which interacts with the gravitational stability ,the main codes of building are there I think .

Until soon and all the best to all FQXi addicts .

From Belgium

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Dec. 31, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Steve,

Yes - I am an FQXi addict at work. At home, my wife keeps me busy. It is still early in the day here in America, but you should be doing something fun now. Couldn't you be in Paris by midnight if you tried? Spontaneous symmetry breaking is still spontaneous symmetry breaking. You do not have to call it a 'Higgs', but that is what your different spinning spheres have been affected by.

'CHEERS' to the science center!

Have a Happy and Properous New Decade under the Blue Moon

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 1, 2010 @ 11:40 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

You know ,I like Paris but The last year , a business angel invite me to Paris to help me in my projects .It was a catastrophic year .Already I have had problems here in Belguium due to my lack of economy sciences .And still in Paris during 1 year ,the problems arrive.I think I am a stupid man who think what all people is good .Thus dear Ray you understand why Paris this year no no no .In fact now I am afraid with people .Always I have had economic problems.It is the life when you are too nice .Now I must stabilize all these years where I lost all .I have 600 euros/month and the life here is more expensive than in USA you know .Thus my first priority is to find a job to help my mother .After I architecturate the sciences center and my theory .The center I think will have this name ,What do you think Ray ,Sphere Institute .

Probably I must be a higgs ,I am too spontaneous hihihhihi .and parano a little .Who is good or bad ,I don't know.

Thanks and all the best Dr Cosmic Ray

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 15:58 GMT
Ray, FQXi, you are going to help me with a ban on childhood viewing of television. The light of my wisdom/truth is beginning to fill the cracks within your minds/thinking. With my wedges in your minds LOL, they are no longer yours. They're mine!

Ray, FQXi, do you understand how serious my prior post about television is?

I told you Ray, you have to be more serious/caring. The court...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 16:11 GMT
Ray, we are losing our instincts. The instincts allow for the increase, advancement, extension, and differentiation of desire. Consciousness advances desire and consists of advanced instinct. The instincts involve the projection, integration, connection, and extension of feeling, energy, desire, emotion, and thought. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well. The comprehensiveness and consistency of intention and concern are dependent upon the integrated and natural extensivness of sensory experience.

All of this has bearing upon what is and should be ultimately possible in physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 16:25 GMT
The increasing transparency/invisibility of space is the reason for the redshift.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

(Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.) Importantly, isn't the increased transparency/invisibility of space, in relation to the blackness of night/outer space, the requirement of seeing farther?

LARGER OBJECTS, IN A RELATIVELY SMALLER SPACE -- COMPARABLE TO THE EARTH -- WOULD HAVE HIGHER GRAVITY, WOULD THEY NOT -- CONSIDERING THAT THE INVISIBILITY/TRANSPARENCY OF [THE SPACE] IS INCREASED?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Frank,

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. Yesterday, my brothers and I drove to Jacksonville, FL to watch the Gator Bowl. Our team won - GO NOLES! - but I was out of contact. I read Cristi's essay and part of Ed's book on the road.

You are an interesting man with interesting points. You alienate people by getting 'in their face' a little too much. I am not ready to nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Nor am I paranoid enough to make a scientific statement that Big Brother is controlling us via TV, but there are reasons that I limit my daughter's time watching TV and on the internet. I know a few people with ADHD, Autism, Bipolar, or Depression, etc. Is our environment poisoning our minds or are we more likely to single someone out of the crowd as abnormal? Personally, there is very little TV that I even care to watch. I would rather think about multiple dimensions than 'dumb up' by watching TV.

You are correct that we are losing our instincts. Two years ago, I told my friends who were holding Bank stocks to get rid of them. It was obvious to me that the huge rate of mortgage foreclosures would eventually damage the banking system. They did not heed my advise because they had always made money on those stocks before. Some banks crashed in Nov. 2008 and some stocks went to $1 or$2 a share before the Government stepped in a bailed them out. Personally, I avoided these stocks like the plague because I don't like high risk. But if you sold Bank stocks in Jan 2008 and reinvested that money in Nov 2008, you could have made a fortune. I wonder how many brokers had the inside scoop and did exactly that.

I think that you need to beg or borrow some real astronomical data and analyze it with your methods. I think you are confusing the relativistic Doppler effect with Rayleigh scattering, but analyzing real data will allow you to see whether or not your ideas are consistent with the data.

Dear Steve,

We Americans think of Paris as a romantic escape. You remember your bad business dealings there. I am sorry. I hope you bounce back and succeed with the Science Center.

Happy New Year!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 2, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
Hi all ,Frank ,Ray,

Oh you know I love Paris ,it is wonderful .It is indeed a romantic town .I have had very good moments too .I was in love with a beautiful girl from Japan .

Thanks a lot for the center .Your skills are welcome .The synergies between scientists and thinkers are very important to solve problems .It is really the fact to work together above the individualism which can make the difference and even above the actual economic system .

I hope it will be created soon too ,the most soon as possible.A sure thing ,never I will stop .I must have a good and honest team ,it is the most important .When this center will be created ,I will be more in the credibility .After all universalists and humanistic scientists are welcome for synergies .The essential is to act by adapted productions and adapted sciences on ground .And of course the united is the key for the best results .The production is for me essential to re stabilize our ecosystems and the consummations .The center will produce mini plants in alveolus,flowers,fruits,vegetables ,essential oils ,methan ,compost ,and technics to improve the quality of life .The water is for me essential ,I have invented several naturals systems for a natural aseptisation.The system is just an add of technics .A natural filter can be always optimised .I have several models against vectors of diseases .The ecology is really a main part of the puzzle .

I have invented too some energetic systems ,there too I adapt with the locality and its parameters and I add the systems ,CH4 biomass compost,solar ,wind more the possiblity to adapt with a mecanic potential like a water falls .I have an other system with an add of pulleys and the fluid mecanic mgh=i/2mv² more the non compressibility of the liquid ,the extrapolations are interestings with the montains or others heights ,The Ep with the pulleys are incredibles ,the turbin in the extrapolations are relevant about the electric energy .

An other point important which is not finished because the capacity of optimisation is very important ,is my sphere of composting in closed system ,the vegetal multiplication more the composting seems very relevant ,this system in the logic produces energy with O2 and H2O ?THE FIRST NATURAL MOTOR ?HIHIHI the totipotence more the degradation of the organic matters is relevant with the selection of bacterias ,there an add is possible to improve the velocity of biodegradation .There the pression and the photosynthesis implies interesting results .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Ray, you said: "Nor am I paranoid enough to make a scientific statement that Big Brother is controlling us via TV" I never said this Ray. There you go again lying/twisting what I have said. Lying and telling the truth are opposites. Maturity, caring, love, seriousness, truth --- get some Ray.

Your primitive psychological trick is to try to play good guy and bad guy with me -- that is, in the same guy (yourself).

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 20:04 GMT
FQXi, Ray, if you would read what I have said, then you will increase your very ability to think, and you will be emotionally enriched/uplifted as well. I kid you not. When you increase your very ability to think in conjunction with great (comprehensive and consistent) truths/thinking, you are then in a position to think from an improved position/basis in relation to [sensory] experience in general -- as I have shown. You clearly do not know how important my work is. Understanding such deep and great truths will increase your very ability to think. I have done this.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 21:24 GMT
This site helps ordinary people to think about dysfunctional interpersonal relationships

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 14:14 GMT
Dear Frank,

I am trying to be nice to you - I don't want war with anyone on this site, even if I mostly disagree with them. The 'Big Brother' comment goes back to conversations that Lawrence and I had a couple of weeks ago, and your TV comments sort of tied in. I apologise that offended you - blaime it on my sometimes sarcastic, and smartalic humor.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
The notion of how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is not only applicable to dreams, but it is also applicable to "dark matter" (and astronomical/telescopic observations). The physics of what is seen/sensory experience is also necessarily a theory of vision. In going from Newton's theory of gravity to Einstein's GR, there is an evident transitioning involving electromagnetism/light.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear Ray,

"We must not confuse cause and effect. The data is real, the theories are imaginary, but some smart people figured out parts of the puzzle years ago. It seems to work. Is it magic? Or do we distort our data to fit our world-view? Or is the scientific method a reasonable approach to these types of problems?"

Cause is always imaginary unless and until it accounts for the unified properties of the universe. One thing I believe is certain: Any creditable theory of the operation of the universe must include the evolution of intelligence. The mechanical theories of theoretical physics stop at: What is a sufficient mechanical interpretation to account for changes of velocity?

We change our velocities, a multitudinous amount of our particles change their velocities, and, ultimately, we think. Theoretical physics fails to account for 'think'. We have free will. We love. We think. Thinking requires that we know all possible meanings for all possible photonic information before that information is received.

I have great respect for Dr. Crowell's and your education and talents; however, I also think that if theoretical physicists insist on being only the mechanics of the universe, then they will never progress beyond offering mere inventions of the mind to account for changes of velocity.

Dr. Crowell's last response was: "Charge is a quantity we assign to particles which move within an electric, magnetic or magnetic field. It is not though arbitrarily assigned, but is something which has a numerical value that fits within what we observe and within physical models. More fundamentally charge is something assigned to the source of the electromagnetic field from the symmetry principle of the field."

His use of the word field is a substitute for cause. He does not know the cause. No one knows the cause. What he, and theoretical physics offer us are physical, read that 'mechanical', models. Those models begin with ignorance and expand that ignorance into complex mechanical theories that account only for a dumb universe. We do not live within a dumb universe. We are the evidence of universal properties of high intelligence. The idea of a mechanical universe based upon concepts such as electric charge is incompatible with the real universe.

I asked Dr. Crowell: 'What is mass? What is force? What is energy? What is electric charge? What is temperature? What is thermodynamic entropy? What is matter?'. These questions should have easy pickings for him unless he really does not know foundational answers for them. Theoretical answers can be designed to fit patterns in changes of velocity. They can be superficially limited to mechanical type ideas about why changes of velocity occur. That may be sufficient for theoretical physicists. It certainly makes their ideas easier to include in mathematical equations; however, it is not sufficient for analyzing the real nature of the real universe in which we live.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 01:57 GMT
Astronomical/telescopic obs. are combining/blending gravity and electromagnetism/light in keeping with the increased invisibility/transparency of space therein.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear James,

You asked: "'What is mass? What is force? What is energy? What is electric charge? What is temperature? What is thermodynamic entropy? What is matter?"

Great questions. But here is the problem. We can only define stuff in terms of what we observe and agree to be true. Figuring out what the "cause" is, is something like assembling a puzzle; sometimes we have to hope we matched up the correct cause with the right effect. There are plenty of cases where we can't even agree on that.

What is mass: the relationship between mass and energy is E=mc2. Energy comes in many forms, one of those forms is matter; particulate matter. I can't imagine anything that is said to have mass that can not be broken down into particles. In the case of black holes and other huge/dense objects, mass, as a form of energy, fits into Newton's equations.

But what is mass? What is anything? It is however it is experienced; it is whatever we do with it.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 03:54 GMT
Dear Jason,

Mathematical equations, even e=mc2, tell us only about mechanical interpretations. In my opinion, neither energy nor mass are explained by this equation. In my opinion, the equation e=mc2 has more than one interpretation.

'What is anything?'

Theoretical physics cannot answer your question in any form other than guessing. While educated guessing is not automatically incorrect, mechanical interpretations about a universe that has given birth to intelligent life, actually these two words are interchangeable, is clearly, or should be clearly, insufficient to describe a universe that has its two most important properties incompatible with mechanical ideas.

I understand that you are interested in faster than light communication and possibly travel. I do not want to say that your pursuit is a waste of time. I would rather say to theoretical physicists that their answers, including the theories of relativity, are guesses and that these guesses deserve to be challenged by their alternative guesses that existed even at the time of those first guesses were made.

Your comment that: "What is anything? It is however it is experienced; it is whatever we do with it." is right on target. It is whatever theoretical physicists can do with it; however, unless it addresses the properties of life and intelligence, then it addresses only dumb particles of that mysterious 'cause' called matter by those who do not know what cause is.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 05:41 GMT
Dear James,

I do have ideas about the how's and why's regarding life and intelligence. Unfortunately, they would be dismissed by most physicists as nonsense. There are a few strange things in the universe that fit the axiom: if you want X, reach for Y, if you want Y, reach for X. This is one of them. I believe that there are 'other things' around us. On rare occasion, those 'other things' can intersect with our universe.

The FTL propulsion idea requires the existence of an alternate set of laws of physics in the same space. Another space time with a c' >> c is just one example. I've had experiences with these 'other things'. Those experiences have influenced how I approach theoretical physics.

If you are looking for an something more fundamental to explain intelligence, all I will say is: keep looking. The real truth about physics/laws of nature might be too weird for the physics community to think about. So, in the mean time, we'll conjecture about the laws of motion.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
Hi all,

dear James ,

We change our velocities, a multitudinous amount of our particles change their velocities, and, ultimately, we think.

I am happy ,it is very relevant that about the informations and the evolutive point of vue .

About E=mc² ,it is fantastic this equation ,not finished but so beautiful about the whole ,the energy ...the mass and the light ,the gravity multiplicated by the electromagneism ,

the time evolution is the piece of this building between mass and light.

The light becomes mass .The spinal sense of rotation of the light and gravity seems two gauge between the stability and the linearity .The synchronization thus takes all its sense about the evolutive polarisations and complexification .

The main code of informations thus is in the main central sphere of the gravitational specific quantic system .

I think the c constant is important for the physicality and its building inside a closed and evolutive system thus its invariances in the physicality is essential to encircle the perceptible mass .

Above this gauge ,that looses its laws and thus it is not necessary about the real 3D dynamic .The relativity takes too all its sense in the real understand of the mc² .mc thus is mass and increase in the physicality ,this universal sphere for me where all turns around the universal central sphere .The motions thus in a sphere implies a changement of places at all moments .

Our datas thus about the cosmological dimensions must be re thought for a better understanding of the topology inside the universal and spherical referential in motion since the begining of the physicality .We turns every times and everywhere .A galaxies far of us can be near in an other analyze of our past perception ,relativistic.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Jason,

"So, in the mean time, we'll conjecture about the laws of motion."

I think that this single statement of yours defines theoretical physics.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 23:47 GMT
"I think the c constant is important for the physicality and its building inside a closed and evolutive system thus its invariances in the physicality is essential to encircle the perceptible mass"

I must apologize that I still have difficulty understanding your messages. The fault is not yours. I wonder from your statement if you think of the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between energy and mass. I will tell you ahead of your answer that I think that the speed of light is of great physical importance. I do not think that it is an artifact of earlier classical theory. I do not think that it is a conversion factor that can arbitrarily be set to unity. What do you think? I will try hard to think about the meaning of what you say.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear James,

I've been out of town on business for a couple of days, and I'm trying to catch up.

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with you. I agree that it is a shame that Science doesn't quite seem capable of completely explaining the relationships between entropy/evolution and information/complexity. We are making strides toward Artificial Intelligence (AI). Perhaps that technology will yield new clues.

Physics has historically been more mechanistic in its nature, whereas Philosophy asks broader questions, and Psychology focuses on human behavior. It is OK for Frank to ask questions about the overlap between Physics and Psychology. It is OK for you to ask questions about the overlap between Physics and Philosophy. But professionals expect outsiders to 'play by the rules'. Those rules have been established by generations of tradition. Is it unreasonable to expect someone working in both Physics and Psychology to have the equivalent of at least a Master's degree in both fields? You would have to have at least that level of qualification to teach College in either discipline.

As professionals, we might confuse the map with the territory. We teach physics like the mathematics does everything. But does the math do everything? Or has the math confused our common sense?

When I say that an electron has a mass of 511 KeV/c^2, intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, and an electric charge of -1e, I am ascribing extra degrees-of-freedom as 'properties' without describing where that information is stored (such as extra dimensions).

You can change physics more effectively by conforming to its expectations.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 13:15 GMT
Hi James ,Jason ,Ray ,Frank,all,

I am very frustrated with my english ,I try to make simple with my words but I see it is difficult for people .Sorry for that .

Dear friends ,is it so bad my english and its understanding ?

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,is it so bad my english ?

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Steve,

Your English is better than any of my foreign languages. I think I understand most of what you write, but I have not yet seen all of the details of your theory. As such, I think you are introducing extra degrees-of-freedom (dgf's) as 'spin', whereas particle physicists normally introduce these extra dgf's as 'properties', and I am introducing these extra dgf's as 'dimensions'. Does it matter what we call these extra dgf's as long as we have a consistent framework to describe them? And as long as we do not confuse the territory with the map?

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 13:51 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Thanks Ray ,when I will can ,I will take lessons with a professor,it is the rest of my college schools at the age of 18 in fact .And the problem is the grammary and the conjugation ,the orthography is easier for me .Furthermore I write too quickly without re reading and correction.

About the details ,actuals and futures(due to an improvement of the details and datas),this year I have many to do Thus I will publish and I will do the contest the next year .My First priority is to stabilize my economic situation and find a job,after create the center and after the publication .Step by step in fact .I have difficulties to resume and to focus but I evolve ,I must be more pragmatic with my economic situation .

About the extradimensions ,I don't understand them due to this definition ,extra.Like I said before I consider the fractal of spheres like specific and like a division of volumes .This entanglement has the same number of spheres than our cosmological number .The rotation implies the mass proportionaly and the rule of complemenatrity .The serie ,at the Big Bang Hypothesis ,afetr this fractal has a multiplication definiting the space and the rotations thus imply gravity .The codes of centers take all its sense .

The number of rotations ,spinals and orbitals are numerous and all is in 3D and purely linked with our universal laws.The evolution and the increasing of mass is essential .The cosmological link is important too with the rotation of all around the universal center .The main central spheres thus are the keys of our fractal .Now I must admit what I have difficulties to find the correct finite serie .The prime numbers are physicaly interesting in their properties of adds and multiplication,thus the fractal is correlated but with a specific sequence and numbers for the complexification.But all that is in 3D.Even just before the Planck scale ,it is a 3D system .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 18:07 GMT
The Dark matter seems relevant in fact ,I don't beleive the dark energy exists but the dark matter is logic .Like the rest ,different than our perceptible mass .

In the past I searched what is this dark matter ,now I am persuaded it is the entanglement of quantum spheres without motion ,thus rotations thus mass.The space(different than lattice between spheres)decreases thus due to an activation of the rotating system ,thus the space becomes mass in fact due to the evolution .These particles are coded thus but has no mass because they don't turn .The evolution and the thermodynamic ,even if a contraction appears ,it is relevant .All interacts inside a closed system .The dark matter thus is the future mass in fact .Probably what the lattices between spheres during the rotations ,specifics are more entangled with the specificities or the fact to become mass .I hope I am understood with this universal link.

The Dark matter is fascinating in its potential in fact .When Fritz Zwicky found this evidence with some calculs ,a mass more important appears for this unknew matter .I don't think thus wht the neutralino is corect because the mass is 0 ,logic due to the non rotation ,thus mass.On the other side ,the study about the density can be made in the evolution is taken with sequences .The interpretations of our Past thus more the center of our Universe can explain some steps of this mass increasing .

If we consider thus different step inside this universal sphere with its cosmological spheres and their quantum spheres ,thus we can see a real evolution and its rotations .The expansion appears thus like a variable towards a maximum volume and after a contraction ,it is there it is interesting about the dark matter and its activation of spheres .They are thus under some interestings links.The density seems so important ,it exists thus two kinds of density ,this dark matter (mass in waiting)and the gravitational mass .But at the unification of all spheres ,this mass is at the maximum of the harmony .The parameters are numerous ......the gravity and the electromagnetism seem the main piece of the building thus where the space becomes mass in time constant with all these parameters .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 15, 2010 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Steve,

Dark matter has mass, but does not participate in Electromagnetic interactions.

In Supersymmetry, the lightest Neutralino is expected to be stable, have non-zero mass (in fact, a rather large mass of ~100 GeV/c^2), be electromagnetically neutral, and have an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar.

If your spheres must rotate to have mass, then the neutralino rotates and has mass, and it is not 'future mass'.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Ray ,

I think that the neutralino is not proved ,thus we can't say it exists .

I think when it begins to rotate thus the dark matter without rotation becomes mass ,but this step of becoming ,this step between dark matter and mass is due to a code intrinsic of activation .

I don't say dear Ray what the neutralino exists .I just say what it exists a mass in wait .

The dark matter thus has no mass ,just afetr the activation ,it becomes mass .It is different I think .

The rule of the gravity and the electromagnetism takes their sense to build .The codes are so complexs thus the name of particles is a confusion for me .I just beleive in the correct datas ,The mass is the base and the classment of the mass is essential with its correct serie and divisibiliy .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 12:58 GMT
The statistics on the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) data is far too uncertain to conclude much. However, they are suggestive. On another discussion I have been somewhat criticized for even saying these are suggestive, where a couple of physicists calls these data “null results.” I disagree that they are null, but simply inconclusive. If these are DM detections the CDMS will have to run for a long time into the future to get the statistical error below .1%, which is about the statistical cut-off point where one can say the observable of interest has been found. The neutralino is the particle of interest, which is a mixed state of the superpairs from the photon, Higgs and W^0, for these superpartners share the same quantum numbers in the MSSM. Their only difference is in mass, which then exist in a mixed state with a mass matrix. This is similar to the mixed states found with neutrinos.

I will say with some theoretical sense that DM probably exists in its lowest mass form as the neutralino. If nothing else the world at the multi-100 Gev to 10TeV range makes the most sense if this is so. Remember, it took 30 year to detect the neutrino, and another 30 years to detect it right according to families or doublets. Patience is required!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

I believe in the possibility of a neutralino, but agree that the CDMS and Pamela data are inconclusive. As Lawrence says "Patience is required". I think these experimental groups are publishing their best data prior to the LHC's first round of results. The LHC may soon answer our questions.

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 20:35 GMT
The invisibility/transparency of space keeps space in balance in regard to expansion/contraction.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Frank,

Early on, Einstein believed that the Cosmological Constant provided just enough expansion to offset the natural contraction caused by gravitational attraction so that the Universe could be Infinite and Static (keeps space in balance in regard to expansion/contraction). Lemaitre eventually convinced Einstein that Hubble's data implied an expanding Universe, after which Einstein considered the Cosmological Constant a blunder. The Cosmological Constant still confounds us today - I think it is related to my fifth force, WIMP-Gravity.

But that is more closely related to Dark Energy than Dark Matter. Dark Matter is 'invisible' mass in the sense that we can measure its gravitational interactions, but we don't see any light from its stars or debris.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 22:10 GMT
Ray -- Space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (and light) in dreams. Einstein's equations predict that space is either expanding or contracting. I have shown that it is doing both (on balance and completion, that is) as part of my improved and expanded explanation that also demonstrates a [relative] constancy of energy in conjunction therewith.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Ray,

"...It is OK for you to ask questions about the overlap between Physics and Philosophy. But professionals expect outsiders to 'play by the rules'. Those rules have been established by generations of tradition. ..."

Thank you for this message. Actually I don't wish to debate theoretical physics except through my essays. The conversations that are taking place here are between intelligent people who agree for the most part. I prefer to stay out of it, because I do not agree with the ideas being debated. I honestly do not think that these properties are real. The reason for jumping in was because I chose to challenge Dr. Crowell's variety of declarations while avoiding getting entangled in political debate in this forum. The option I chose was to enter the arena of debate about theoretical physics. I do not expect others to agree with my ideas. I have hardly even begun to express them. That is because I am aware that I will be seen as clearly stepping outside the rules. What is important to point out, I think, is that there are several very important fundamental questions and answers that have been passed over. I think the theories that are built upon unsettled fundamentals are at least, and probably greater, as uncertain and unclear and possibly as uncorrect as those fundamentals may be. Insofar as overlapping physics and philosophy is conerned, that is not my intention. Actually I am working to disengage theoretical physics from philosophy that, like the rules, has become firmly ingrained in scientific thinking as established by those generations of tradition. I will let this discussion rest. I think the subject matter of each forum thread should be respected.

"...You can change physics more effectively by conforming to its expectations.

..."

I approach the knowledge of physicists with great respect. I ask questions instead of engaging in preaching. When someone wants to respond to my inquiries by suggesting that I am incapable of asking even the correct questions, then I think it is fair to point out their weaknesses and the questions which they do not know how to the answers. I recognize that I need to know the empirical knowledge upon which theories are based. I also need to know why others think and interpret things the way they do. I regret that this discussion moved to between you and I instead of Dr. Crowell and I. However, it is fine with me to leave what I have to say to future essays. In those essays, should I remain included, I will answer those questions and challenges that I have made here. Thank you again for your message.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear James,

This blog is about Dark Matter. Does it really exist? Are the CDMS results something we should pay attention to or are they just pushing out results before the first batch of LHC results?

You raise some interesting questions, and I enjoy conversing with you. The first few blogs I read of yours, I thought you might be a Creationist (my wife is a creationist), but you don't show your purpose quite that clearly. You seem to challenge much of modern physics. I agree that there are points that stray from common sense, but we use it because it seems to work. Maybe you are asking the right questions, and I'm chicken to overthrow everything.

I also enjoy talking with Dr. Lawrence Crowell. He is an extremely talented mathematician and physicist, although we have different political leanings. I am a conservative in a liberal part of my state (Tallahassee is the state capital and home of three large colleges and universities - I am a businessman in a town that doesn't appreciate business). I'm not afraid to talk politics, nor am I easily offended by politics, but that is not the purpose of this blog site, and I think we should avoid it - especially if it leads to hurt feelings.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Lawrence ,

I don't encircle your point of vue about the metaphysics, indeed you use imaginaries complexs in your extrapolations.

The thought of James are realists, your imaginaries, no .

In this line of reasoning, it is a little confusing about the 3D and its reality .

I must insist on an important thing, please dear Lawrence ,don't confound the universalists in 3D and the human ideologies, it is totaly different.

The definition of god is human, the universalism and the sciences show us the real road of our 3D.

If a psychopathology exists, it exists a global cause and the human instinct and the unconsciousness seem to be the main parameters of a system, here the Earth.

In all systems, it exists bad and good people.The problem is not in the whole but in the localities and in the personal point of vue.

The education thus is too an important parameter .

An ideologist is different than an universalist .

We can speak about all with different points of vue, different roads, but the road is the road with or without our agreement.

The metaphysics and the physics or the philosophy are linked and are rationals if the gauge is respected.

The real scientific analyze is correlated in this reality in 3D, the imaginaries without this ultim gauge are just a lost of time.

An universalist in 3D is more pragmatic than an ideologist in several dimensions where the finite gauge is not inserted.

Now of course it is just a question of personality but this fact won't change the universal dynamic. the physical universe always the PHYSICAL SPHERICAL UNIVERSE AND ITS WONDERFUL 3D FOR EVER 3D .

ps dear Lawrence do you consider the time voyage like more foundamental like the metaphysics ? If you speak about rationality ,thus you must be rational no ?

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 18:05 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

"...I think that JP is asking questions which are of an existential nature, or in the domain of metaphysics. As such I think these questions are not properly scientific issues. .."

And I think that inventing unprovable mechanical type causes whether called electric charge or dark matter or dimensions x,y,z is of far less scientific value than going back and answering these fundamental, totally scientific questions that you dismiss as being metaphysical. Metaphysics is the search for real natural truths that are unrestricted by theoretical inventions. The questions I asked do not come from metaphysics, they arose directly as part of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is a very restricted interpretation of reality limited to the lowest level of understanding in that it deals strictly with unsubstantiated mechanical concepts chosen to fit a mechanical, purposeless, unknowing, philosophical predisposition that is incapable of bringing forth even the most minute level of awareness. I suggest that each new theoretical cause that must be introduced to fill gaps in such theory may be evidence of the extent to which lack of understanding was passed over in earlier theory leaving us highly vulnerable to error. That error continues to bubble forth causing us to bubble forth more inventions of the mind while trying to patch theoretical physics together. Unity will not appear at the end of theory. It must be an intergral part of all theory right from the beginning. Fundamentally unified theory would predict the behaviors that today appear as anomalies. Even though you and others will not agree with my opinion, it should be clear to physicists that the questions I asked are basic questions of theoretical physics.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
James,

The fact that you argue against a "purposeless" view of physics, suggests you think science should embrace some teleological view of things. The problem is that science does not operate this way, and scientists don't think this way. Physical theories are operational systems that have some internal consistency and which predict observable aspects of the world. It does not have anything to do with the issues you seem to think are so important. The simple fact is that the scientific view does work, and it does tell us about the structure of reality and predicts what we can observe. Ideations or beliefs based on teleology give a sense of certitudes about existence, but they also really predict nothing. There is nothing wrong about being concerned over these things, but they really are not scientific issues.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 18:47 GMT
Ray, all: Ray, you asked me a question, and here is my answer. None of you can counter this.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity provided the first theoretical argument that the Universe/space must be either contracting or expanding.

Space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (and light) in dreams. Einstein's equations predict that space is either expanding or contracting. I have shown that it is doing both (on balance and completion, that is) as part of my improved and expanded explanation that also demonstrates a [relative] constancy of energy in conjunction therewith.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 18:55 GMT
Dr. Crowell

"...There is nothing wrong about being concerned over these things, but they really are not scientific issues. ..."

In other words: Anything that rises above mechanical theories that are amenable to mathematical modeling is not within the purview of theoretical physics. I agree with that.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 19:34 GMT
Steve, Ray, FQXi, all: The increased transparency/invisibility of space is the very requirement of astronomical/telescopic observations. The increased transparency/invisibility of space in telescopic/astronomical observations allows for objects (or stars) to be BOTH closer together AND farther apart. THAT IS GIGANTIC!

Astronomical/telescopic obs. are combining/blending gravity and electromagnetism/light in keeping with the increased invisibility/transparency of space therein. Said observations (and also dreams) demonstrate how a larger space is made smaller, and how a smaller space is made larger.

Space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (and light) in dreams. Einstein's equations predict that space is either expanding or contracting. I have shown that it is doing both (on balance and completion, that is) as part of my improved and expanded explanation that also demonstrates a [relative] constancy of energy in conjunction therewith.

One can readily see the aspects of past, future, and present united in dreams.

Remember what Einstein said about liking the idea of a unification via a "cylinder-world"? With space and time BOTH UNITED in a fourth dimension of space (i.e., that of electromagnetism/light), we necessarily have dreams occuring during the ONE THIRD third of our lives that we spend sleeping.

Dreams and telescopic/astronomical obs. BOTH involve a narrowing/"telescoping"

of vision. (Jonathan Dickau said this idea is "splendid".) The staring in dreams is also associated with the [waking] fact that if you stare (straight ahead) for long enough, the visual field/experience disintegrates.

How space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (and light) is the key to understanding the physical/sensory experience (including visual) in dreams, AND this also finds application in regrd to astronomical/telescopic observations as well. Indeed, dreams do have a clearly discernible (and general) physical/sensory structure, as they involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being, experience, and thought at the gravitational mid-range of feeling between thought and sensory experience. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Frank,

My first thought is that Hubble's Law says that we are living in an expanding Universe. Suppose that we momentarily overlook that data and interpretation, and assume that the Universe is 'balanced' or 'static' in the sense that expansion counterbalances attraction. What calculation do you obtain for the Cosmological Constant (responsible for expansion in a 'static' universe), and what can you imply from that? Do you have a model (say, similar to Ed Klingman's model that relates the gravitational field to the consciousness field) that might allow us to deduce cause and effect between the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field, and the dream field? Lawrence is working with the Cosmological Constant, and he is the resident GR expert, so you need to convince him as well.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 21:10 GMT
Steve, Ray, FQXi -- IMPORTANT My ideas represent a new and true theory of everything if ever such a thing was possible. I will prove that in this post.

Ray, you either talk around, twist, and/or avoid what I say. I am a very serious thinker, with little energy and time to waste. First of all, you need to think outside of the box. Secondly, do not come after the messenger when you do not like the message, as this does not make up for the inability to admit and ascertain the truth.

Reply to my last post, paragraph by paragraph. It seems clear that you didn't even read my essay.

By the way, FQxi can and will make me the winner. They have the ability to select my essay and to then rate the other essays in comparision with mine, and I will necessarily win.

Also, please read my last and recent post to Steve. Read all of the posts under my essay. You are not interested in it, that is clear. Accordingly, I put this up here for everyone else Ray.

Which part of dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] mid-range of feeling between thought and sensory experience do you not understand?

Now, combine that with this: The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The union of GR and electromagnetism/light proves that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general.

That I have shown the Common Chimpanzee to be between (and in the middle of)our dream and waking experiences in regard to what is their [comparative]extensiveness of being and experience (ALSO) in and with time is one of the very greatest ideas ever:

1) Think of the 90 degree angle of dreams/waking -- now think of the 45 degree angle of the Common Chimpanzees (while knuckle-walking).

2) Their hand closes in such a manner that it is a combination of pointing and grasping when the Common Chimpanzee wants a banana. This is between our dream and waking.

3) We, and our experience, are more "cut back" in the dream -- in comparison to the CC -- but they are more "cut back" with respect to our waking experience.

4) Since the Common Chimpanzee is also in between (in the middle of)

our waking and dream experiences in and with time, they live two thirds as long as we do (in captivity, of course.) Dreams occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping.

That the Common Chimpanzee is in between (in the middle of)

our waking and dream experiences with regard to the integrated extensiveness of their being and experience in and with time -- this also proves that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general.

No essay on here is nearly the greater. I have made that clear.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 21:44 GMT
Ray: The most elemental/fundamental/deepest way (or manner) in which human thought is [comprehensively and consistently] enmeshed and interactive with physical (and this includes sensory, of course!) experience is the source of our deepest genius and of the deepest and broadest conclusions/unifications that are revealed (and possible) in physics.

The above is in keeping with the FACT that the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. This relates to memory and genius.

Now, carefully consider, in keeping with the above, that: Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] mid-range of feeling between thought and sensory experience.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Frank,

I am trying to be polite as I realize that this forum attracts all types of people and most of us seem to have strong personalities - I don't walk on my knuckles, and I am a serious thinker who thinks outside of the box.

I guess your CC is the Common Chimpanzee, not the Cosmological Constant.

All I am saying is that if you understand this unification so well, why don't you put it in standard physics terms such as the Cosmological Constant? It is your responsibility to put your ideas in terms that others understand.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 21:59 GMT
Ray, ENOUGH! I have clearly, consistently, and comprehensively proven that space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy (and light) in dreams. Did you read my two prior posts? Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 22:25 GMT
JP,

Biologists don't concern themselves with the elan vitale or other vitalist principles. Biology works fine without notions of "divine sparks" and so forth. Much the same holds with the physical sciences. We don't concern ourselves with teleological ideas, for these are in the end excess baggage. This is probably a deeper underlying conflict between religion and science than what Darwin laid down. This makes some people unhappy, for it suggests that consciousness and our projections of ourselves into expanded categories (gods etc) or with ideas of univeral moral laws and purposes, are emergent properties which have some self-referential element to them. Supernatural ideations are banished from serious discussions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 22:47 GMT
Dr Crowell,

Neither this thread nor my messages have anything to do with divine sparks. The only spark-like interjections that have been added arbitrarily as needed are those of theoretical physics. Intelligence is clearly natural. No magic needed.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 01:31 GMT
To whomever it may concern,

Darwin was astute enough to recognize that the origin and development of intelligence was totally beyond his analysis. He saw no explainable connection between the evolution of life and the development of intelligence. He wrote that he had 'nothing to say' about it. Today that same, most important, scientific dilemma remains. Yes life evolved; however, intelligence could not have. Dumbness cannot evolve into intelligence. Lower intelligence cannot evolve into higher intelligence. The meaning of patterns must be anticipated or they mean nothing. They will not even be recognized as patterns. Theoretical physics has nothing to say about this matter.

James

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 09:34 GMT
Hi, James,

Correct me if I didn't understand you. But are you saying that nervous tissue doesn't evolve unlike other tissues? Even within the human population there are differences in intelligence due to certain proteins. When there is an apropriate selection pressure, does natural selection exclude the genes that code for those proteins? By what mechanism?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 14:08 GMT
Clearly the larger the number of neurons and the greater the level of complexity, then there is more neuro-physiological processing of information. This by any measure defines intelligence, though it can take on different forms. James is asserting something as such, with no serious argumentation.

There is the matter of consciousness or self awareness, and how that emerges from neorphysiology. Consciousness is not something well understood at this time.

These matters further have minimal impact on theoretical physics as well.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 02:50 GMT
Dear Peter van Gaalen,

"...Correct me if I didn't understand you. But are you saying that nervous tissue doesn't evolve unlike other tissues? ..."

Certainly not. Of course all lifeform tissues evolved. I was speaking to the point that intelligence cannot be generated by the development of nervous tissue unless that tissue carries intelligence along with it. It can be used by the nervous tissue, but it must be delivered in some manner to that nervous tissue via DNA. The point is that no assembly of particles or molecules can generate the future possibilities for higher intelligence unless thay carry with them the means to do this. That means must have access to the meanings that that future higher intelligence will require. Those meanings must be available by some prior existing means before they can even be put into use by the receiving lifeform.

"...Even within the human population there are differences in intelligence due to certain proteins. ..."

You are of course correct. The point I would make is that each of us is limited by the amount of intelligence that is passed onto us. If we do not have the meanings available to us through our tissue, then we cannot make us of those missing meanings.

"...When there is an apropriate selection pressure, does natural selection exclude the genes that code for those proteins? By what mechanism? ..."

So long as you point to genes or proteins, you are pointing to the means by which some measure of intelligence is passed onto us. They are the mechanisms by which we are made able to make us of the meanings that they carry to us.

Here is my point: We receive our information via photons in mixed storms of extremely truncated data comming to us at the speed of light in an always varying arrangement that has never been duplicated. From this always orginal mix of data, we must already know what patterns to look for and what meanings to attach to those patterns. We must even go beyond this in that we must intelligently help the pattern to form. Data must be both selected and disregarded. This knowledge cannot come from the data itself. It must pre-exist and it must be made available for our use before we can use it. It is an incredible feat and one that cannot be explained by pointing to the existence of the physical parts. So long as the properties of these parts are limited to the fundamental mechanical interpretations artificially imposed upon them by theoretical physics, we cannot explain the existence of intelligence. Listing the physical parts involved does not explain the existence of intelligence.

James

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 02:57 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"...There is the matter of consciousness or self awareness, and how that emerges from neorphysiology. ..."

"...Consciousness is not something well understood at this time. ... '

That that is because theoretical physics has laid a mechanical foundation which other sciences mistakenly believe they must link themselves to. Mechanical type thought is of no use for learning about the nature of intelligence.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 03:05 GMT
Consciousness is not a theoretical physics problem. Secondly, physics and science are about finding systems which behave dynamically or accroding to processes. It is not about finding angels, ghosts, spirits and so forth which move natural objects around on the basis of will. In sme manner consciousness in a biological context emerges from this. I don't have an explanation for it, but on the other hand I am not impressed with ideas which might come from shamans, reading the entrails of sheep or what comes from religious ideas.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 03:23 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"...Consciousness is not a theoretical physics problem. ..."

That is for certain. In fact, it has nothing to offer to bring consciousness into existence. That is evidence of its artifical construction.

"...Secondly, physics and science are about finding systems which behave dynamically or accroding to processes. ..."

Theoretical physics is about imagining mechanical ideas for cause that substitute into mathematical models. Science is for learning about truly natural properties such as intelligence. There is no need for ghosts, there is rather a need for a new approach to theoretical physics, one that has relevance to intelligent life. Intelligent life is natural.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 08:47 GMT
@Lawrence @Putnam: "Consciousness is not a theoretical physics problem."

Your assertion is acceptable if you can agree to the following:

Physics is only a subset of reality; physics does not and can not account for everything that is (a) possible nor can it explain everything that can manifest physically.

If the physics community will concede that IT cannot, and perhaps should not, explain EVERYTHING that can manifest physically, then I will take my suggested mechanisms somewhere else. This means that the physics community cannot say anything about God, the supernatural, the paranormal, etc., other than to say that SOME OBSERVED PHYSICAL PHENOMENA IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PHYSICS.

Any takers? Because I still have some mechanisms of the paranormal I want to describe. So if physics does not explain ALL physical phenomena, then perhaps I am blogging on the wrong website? Say you agree to these terms expressed above, and I will take my explanations of paranormal mechanisms somewhere else.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 13:31 GMT
The problem is we have no theory or science of consciousness. There is psychology or neuro-psychology, which describes certain subjective experiences with measurable or documentable actions or the changed properties of the brain under fMRI. Yet we have as yet no working theory of consciousness. As such physics can't embrace consciousness, or its more restricted notion of intelligence, into physical theories.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Jason,

I would agree with you. Ironically, we call a 'Theory of Everything' something which unites the interactions and particles (and we know that isn't really 'EVERYTHING' - it doesn't include consciousness, dreams, etc.), but we learn and teach Physics (Natural Philosophy relates to Nature, not God) as if it is a susbset of knowledge. From first principles, Physics chooses not to use God as an explanation. Once we use God as an explanation, then we always have that answer as a possible solution, and there is no reason to attempt to push our knowledge of NATURAL PHILOSOPHY farther.

Consciousness (Ed), dreams (Frank), teleology (James), and the paranormal/ supernatural (Jason) are NOT normally considered a part of Physics. Science will attempt to partially explain these phenomena via Artificial Intelligence and the emergence of Self, properties of the Multiverse, or mass hysteria.

I think Science should push the boundaries of knowledge, and these phenomena represent part of the boundary of our knowledge. But pushing these boundaries leads to new disciplines, new specialties, new traditions of learning, teaching, and collecting data. For instance, to be taken seriously with regards to consciousness or dreams, I think you should have the equivalent of at least a Master's degree in both a Physical Science and Psychology. These individuals seem to be rare.

Physics doesn't know everything. We would like to know all that can be known, so we need to keep pushing at the horizon.

And technically, MetaPhysics Monday is over, so I'll be glad to continue this discussion next week.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi to all ,

You are all supers, I like read your posts ,it is relevant.

I have a suggestion, the conscious don't search itself in fact but the real understanding of this consciousness by acts .

Indeed it is more efficient to act consciously than speak about it or search it.I am persuaded you encircle this point of vue, universal.

We can't deny the evidence ,the conscious is foundamental, now of course is it important to proof it or it is more important to act with it.

We can't deny too what it exists a difference between bad and good comportments.

It is logic for an universalist in my opinion .Thus this conscious exists and furthermore evolves.

When we see the evolution since the first amino acids ,even before with these NH3 H4 H2O HCN H2C2 in this hydrosheroids billions years ago, we can encircle and extrapolate the results like the polarisations,evolutives, these creations, biologicals.

The inteligence is too a result of these complexifications of mass and increasings furthermore.

We think thus we are No? This potential, this brain evolves and increases its interactions with its universal environment, and the reality appears....where the consciousness in our comportments becomes an essential when we understand our rule like catalyzers of this equation, this building, this spherisation.

The real sense of this conscious is to improve, to optimize, to harmonize our ecosystems.It is not necessary to search it, but it is necessary to apply it.It is like an axiom which doesn't need proof.It is a foundamental of our rule like catalyzers of the truth.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Ray,

I may have mentioned this before: I am caught between to world views. I am smart enough to be able to appreciate logic/mathematics/mechanisms as something unavoidable and real. I was also raised in a family which had paranormal events occurring; I've lived down in the French Quarter, as a kid, where I've witnessed various events. On top of that, I've been a member of of a spiritualist church for all of my adult life, and then some. I have not personally witnessed these physical phenomena, but I know that various forms of physical phenomena do occur: physical materialization of spirits using ectoplasm, apportation (dematerialization and rematerialization of physical objects, telekinesis, stigmata phenomenon, turning water to wine, adept mediumship...) I could not escape the conclusion that if these events enter the physical universe, then they MUST interface with physics/chemistry/biology in some way. They MUST employ a set of physical mechanisms. For the last 26 years I've been trying to figure this out.

The physics/scientific/skeptical community SCOFFS at such idea. On top of that, there are perhaps 99% wannabees ans 1% real psychics; among those, 99% are either inarticulate or cannot properly interpret the information. Quite simply, I've been living with some severe cognitive dissonance, until now.

I have had plenty of evidence for paranormal events, miracles, etc. While the evidence is typically personal for myself or someone else, I have paid attention and looked for patterns. I figured out how to engage these patterns, these patterns. No, I can't seem to make money at it. However, I can use them to pursue knowledge for the advancement of the human race. That is why I've been able to step into a physics forum full of physicists and geniuses, and demonstrate an advantage at explaining FTL propulsion (overturning the wormhole time machine impossibility problem), explain how sets of laws of physics can coexist in the same 3D space, and attempt to interface (by mechanisms) the physical universe and the aethereal brane (plane).

I'm ready to go toe to toe with my ideas. I'm ready for unbridled, full intellectual contact; winner takes all!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 23:15 GMT
Jason,

I do admire Derren Browns abilities as a professional illusionist/mind reader.It is very interesting to discover, through his performances and explanations of them, how easily the human mind is deceived by very simple linguistic and behavioural techniques, and how easily ideas or thoughts can be implanted in the mind subconsciously through environmental cues. There are lots of good you tube clips of his performances. This is an interesting interveiw explaining some techniques used in "mind reading".

Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins on cold reading.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 00:42 GMT
Dear Ray,

Hello again. I guess I need to try to be more thorough.

"...teleology (James)..."

I do not have a religion. I am not a creationist. I do not subscribe to the idea of periodic divine intervention to help a loose design along. My effort is directed at thinking scientifically. I dislike any insistence upon mechanical theory as representing reality, because, that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 01:08 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Isn't it amazing how subtle communication cues have evolved? In the strictest Darwinian sense, if whatever animal (cavemen, reptiles, fish, wolves, sharks, etc...) could not guess the communication cues, they were removed from the gene pool. Can you sense a slight tone of sarcasm from the subtle use of words? That's an awfully BIG job for a single evolutionary mechanism. If you're missing a useful gene, you die! But there is such a wide range of communication signals that have developed from this one mechanism: have the right set of genes or be eliminated!

Are you satisfied with that explanation?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear James,

I once taught a course in Science and Religion.

On one hand, we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Entropy. Its root meaning is that we can't use all of the energy available. Its implication is that EVERYTHING is in decay.

On the other hand, we have Darwin's 'Survival of the fittest' and the implication that superior gene codes are preferred, that superior brains or brawn are preferred, that superior communication skills are preferred, and that superior ethics are preferred. We might have random changes in populations (akin to entropy), but these lead to preferred improvements in same populations. How ironic that a type of 'entropy' leads to improvement!

My wife is a Creationist - she reads the Book of Genesis literally word for word in English (how ironic that the Bible wasn't originally written in English).

As a Christian, I prefer Design over Chance, however I treat the Book of Genesis like a poetic metaphor - I can't interpret it literally word for word and reconcile that with what I believe to be true of Science.

When I taught Science and Religion, I used 'Information Theory' as an argument for Teleology or Design. Our capacity for intelligence is programmed into our genes. Our capacity for language is programmed into our intelligence. Where did that capacity originate? Did it emerge from ape-men due to random genetic changes that just happened to be 'good' rather than 'deadly'? Or was it programmed into us by a benevolent Creator? Mainstream Physics would be forced to answer the former rather than the latter. To admit that God does something in our physical world is the same as allowing God to do everything. Once we are at that point in our rational, there is no need for Science - only God. "God did everything - the end." So I stop at the question... and leave the rest to Philosophy, which is where teleology belongs.

You are asking good questions. We need to better understand Information Theory and Entropy.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for that informative reply.

"...To admit that God does something in our physical world is the same as allowing God to do everything. ..."

Without my taking sides, I think your above statement is clearly true. I see no point in trying to argue that the created could ever by out of the control of the creator.

"... Once we are at that point in our rational, there is no need for Science - only God. "God did everything - the end."

That is a dilemma. The other side of the coin is that we must imagine causes. I think there may be an intermediate step available. It would be to develop theory based upon only one original cause. Then everyone would be free to call that cause, God, or energy, or a super force, or whatever to suit themselves. However, since that cause must also be responsible for the origin of intelligence, dismissing the unexplainable emergent approach, perhaps the matter cannot be settled scientifically.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Jason,

@Putnam: "Consciousness is not a theoretical physics problem."

"...Your assertion is acceptable if you can agree to the following:

Physics is only a subset of reality; physics does not and can not account for everything that is (a) possible nor can it explain everything that can manifest physically. ..."

I take that position because I think theoretical physics, in its current state, cannot deal with anything above modeling patterns in changes of velocity and imagining the existence of causes that are only sufficient for that purpose. My position is that today's theoretical physics is the foundational science only for mechanical knowledge. If it wants to be the foundational science for the operation of the universe, then, I think it has some huge changes to go through.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Ray,

"...To admit that God does something in our physical world is the same as allowing God to do everything. ..." I'm not sure I see the connection. I will admit that I've felt like a pawn getting moved around sometimes. Other times, I feel like I there is some 'tribe building' phenomena at work, but I can't quite put my finger on it. To tell you the truth, I think that quote is a glib overstatement. Perhaps the logical part of our brains, which has served us so well, can also be a hinderance. When do we get to evolve a mental On/Off switch?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 04:26 GMT
Sorry to intrude on the matter with respect to God. If I were to write up the business about SU(3)xSU(3)xU(1) emerging from SU(4) and its impact on quarks, might you be able to use this in your developements with spin(4,2) ~ SU(2,2)?

Something occurred to me, which might be wrong after all, but that the holographic principle demands an exceptional group structure. The holographic principle imposes certain requirements on horizons which bound regions of spacetime. In particular it requires that the entropy contained within these surfaces is less then the Bekenstein bound. So for an event horizon with an area A the entropy bound is S = A/4L_p^2, for L_p^2 = Għ/c^3. For a black hole the entropy of the black hole works out to equal this. Now in this approach to the string as being an emergent topological vortex of fields on a lattice, this is basically a form of lattice QCD or its simplified cousin the Ising model. Quantum holography means that the lattice system constricts according to a modular system for fields boosted to the event horizon. The BPS charge or mass a particle contributes to the black hole obeys a scaling principle which has a golden mean ratio. This is an E_8 result.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I'm still playing around with ideas. I'm not sure if this problem is extremely complicated or extremely simple. Are we implying that color is a hyperspace phenomenon? If so, the problem does simplify, but my essay implied that color was a spacetime phenomenon. This causes a flip-flop in my modelling of the strong and weak forces.

The truncated icosahedron has triality and pentality symmetries. The golden ratio is related to the geometry of the pentagon, which in turn is related to Spin(5), SU(5) and pentality symmetries. Somehow we morph from a two-dimensional G2 hexagonal Spin(6)~Spin(4,2) lattice to a three-dimensional G2 plus something (a U(1)?) truncated icosahedron with Spin(6)'s and Spin(5)~Spin(4,1)'s.

We can combine the 60 vertices of a truncated icosahedron with the 60 vertices of its dual pentakis dodecahedron to create the 120 operators in the icosahedral conjugacy classes (which may be related to SU(11) or H4)). If we can justify doubling this (say with two concentric truncated icosahedra that share a homotopy with a torus), then we have the 240 roots of E8.

Dear James and Jason,

I did over-simplify things when I said "To admit that God does something in our physical world is the same as allowing God to do everything" because many interpretations imply 'Free Will'. So there is the possibility that God started it all and then 1) walked away and let us have it (Newton was a Theist who probably fell in this category), or 2) gave us free will to manage it without his constant interference. Still, the danger of having a 'God in the box' is that you can always pull it out to explain the unexplainable. The prime cause is important to both Religion and Science. This is what attracted me to GUT's and TOE's.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
Dear Ray and Jason,

From Ray: "...I did over-simplify things when I said "To admit that God does something in our physical world is the same as allowing God to do everything" because many interpretations imply 'Free Will'. So there is the possibility that God started it all and then 1) walked away and let us have it (Newton was a Theist who probably fell in this category), or 2) gave us free will to manage it without his constant interference. Still, the danger of having a 'God in the box' is that you can always pull it out to explain the unexplainable. ..."

I love tackling the unanswered, or weakly answered, questions. There was a cause for the origin and operation of the universe. It doesn't matter for my point whether one calls that cause God or Superforce. The point is that the universe is controlled. It is not now nor has it ever been out of control. The problem is: If we, as part of the universe, are under control, then, how does human free will exist? I certainly think it does exist and that the universe is controlled. How do we explain the existence of free will? I spent years preparing my own answer to this question. It required reviewing and revising theoretical physics: It required explaining human intelligence: Finally, it required writting a continuous explanation leading from physics theory all the way to the existence of human free will. I now have no problem thinking in terms of my free will being given to me by a controlled universe. I won't bring that explanation here; however, I will stand by my saying that the Creation can never be free of the Creator or Original Cause.

Ray,

I don't think it really matters in so far as giving explanations for cause whether one calls the first cause God or Whatever. While it is true that once we claim the existence of a single cause for all activity, then we can use it as our answer for any activity. Personally, I think the separate causes or fundamental forces described by theoretical physics are symptons of our inability to theorize successfully using only one cause. So, I think, in the end, whatever one calls it, there is only one cause for all activity. Once we accomplish a truly fundamental unified theory, then we will end up falling back upon it for all activity. It will apply to physics problems and intelligence problems. I don't think that is a bad thing. I think it is the kind of work that is very attractive to me, and, the kind that I pursue energetically on and on. It is a great deal more attractive an idea for me than is believing in multiple mechanical type causes. As I have said before: We do not know what cause is. Inventing causes as needed is a turn off for me. Anyway, that is what I think.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear James,

Have you read my book? The first half of the book introduces Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT). The primary assumption behind QSGUT is that the gluons, photons, W and Z, and graviton are all different quantum states of a universal Grand Unified Mediating Boson (GUM Boson). At unification, all of these gluons, photons, W and Z, gravitons, and etc. behave like generic GUM Bosons. Now we have one cause, the generic GUM Boson(s). If you want to call this the Big Bang, or the God-particle, or whatever, it doesn't matter (although I attribute much greater power and qualities to God). The point is we have a 'Prime Mover'/'First Cause'.

The broken symmetry has more apparent causes and effects than the Grand Unification. Hopefully, the broken symmetry isn't as 'ugly' as the Standard Model, and it will lead us towards the Grand Unification.

You and I are interested in similar questions, but we may have different approaches towards solutions.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 18:42 GMT
p.s. - James - They have changed the internet link to my book. Just click on preview under the book cover. Most of the book is loaded for a free preview.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 18:57 GMT
There are of course two aspects to what I wrote. When it comes to the color index and G_2, the G_2 is a holonomy associated with the gauge field F_4, or a reduced B_4 ~ so(9). The G_2 at low energy is a sort of quantum field effect associated with gravity, or what in the decomposition at low energy (symmetry breaking) results in small quantum fluctuations of metric and curvature in general relativity. This at intermediate energy in the supermultiplet is an SU(3)xSU(3)x(U(1), which breaks further with a mixing of color (like) indices on the two SU(3)s, similar to the weak angle in standard model.

With the E_8 in holography it has occurred to me that if you tessellate up AdS spacetime, then as one observes fields (similar to spin fields on an Ising Lattice) that towards the boundary there are Lorentz (like) contractions of fields which compress them in the longitudinal direction and extend them along the longitudinal directions. This is in effect a phase transition similar to models of condensate effects on the Ising lattice. With the time dilation effects near the boundary (horizon) this is a form of quantum phase transition. The evolution of fields along the hyperbolic arcs is a type of renormalization group. The mass renormalization obeys a golden ratio rule, which means the fundamental group structure of these conformal fields is E_8.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
Dear Ray,

I haven't read your book. I see it on the Internet and will order it. I also haven't begun to read Dr. Klingman's books. There are two reasons I suppose. One is that I wanted to move forward on the uncertainty principle. I became bogged down somewhat when I realized what was going to be necessary for me to re-evaluate it. The second reason is that my math skills do not compare to yours and even more so to Dr. Crowell's. When I think about this, I regret it. If I were fully competent, then I could move forward far more rapidly both in reading and understanding the work of others and in supporting or disproving my own ideas in rapid fashion. The truth is that as I move further into physics theory, I also move more slowly. I have reached the point where I am a turtle compared to you hares.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear James,

I often feel like I go long periods without inspiration. A turtle with an idea has an advantage over a directionless hare. Most of the book is available for free preview online. If you are interested in a hard copy, I could mail you one. My e-mail address is mm_buyer@comcast.net.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2010 @ 22:17 GMT
James and Ray,

If you want to move faster in physics, or in any endeavor, you have to get good at a skill that you probably don't like very much. Flights of fancy, imagination, magic, are all ways of getting the right hemisphere of the brain active. When you start to come up with some cool, try to build on it. You'll start to notice that it cracks under the weight of close introspection. For some reason, it really helps to let your imagination run wild for a few hours or days. Then, you reign it in with something sensible. I'm telling you, ask for help from a higher power. You will get ideas. It's a process. Let the ideas simmer for a while. Then, discard the parts that don't work or don't help you. This is what I do.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 13:44 GMT
This system of lie algebras more the holography imply a superimposings where an ocean of decoherences, non constants, dilatation of a constant here the time....arrives.

The E8 system is false in its application for the universal reality.Its renormalizations are falses about mass.

This kind of system don't possess real mass and physicalities inside a specific foundamental system, thus its extrapolations are not necessary.

Futhermore the entangement is a fractal af spheres with its rotations ,thus the system needs limits in its topology.The volumes ,the mass ,the rotations imply a system in motion.The icosahedre.....hedre are crystals and an instant ,a stable architecture.The lines of the systems are thus falses in their non mobility,spinals ,orbitals(quant and cosmol).

This kind of works are just for the computing for a personal or a specific method with its intrinsic and invented laws.A computer thus can go in the time in its system but in reality the time is a pure constant of evolution and complexification of the mass without math complexs in several dimensions ,because the mass is in 3D simply .

The LHC will poof this reality soon with its realists experiments.The others experiments are a lost of time .Never the Higgs shall be found, or a dilatation of the time or an extradimensions system or that or that ,no the cause is the mass and its reality ,the energy, the mass, the light evolves and are logics and rationals in their proportionality of evolution.

It is a simple divison of mass with its energy and its light .....in an evolution ,the evolution makes fusion and polarises ....we divide the mass and the energy ,the time is the energy thus in its constant ......===Intrinsic the cause of the mass=== .....and the rotating spheres explain this effect with its specific number,its specific fractal of spheres ,its specific entanglement .....

Just a thought about our foundamentals

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Jason,

I'm not simply 'a mathematical genius' as Frank refers to me. My right-brain is nearly as advanced as my left-brain, and my wife is an artist, so she inspires me at times. I just can't claim to have new inspiration every week. Sometimes that's frustrating because I feel that my research consists of 'hurry up and wait'.

Dear Steve,

You should be a better sport about this dimensional stuff. The truncated icosahedron and E8 are 3 and 8 dimensional, respectively, crystaline lattices of nearly spherical shape. As I have said before, Nature can make a nearly spherical truncated icosahedron (buckyball/soccer ball) out of a mere 60 carbon atoms. Although we can define a sphere mathematically with just one parameter, radius, we cannot represent it physically with anything larger than a Hydrogen atom. It is impossible to obtain a perfect sphere with, say, a thousand atoms of any kind.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
I am also not a math genius particularly. I have an MS in math, and I can understand just about any mathematics I read or study, but that does not make me a mathematical genius. I read Perelman's papers on a proof of the Poincare conjecture, where I "got the gist" of the idea, though there were lots of detail I did not delve into at great depth.

There is the Edison statement of 1% inspiration and 99% percent perspiration. I tend to modify this a bit to 4% inspiration, 3% figuring out most inspriations are complete BS, and then 93% perspiration.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Yu-Jie Zhang wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 18:03 GMT
A Naive Model of The Cosmological Vacuum Energy Density: Dirac Sea

A naive model that Dirac sea offer the cosmological vacuum energy density is discussed here.

The cosmological parameters are measured \cite{Amsler:2008zzb}

\begin{eqnarray}

\rho_{cos} &\sim&1 \times 10^{-29}~ {\rm g /cm^3},\nonumber \\

T_{CMB}&=&2.725 \pm 0.001~ {\rm...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I agree with you on the inspiration and perspiration. Some ideas simply don't work. Some ideas lead us to newer and hopefully better ideas. Some ideas sit on the shelf until we find a better application. But a certain amount of effort must be applied regardless of the amount of inspiration. I only have a minor in math - you really are the resident math genius (although I think Frank meant it as an insult when he used that expression on me, whereas I am using it as a compliment towards you).

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Yu-Jie,

That is an interesting start to a paper.

Lawrence - Could these ideas tie into your Cosmological Constant ideas and my scalar fermion ideas?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

SteVE Dufourny wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 18:49 GMT
Hi all ,

Interesting point of vue dear Dr Cosmic Ray, you know even if I disagree with both of you ,Lawrence and you I have a big respect for your genius indeed we can say that Lawrence is a genius in math and you in phenomenology.I can understand too the perspiration and inspiration,and there too I have a big respect but that frustrates me your false road.Not the skills and tools ,but the method and the referential ......I like the irreversiilities and coherences,limits and constants.It is like accept the physical laws.It is essential in my opinion.

The sciences are there to improve the quality and many systems can be created for energy and adaptations.

I don't see a rational adaptation in these models dear Ray,when a model is correct we see its applications everywhere.What I say is very simple the energy is everywhere and we can utilize this energy step by step in accepting our limits.The energy at the planck scale for exemple is so important and so far of us like the future universal finite sphere and its energy.The tools are around us ,it is the sense of E=mc²,the mass polarises the light in the time with its very weak polarisations and the time permits to increase the energy with the fields and these steps.Even the systems of mass (minerals ,biological,planets,stars etc etc....contiues to increase their mass quietly due to this evolution.The equation is specific ,don't change its laws but evolves in this mass thus this energy thus this light ......The perception in 3D is essential to encircle its topology ,finite ,evolutive furthermore.

The mass has an intrinsic cause and increases with this light ,the dipole seems relevants.....When we break a polarised system aged of 14 billions years ,thus you can encircle the fact what the light and the energy thus is separated of the gravitational system and more we go towards the Planck scale,these walls more we shall have light and energy because we separate the polarised system .The Higgs has no place there like extradimensions .The rotations of quantum and cosmological spheres turning around the universal center inside an evolutive universl sphere seems more rational for a better understanding of our physicality.

Friendly the two mavericks ,ps you make me crazzy and now Jason with the paranormal ahhhhhhhhh you make me crazzy hihihih but you are cool and likeable and I hope one day I will see you really .We shall take a cup of coffe or a belgium beer hihihi with fried potatoes from belgium .

Take care dear Friends

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 19:32 GMT
Hi Steve,

You said: "The Higgs has no place there like extradimensions ." The established physics definition of the Higgs field is the mechanism that give mass to W+/W- particles.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson_de_Higgs

An empty volume of space might be mistaken as nothingness. It does, however, contain something that implements the laws of motion, space-time. Because of space-time and the laws of motion, we are given E=mc2. A Higgs field, in a very general way, manifests energy as particulate matter or mass. Since lots of particles have mass, I decided to define a Higgs brane which includes all processes, known and unknown, that turn energy into particulate matter.

By the way, I'm not too sure about extra-dimensions either. The physics community says they're curled up. I like the idea of converting them into multiple coexisting but non (weakly) interacting 4D space-times. The other coexisting space-times can be ignored if you prefer.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 20:11 GMT
Dear Jason,

Well here I go off the cliff. I do not believe that any of this is real. I don't even think that e=mc2 is correctly written. I respect the intelligence of you and others here; however, it is almost impossible for someone like myself to find a place to participate because the causes are all hidden or yet to be discovered. This is not meant to be critical. It is actually a response to your advice with regard to "...For some reason, it really helps to let your imagination run wild for a few hours or days. Then, you reign it in with something sensible. ..." I do not see the sensible part here. Why don't you take this opportunity to explain why you believe the way you do.

I guess these ideas seem clear to physicists; but almost none of it is clear to me. If you read my essay; then, you would know that I am still waiting to hear the justification for interpreting mass as an indefinable property. I think that initial act is why this idea of a Higg's field has become necessary. Whether or not I am correct is not as important, I think, as reigning in the number of invisible properties that seem to me to be piling up in theoretical physics. Anyway, this is my ackward attempt to find someway of responding and participating.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear James,

I agree with Ed's frequent truism, "We need to know the difference between the map and the territory". The problem arises if said user doesn't know either the map or the territory well enough NOT to confuse them. Physics is full of mathematical models. Robust models hold up to scrutiny and become Theories/ Hypothesis/ Laws (I purposely list laws last because I think that the age of declaring a model or property as a 'Law' is dead - even Einstein's best works aren't considered laws). Although we Physicists are usually quite competent with our math, we are also likely to confuse the two philosophically. We throw them together and make a philosophical soup. As a Particle Physicist, I know that an electron has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2, an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, and an electric charge of -1e. But how does it know? These properties are extra degrees-of-freedom. We can either do some hand-waving and throw them into our philosophical soup, or we can build our mathematical model to explain these extra 'properties' or 'degrees-of-freedom' or 'dimensions'.

I think you are asking the correct philosophical questions. If you want to participate more, you might need to strengthen your mathematical background. I minored in math, but I zipped through undergraduate Physics school in three years at the top of my class. When I hit graduate school, I was up against Physics/ Math double majors, people who had taken 5 years to get their undergraduate degree, and even people with Masters degrees, and they were also at the top of their classes. I got my tail kicked for a while (I dropped from being an 'A' student to a 'B+' student - I didn't like it), but then I picked up a copy of Arfken's Mathematical Physics, taught myself the contents, and I don't remember making another 'B' after that point in my education. If you recognise math as your weak spot, then you should work on it.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Ray,

"...If you want to participate more, you might need to strengthen your mathematical background. ..."

It is a fact that my mathematical abilities are insufficient, or at most at a tedious level, to follow the mathematical analysis of experts. However, I think that cause is never included in an equation unless it is artificially interjected by theoretically interpreting a quantity, say q, as a cause, say electric charge. I really want to avoid appearing to be antagonistic. So, I will tell you ahead of time that I think cause appears in mathematical equations always as the same symbol. It is always the same symbol because cause is unknowable to us. We do not know what cause is. The symbol is the equals sign. I do not think that q is electric charge. I think that it is an incorrectly identified property of final conditions. The left side of an equation represents initial conditions and the right side of the equation represents final conditions. Initial conditions 'equal' final conditions. Initial conditions 'change' into final conditions. The cause is inbetween the two. Initial conditions are 'caused' to become final conditions. The act of change is symbolized by the equals sign. What do you think? Even if I do not get it. You will be speaking also to other readers. Your response is welcome.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear James,

We deduce the cause by the effect. In my model, the initial fermion state is a lattice site f_i (in some multi-dimensional Spacetime/ Hilbert Space), the final fermion state is a different lattice site f_f, and second quantization allows us to treat the intermediate boson as a translation operator from the initial site to the final site b_i->f. I would consider the effect to be the change in matter from f_i to f_f, and the cause to be the intermediate boson b_i->f that is treated as a different level of reality - we NORMALLY only recognize these intermediate bosons by how they operate on matter. How philosophical should we get before we admit that there may be cracks in the foundation? How does an electron know its properties? It isn't intelligent. It doesn't have its properties written on its face. How does it know?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 23:08 GMT
Dear Ray,

"...We deduce the cause by the effect. ..." ... "...and the cause to be the intermediate boson b_i->f that is treated as a different level of reality - we NORMALLY only recognize these intermediate bosons by how they operate on matter. ..."

I would say that we recognize that there is a cause, indefinable by us, because there is an effect. However, that leaves us wondering what is the cause? Any particle that is predicted or discovered may cause an effect. I really don't think that even finding the particle explains the cause. We have had electrons and protons for a very long time now. Why do they do what they do? If the answer is electric charge, then the question changes to: What is electric charge? Please be patient with me, but when you explain anything by referring to 'a different level of reality', then, I think the burden of proof remains on your shoulders. Also, when you say something like 'how they operate on matter', then I must ask you: What is the explainable means by which they 'operate' on matter? The particle in question may cause the effect, but that means it has some ability beyond just existing. What is that ability? I do not understand this reasoning. I will assume that these questions sound antagonistic. They are meant to be probative. There has to be more to this than identifying the parts, call them particles or dimensions or forces, etc. One thing I feel certain about is that mathematics can never reveal anything to us that was not already included, whether recognized or not, in the initial ideas upon which the equations were formed. I think there is an artificial means by which new properties can be introduced; but, they exist only for theoretical reasons. They are the misinterpretations of parts of either initial conditions or final condtions. I assume that your message rejects this concept.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear James,

I agree that modern physics is misinterpreting something. How can we assign any 'property' (mass, charge, spin, etc.) to any 'particle' unless there is a mechanism through which that particle always knows its properties? The fundamental particle spectrum is much more complicated than the 0's and 1's of computer programming. Garrett Lisi used the 248 components of E8 to describe the particle spectrum, but even that wasn't quite large enough to build a fully-self-consistent model. In my opinion, E8 has a rank and minimum dimensionality of eight. Thus, there are extra dimensions that we don't see on a daily basis that provide the information required for a particle to remember its properties. How does it know?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 04:06 GMT
JP seems to really be concerned with matters of ontology, or the existential proof for the reality or ontology of things. This is more a matter of the philosophy of science IMO. I have difficulty making much sense out of philosophy of science. I think it was Feynman who said something to the effect that philosophy of science is as important to science as ornithology is important to birds.

I don't think we can ever get these existential or ontological matters ever figured out. For one thing it might be best if physics and cosmology comes up with a final theory. Frankly I don't think we can do that as well. We will be damned lucky if we can derive some quantum gravity which gives particle spectra according to black hole dynamics, predict the earliest dynamics of the universe and observe these with neutrinos or gravity waves, and further get some signatures of other universes by metric fluctuations. We will have done damned good if that happens, and even still our observations will just probably be a modest collection of pictures, taken through a dark glass of a vast landscape. Still in the end this, even with all that is in this multiverse picture, will be just some saddle point integration with a greater vastness beyond, which might correspond to radii which approach the Planck length. So we are ultimately faced with the fact we will not ever know it all, but we might be able to know enough to solve what problems we have at the day and can make tests and observations of.

So if we are not going to know it all in physics, we may never know for certain what is ontological or what is "real." This might be further the case if the quantum classical dichotomy persists, no matter how refined our understanding becomes. We might never be able to get rid of the "seams." So we are confronted with a sort of ontological relativity or uncertainty, which might never be removed ---- Immanuel Kant tried and didn't hit the mark. We appear to be no better off that Garrison Kiellor's "Guy Noir," who endlessly looks for answers to life's persistent questions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 06:41 GMT
James,

You asked, "I do not see the sensible part here. Why don't you take this opportunity to explain why you believe the way you do. " Do you remember the car, the Gremlin? It was built by AMC back in the 70's. What if everybody told you, it never existed. You don't see any on the road. They're hard to find; if there are any left. What if you asked around, and nobody had heard of them. You remembered it, but nobody else would agree with you. Then, let's say there were people who knew about the Gremlin made by AMC, but they were weird. Maybe they worshiped a hand drawn picture of the Gremlin car. But you remember seeing them. How long would it take before you started to doubt whether they had ever existed at all. That's the way I feel about the paranormal. I've seen it. I've felt it. But for the strangest reasons, it doesn't lend itself to rules of logic. I got stuck between two worlds. I am too intelligent to be a very good mystic, so I lose all of the benefits. But I'm too stubborn to let it go. If I let it go, what do I gain? Nothing. Not a darn thing. Do I think it's there? Yes. Do I pay attention and observe how it manifests miracles? Yes. I try to emulate it where I can. One of the reasons I can conceptualize about these ideas so easily is because I've been beating my head for years trying to figure out how it all fits together. If I see myself as broken, I'm useless to everyone. If I see myself as interconnected with 'other stuff', I can come up with lots of cool stuff that is plausible.

I think your real question is: among all of these outlandish ideas, what is real? What can we take advantage of? Can we get FTL propulsion to really work? I'll keep asking; I also wonder what phenomena we would have to observe to realize that we have a means to implement FTL propulsion.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 11:37 GMT
Hi Jason the creative genius,

Yes I know but that seems bizare for my perception.I try to be in the proof but I search still this proof in fact.

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

I think that if you had expanded you last message into an essay for this last contest, you might have won.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Jason,

It is the 'physical' interpretations of theoretical physics that I do not believe in. I believe in the empirical evidence. I believe in the usefullness of modeling the patterns in that evidence with mathematical equations. What I do not think is correct is the practice of separating out different fundamental properties without any justification other than we could not, at earlier stages of knowledge, see how fundamental unity might exist. I think that the strenuous mathematical excercises that have become the new theoretical physics is the result of trying to artificially bring back together that which was artificially pulled apart. I think the new properties of the new physics are hidden from us because they are imaginary. They have become theoretically necessary, for the reason I give above, but I see them only as imaginary until their existence is demonstrated beyond mathematical modeling. I can't go in that direction. It just does not suit me.

I move through theoretical physics slowly because I think that all earlier guesses should be revisted and hopefully corrected. I do not look for the Higg's particle to be found. I look for getting a better fundamental explanation for what mass is. If it isn't done correctly from its inception into mathematical analyses, then misunderstanding and unnecessary complexity gets passed onto any higher level analyses that includes that erroneous fundamental interpretation. I think the same holds true for any other property that is introduced without getting it right from the start. One way to identify these early misdirections is to pull out those properties that were made into indefinable properties and revisit them without bias. As for anything paranormal, that is not something that I am asking about or questioning.

I do not expect others to agree with this viewpoint. I think that learning what they think is also very important. I try to study their reasoning, but I always return back to my own work. I have written a lot about it, but I have much more to do. It is just a different direction that probably does not belong here.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear James,

You said, "As for anything paranormal, that is not something that I am asking about or questioning." I can only interpret that to mean you don't think it exists. That's cool. We've got four forces. We have pretty much all of the empirical evidence we're ever going to get from them. Empirically speaking, we're done. Take up a hobby. I've heard that collecting stamps is fun.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Jason,

My hobby is redefining the fundamentals of theoretical physics. It does not generate income. It costs money. However, it is a hobby I am enjoying very much. By the way, I do not think that there are four forces.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear James,

My hobby is developing the FTL propulsion drive and trying to figure out The Great Design. The physics community says there are four forces. I say there are more. How many do you think there are?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Jason,

I happened to be online right now wondering what the Monday Metaphysics Club was. I think your ideas are right inline with the modern theoretical physics. I find your posts and the responses to them by our resident physicists to be very interesting. However, back to my out of place here thoughts: I think there is one cause for all effects. So long as we are talking about theoretical physics, calling it a single fundamental force is fine.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear James,

So you believe that the four forces can be unified into one force? That is just so dull.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Jason,

No I do not believe that "...the four forces can be unified into one force. ..." I said that "...I think there is one cause for all effects. So long as we are talking about theoretical physics, calling it a single fundamental force is fine. ..." I think that the necessity for unifying four forces into one is an artifact of early misinterpretations of 'cause' in fundamental physics theory. Unification is only necessary after one decides to define four fundamental forces. I redefine fundamental physics based upon one original cause. Therefore I do not have to come back later and speculate about hidden causes in a belated effort to improvise unity onto theoretical physics. So, in my effort to be clearer I will state that: There is only one fundamental cause or force for all effects and it belongs at the beginning of theoretical physics. I am saying that unity must be included at the beginning of the fundamentals of theoretical physics or it can never be brought back into theoretical physics except by artificial means. The evidence for 'artificial means' is the use of hidden causes. Ok what do you think: Is this still dull? (I wish I could add a Happy Face to this message.)

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear James,

The Monday MetaPhysics club was something I was proposing on the FTL blog this past Monday. The idea is that if we talk crazy stuff all of the time, then people will think we are crazy. If we talk crazy stuff once a week, it keeps us honest regarding the boundaries of Physics and that which we may never fully comprehend. Our ideas are 'Metaphysics' to a degree. Do you think we should organize a weekly club?

Are you reading my book? Do you like the idea of a Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson that exists in different quantum states?

It is an interesting coincidence that there are 4 observable dimensions (but time acts differently from space) and 4 observable forces (but gravity acts differently from the Standard Model).

Is there only one force? Are there four forces? Are there 10, 11 or 12 forces? Are there 24, 26 or 27 forces? I think you see where I'm going with this.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear James,

When you say you are looking for one cause, I think I know what you're searching for, but I won't presume too much. I'll just say, keep searching.

Dear Ray,

You want to make me wait until Monday to share my crazy ideas? Speaking of ideas, when I try to wrap an FTL propulsion spaceship within it, and withdraw the spaceship into hyperspace, I have to be careful not to violate conservation of energy. I tell you more later.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2010 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Jason,

Geez! I am saying that there is one cause. I tried to avoid saying that I know what that cause is. I do not think that this thread should be invaded by my ideas. Anyway, I am not searching. I am using it with success in fundamental theoretical physics. I do this elsewhere.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Ray,

I've already told you my ideas about generating some kind of a field around a spaceship, which removes it from space-time. I was hoping to find a way to dampen out gravity and hover like those spaceships did in the movie Independence Day. The problem is that such a field would potentially make it possible to violate the conservation of energy. In any event, I can't seem to get a grip on gravity, either to block it or to generate a localized gravity field.

James,

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Jason,

I apologize for becoming impatient. I understand that most of us and perhaps all of us thinks that we are on the path to truth. I don't know for a fact that I have the truth. In the end, it is others that must make that determination. What I do know is that I am developing a theory that is dependent upon the existence of a single original fundamental force. The level at which I am at does not justify my insisting to anyone that I have the real answer to reality. So, please take my messages as indicating only that I am working on ideas different from yours. I recognize that your ideas are more in line with modern theoretical physics than are mine. However, I like what I am doing and will continue, for now, in that direction. Please keep on developing your own ideas, and, I will be watching for them.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 @ 03:09 GMT
Dear James,

You said, "I recognize that your ideas are more in line with modern theoretical physics than are mine." I am a little puzzled. My ideas are straddling somewhere between QM/GR on one side, and other other side UFO tech/Paranormal. Anything beyond my "other side" is considered wacky. Are you challenging QM and/or GR?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 @ 03:27 GMT
Dear Jason,

I can't yet say publicly with regard to quantum mechanics what I think. I have been working around it and am only recently enterring into it. I don't mean that I am ignorant of it. When I say enterring, I mean with my approach. I chose the uncertainty principle as the key point to begin moving in that direction. In so far as Einstein's theories are concerned, both special and general relativity, I do not use them except as a guide on what to avoid. I think I have done sufficient work to support that statement. I do my work by myself. I put the results, when I feel confident about them, on the Internet. They are available to view for free. I do not push my ideas anywhere else but at my website. Others can read them or not as they wish. I think that my participation here at fqxi is moving toward promoting my own ideas. I think I should avoid that practice. I think fqxi deserves to guide the content of their blogs. Their patience is something to behold. Believe me, your ideas are more in line with modern theoretical physics than are mine.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 23, 2010 @ 05:35 GMT
Dear James,

I understand. Believe me, quantum mechanics is pretty darn strange. I do kind of understand what you mean by trying to establish a first cause. I have a different word I use: why? Why does it work that way? I think I was eleven years old when I drove my mom batty asking 'why' questions. :-)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 24, 2010 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear James ,I am so happy ,yes 1 force and a division like in a collision , a simple division ,that is the real sciences thus thanks to you for this realism .We are not alone too .Fortunally .

Ps Jason the first cause is this rotating spheres...implying mass it is logic .Not a E8 or others no a physical cause here not a extra cause .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 24, 2010 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Ray,

"...Are you reading my book? Do you like the idea of a Grand Unified Mediating (GUM) Boson that exists in different quantum states? ..."

I am looking at your work. I move slowly still. That isn't solely due to lack of practice or understanding. When a question such as this is raised, my mind wanders in an effort to pin down what seem to me to be the real points first.

Here is an example of what I mean by that. I say that there is one cause for all effects and it must be a clear continuous part of theory beginning with the fundamentals. Now you have me pausing to wonder: Is there really a fundamental logical difference between saying that; There was one cause that existed at the beginning of the universe and it has made everything that followed possible; Or, saying that there is one cause that begins at the beginning of theoretical analysis and it makes possible everything that follows in theoretical analysis.

When first comparing these two statements, the second one begins to appear weaker. Its the repeated use of the word theoretical instead something sounding more real such as: 'There was one cause that existed at the beginning of the universe and it has made everything that followed possible'. The two approaches lead to very different kinds of theoretical analysis. Yet, they are both formulated on the principle of unity. They are both capable of developing internally consistent theories.

So, I end up pondering: What are the evidences, both theoretical and empirical, that would decisively determine the best match for reality? I would like to have some answers in mind. I might know better what to watch for. Just like with f=ma, I get delayed by unanswered or weakly answered questions. This is the kind of approach that I am most comfortable with. I think that it will make me better able to consider the things that you are saying.

"...It is an interesting coincidence that there are 4 observable dimensions (but time acts differently from space) and 4 observable forces (but gravity acts differently from the Standard Model). ..."

This point I need to think about for awhile.

"...Is there only one force? Are there four forces? Are there 10, 11 or 12 forces? Are there 24, 26 or 27 forces? I think you see where I'm going with this. ..."

I will admit this: If there are more than one forces, then observation alone may not be sufficient to prove that there are only four. Once forces separate out or emerge, we have to look for their cause and it can't be any of the four forces themselves. That cause is, by definition, unobservable by us. There is no reason not to call it a greater force. If that force exists, then what more exists with it or before it that is unobservable.

I will be slow about this. I am slow about my own work also. It makes me wonder how I have piled up so much writing. Maybe I have had more than one life and was too busy writing to notice the transition.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 24, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
Dear James,

You seem to be a serious thinker. These are serious questions. It is good to proceed slowly. Good luck with your work! Let me know if I can help.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 19:30 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you for your kind message. It is an honor to gain your friendship. Now, before I get reigned in to adhere to the blog subject, returning to your statement:

"...It is an interesting coincidence that there are 4 observable dimensions (but time acts differently from space) and 4 observable forces (but gravity acts differently from the Standard Model). ..."

This is what I think: Physics theory has both invented properties to move beyond unanswered questions and skipped past other questions that received weak answers. Still, competent theory remains based upon the patterns observed in empirical evidence. What this indicates to me is that: Even though properties may be artificially, theoretically, separated because it is not understood at the time how they may be fundamentally connected, they are still very much connected to the patterns of empirical evidence.

This means that they will still retain, in some noticible form, the appearance of interdependent properties. I think it is these left over appearances that inevitably must show through that are viewed today as symmetries. So it is through the use of these symmetries that attempts are made to rejoin that which was mistakenly separated out.

With regard to your statement above: It strikes me as a result of habit. In other words, the ongoing thorough search for symmetries or commonalities is susceptible to false readings. Symmetries that aren't really there except in appearance. So the four and four comparison does not seem to me to indicate a legitimate meaningful symmetry. I must admit though, that my view has to be influenced by my belief that there are not four fundamental forces. Anyway, that is what I think at this moment.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear James,

You know I don't believe in four forces or four dimensions. I just wonder if this similarity in numbers is a coincidence or an important connection.

I'm traveling to Atlanta this week, so I won't be around as much.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Ray,

Anytime you think something I say needs fixing, you just say so. My feelings are not an issue. The issue is figuring things out right. My graduate school son was in Atlanta a week ago for a Meteorlogical Conference. He had great weather inbetween two periods of bad weather. Hope you enljoy being in Atlanta.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 25, 2010 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear James,

You have a son in grad school? I guess we're both old guys.

Cheers to us old guys!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 16:17 GMT
Hi guys---check out the new feature, which will allow you to reply directly to other comments. For instance, James can reply here to Ray and say, "If you think I'm old, you should see the computers they still use on the Space Shuttle."

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Ray,

I'm so old that even my messages have turned gray.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Ray and James,

No No no you are not olds, we have all the same age no in a whole point of vue?

Friendly

Steve

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 10:56 GMT
Hello,

The new of the day....a sphere in a accelerator .....the linear velocity increases the mass...the speed of rotation(spinal) decreases the mass.....eureka.Paradoxal you think.....chuttttttttt it is a secret hihihi

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Ray,

I was wondering if I could borrow two ideas from you. I liked the idea of an 8D scalar particle/field. I'd like to use it as a potential field that can exist in two coexisisting space-times. This would allow me to interface between two space-times, ours and a hyperspace.

The other idea I liked is your 2D badly broken anyon plane. I don't want to call it a Higgs-brane if that's ok with you. I'd like to find a different name for it. Some kind of interfce plane.

I'm trying to get a several of my ideas ready for an FTL propulsion website. Eventually, I'd like it to be a second source of income. Anyway, gotta go. Thanks!!! :-)

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Jason,

My ideas are still evolving. The 2-brane is important. I call it a Higgs-brane, but admit that my 'Higgs ideas' do not conform to the Standard Model. I read a good chunk of Ed's book over the past couple of days while I was on a business trip. I think Ed is just as almost-crazy/almost-sane as the rest of us, and I see a possible intersection of ideas from mine to Lawrence's to yours to Ed's to Steve's (and I can fix Lisi's ideas). Tonight my wife showed me a copy of the latest "Tallahassee" magazine featuring Sir Harry Kroto, and I said "THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON!" I'm so glad that she 'gets me' every once in a while. Maybe I'm not as crazy as the mainstream thinks I am.

Dear Steve,

Think spinning soccer balls...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 28, 2010 @ 19:50 GMT
Dear Ray,

Be crazy! I don't think normal people have a very high survivability from an evolutionary standpoint.

Personally, I like the idea of a Higgs brane as a space-time implementer. This allows me to overlay the implementers of other kinds of space-times within the same volume of 3D space. It allows other possibilities.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 12:22 GMT
Hello Dr Cosmic Ray ,

hihihi yes indeed, you know I love playing soccer, GOALLL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOALLLLL LIKE THE BRESILIANS hihihi That turns .....

Let's be crazzy like say Jason the creative.

ps Jason don't forget my rule of gardener for the Space ship.Hope it will be possible for 2015.

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 13:13 GMT
Dear Steve,

Balance your soccer ball in the middle of a hexagon. Now spin it. This is a 'magnetic-based triality'. If you read enough of my ideas along with Lawrence's, Ed's, Garrett's, and your own, then you may understand my crazzy direction.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 14:00 GMT
Ray,

I hope to comment further about your pent-hex construction. I sent yesterday some elements about how E_8 has a golden ratio interpretation. This probably does decompose into something similar to what you have, which looks a lot like a permutahedron of some type.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 29, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Yes, I read your e-mail, but I'm still digesting it. I am continually amazed by your math-physics skills. I was looking for something like a permutahedron that would give the type of triality and pentality symmetries that we expect from E8.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 17:43 GMT
Why can't a four dimensional space constitute what is a six dimensional AND a two dimensional space (ON AVERAGE)?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 21, 2010 @ 18:49 GMT
Spacetime does not have the degrees of freedom necessary to describe gauge field and gravitation. This is one motivator for the Kaluza-Klein type of theories with extra dimensions, which are compactified in Calabi-Yau spaces, orbifolds and strings wrapped on D-branes.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2010 @ 11:12 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

On Advanced Physics Forum APF , I knew a scientist and I think you can help him , he is on FQXi and post his article.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:15 GMT
KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

report post as inappropriate