Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Putnam: on 6/22/10 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Tom, Quote: "You've said your last word in favor of personal belief and...

T H Ray: on 6/22/10 at 1:19am UTC, wrote "Your case is not at rest." Oh yes, it is. "Mass is an effect, what is...

James Putnam: on 6/22/10 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Tom, Good grief. Your case is not at rest. You are certainly welcome to...

Anonymous: on 6/22/10 at 0:14am UTC, wrote The following provides excellent proof/grounding regarding the limits and...

T H Ray: on 6/22/10 at 0:00am UTC, wrote Then James, I rest my case so far as my disagreement with you. You are not...

T H Ray: on 6/21/10 at 23:57pm UTC, wrote In fact, James, I have been _very_ clear that theory _never_ becomes an...

James Putnam: on 6/21/10 at 23:30pm UTC, wrote Tom, Quote: "James, has it crossed your mind that the universe may not...

James Putnam: on 6/21/10 at 23:26pm UTC, wrote Tom, Quote: "The only problem with theory is that you think a guess is a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Georgina, Steve, What is reality? The humorous answer, almost at the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe, What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Jason, You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written..." in First Things First: The...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

Jason Wolfe: "The best we can do with the environment is to plant more trees and..." in More on agency from the...

gmail login: "Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I..." in Bonus Koan: A Lake of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, I don't think the quantum representation of the hydrogen atom is an..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

SAJ Real Estate: "Nice one. Real Estate Sales St Kitts" in A Close Encounter


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi BLOGS
November 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Edge of Physics [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT
On a recent trip to the LHC, I met with CERN’s research director, Sergio Bertolucci, who urged me to visit the underground heart of the accelerator before the detectors were finally closed off for data-taking. The experience of seeing the vast machinery is something that can barely be described in words, he said: “It’s magnificent, like standing within a cathedral.”

I was reminded of Bertolucci’s words while reading Anil Ananthaswamy’s new book, “The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth’s Extremes,” which takes the reader to the far reaches of the globe to visit some of the most important physics and astronomy experiments running today. As well as searching for extra dimensions at the LHC, Ananthaswamy plunges down Minnesota’s Soudan Mine to hunt for dark matter, travels to the frigidly cold Lake Baikal, in Russia, and Antarctica for hints about the nature of spacetime carried by cosmic neutrinos, and questions whether the cosmic microwave background could reveal that our universe is only one of many in a much larger multiverse.

The huge theoretical ideas that form the basis of the experiments discussed--including string theory, loop quantum gravity, supersymmetry and ideas on the origins of dark matter and dark energy--will be familiar to both members of FQXi and readers of this site. Indeed, Ananthaswamy chats to FQXi’s Alan Guth, Brian Greene and Andrei Linde, as well as many other renowned physicists, to flesh out exactly what is at stake in terms of our understanding of the universe. But this is not a book for those looking for a beginner’s guide to theoretical physics; Ananthaswamy delivers only as much theory as is needed to carry you along his journey with him.

Instead, the book celebrates the awe-inspiring nature of these experiments in their own right and the technological ingenuity needed to build some of the world’s largest telescopes and most complex apparatus. I had somewhat cynically thought that I had heard everything there was to hear about the impressive size of the LHC; however, Ananthaswamy managed to surprise me with a truly jaw-dropping fact: So much rock has been gouged out of the ground to make way for the LHC’s ATLAS detector (300,000 tons) that the hole left behind that houses the detector forms a low-density “bubble” within the Earth--and this bubble, along with the ATLAS experiment, is floating upwards by 0.2 millimeters each year. Reading facts such as these should humble any theoretical physicist waiting for validation of their ideas.

But the book is more than a list of technological feats; it’s the story of the unsung heroes behind the experiments. Ananthaswamy is on a personal quest to see how physicists, engineers and maintenance staff survive in some of the most inhospitable locations in the world and why they choose to dedicate their lives to keeping these behemoths running. The most engaging episodes in the book involve Ananthaswamy facing his fears as he precariously crosses the frozen ice of Lake Baikal, is plunged into the depths of the Soudan Mine in complete darkness, and even digs a “coffin-like” trench in the Antarctic ice and attempts to sleep in it, before being overcome by “claustrophic panic.” Perhaps the best compliment I can give the book is that Ananthaswamy’s vivid descriptions of his escapades had me alternately laughing and gasping with anxiety.

In contrast to the sense of peril such icy locations may afford, Ananthaswamy also conveys the warmth of the communities they house as he describes, for instance, the drinking rituals on Lake Baikal (leading to him unexpectedly break into a song from one of my favourite classic Bollywood films with some Russian physicists). My only complaint is that at times I wished that the book contained photographs showing these inspiring people and exotic places. Ananthaswamy is a former colleague of mine from New Scientist magazine and I recall him returning from his travels to McMurdo ice station with some fantastic images of the launch of a balloon that will look for signs of antimatter (pictured), and photos such as these would have enriched the book.

Nonetheless, the book captures the essence of why people sacrifice home comforts to spend prolonged lengths of time in isolated regions, pursuing answers about the nature of reality. It’s no coincidence that the narrative is bookended by visits to monasteries, the first Benedictine, the second Buddhist. FQXi’s Linde discusses how such traditions could--even unwittingly--shape a physicist’s scientific worldview (or universe-view), for instance, creating prejudice towards the idea of a multiverse. “The standard monotheistic tradition tells you that there is one God, one universe, and one set of laws. ‘And [God says] if you do not obey me, if you do not believe in me, then I’ll punish you and all your relatives’,” Linde is quoted as saying. It’s a point that is worth further thought: Are some aspects of theoretical physics more in line with Eastern rather than Western philosophy? Neither? Both? Or should the issue that Linde raises be irrelevant because pushing the boundaries of physics should be an objective enterprise separate from personal philosophy?

If nothing else, Ananthaswamy is to be commended for highlighting a fact that is often overlooked in the narrative of physics told in popular science books: Those aspiring to answer foundational questions about the universe must thank explorers such as Amundsen, Scott and Shackleton for opening up the furthest extremes of the planet to test ideas that lie at the edge of physics.

The Edge of Physics” is already on sale in the United States (here) and will be available in the UK from Thursday (here).

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 16:49 GMT
The physics sounds exciting, but the philosophy is wretched. The difference between Buddhism and monotheism is the difference between unity and unit. One is a state of connectedness and the other is a set. Multiverses are not about unity, or connectedness, they are just more sets!!!!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear John,

Well said, the universe is logic , and the human interpretations of course are the human interpretations.

If it exists others worlds, there I agree inside one universe.

The universality is totally different than a human interpretation.

Dear Zeeya,

You have chance to see these engines, I will be happy to see that.

The book seems very interesting, I will read it probably.

Thanks for the article, very beautiful.You have chance.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Steve, you write "The universality is totally different than a human interpretation."

But how do you know such 'universality' other than through 'human interpretation' ? Where does this 'universality' reside other than in our minds? You cannot separate the world from our perception of the world. We 'know' the universe through our 'measurements' of it. So, a physical theory that does not account for the 'interaction of measurement' and only develops a formal mathematical model that seeks to 'mimic' the Universe risks producing results with no physical realism to them.

But there may be other ways of establishing a Mathematical Foundation of Physics that does not seek to 'mimic' the Universe but establishes Basic Law as mathematical tautologies that describe the interaction of measurement. In this regard we show that “Planck's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity” that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

Sincerely,

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 23:26 GMT
Constantinos,

You said to Steve, "You cannot separate the world from our perception of the world."

I would like to respectfully dispute this as a correct statement of fact. I have been arguing that it is possible to comprehend the existence of a world separate from experience, which although it can not be experienced can be theoretically and logically modeled. That is a model of what exists as existential material reality rather than the brains interpretation or simulation of reality formed from sensory input. Although the existential reality and the observed reality are two views of the same one reality , they can be separated in the mind and therefore within a theoretical model too to aid comprehension of physics.

Although mathematics is important to physics it is useful as a tool and a precise language. It does not by itself give correct understanding of greater meaning. I do not think it should be the foundation of physics. This is because it is always the interpretation that leads to understanding not just the calculation. Relying on what the maths tells us without strenuous use of reason and logic leads to cases of nonsense masquerading as sensible objective science. When it is actually just mis-interpretation of mathematics.I would regard the space-time paradoxes and the idea of existential supposition of states in a wave function and multiple worlds as such mistakes. According to the mathematics alone they are not incorrect suppositions. But when carefully scrutinized with reason they are a case of taking the mathematics too literally rather than thinking more deeply about what that mathematics might actually be showing. Mathematics is just a part of something bigger when it is within physics. Having said that, this kind of development in mathematical understanding may be useful. I will leave appraisal of you paper to more mathematically able persons.I will be interested in their evaluation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 02:57 GMT
I presume the .2mm motion of the LHC from the removal of material is due to some isostacy response of the lithosphere from the removal of the material.

These extreme environments are good for neutrino detection and the hunt for dark matter. They make lousy places to live --- bottom of mine shafts or Antarctica and other cryro-zones. The cold regions provide spots for ICE CUBE and other searches for elusive particles.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 09:17 GMT
Hi all,

Dear Lawrence, could you tell me please the technic for this detection, what is the system in fact ?

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 14:23 GMT
Hi Steve,

Anil Ananthaswamy also wrote a story for New Scientist about IceCube neutrino observatory that you might want to read, for more details.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Apr. 20, 2010 @ 14:56 GMT
Speaking of scientists spending prolonged periods in awful, isolated places--Did the author visit any Graduate Student lounges?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 21:47 GMT
"why people sacrifice home comforts to spend prolonged lengths of time in isolated regions, pursuing answers about the nature of reality.."

Because it's their job and they knew this type of work was part of the job description goin in?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 21, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
Anonymouse,

That is not an answer. They do it for reason's that overcome the: "...it's their job and they knew this type of work was part of the job description goin in" Real answers reach to the desires of the persons.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 11:04 GMT
Constantinos,

what do you consider energy to be? I ask because I think sometimes people like to say its all just energy because it has that clean, ethereal, simple, more spiritual connotation. Uncontaminated by dirty, boring old matter or particles. Why do you consider it better not to have something called a particle? Without any way of clearly determining -what- is changing position it seems to me that it is down to a personal preference of interpretation and terminology use. Although I do like the fact that there can be alternative interpretations and descriptions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 15:12 GMT
Hello Georgina,

Most physicists when asked 'what is the universe made of', will tell you 'energy'. In my work energy becomes a 'derived quantity' (as is also momentum).

The results derived in my short notes all point to the quantity 'accumulation of energy' as being more fundamental. If we start with this quantity as being 'prime physis' (first nature) then energy becomes the time rate of this while momentum becomes the space rate of it. Defining energy and momentum in this way it is possible to derive Conservation of Energy and Momentum Law and Newton's Second Law of Motion. It is also possible to give a more meaningful interpretation of the Schroedinger equation. The wave-function then becomes the space-time distribution of the 'accumulation of energy' (prime physis) while Planck's constant becomes the smallest amount of 'prime physis' that can be manifested (observed or measured).

Prime 'physis' and the Mathematical Derivation of Prime Law in Physics

The meaning of 'psi': An Interpretation of the Schroedinger Equation

'Let there be h': An Existance Argument for Planck's Constant

Planck's Formula is an Exact Mathematicsl Identity

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantinos wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 00:49 GMT
Hello Stefan, and thank you for your excellent question.

We don't know how energy may be distributed at the detection screen before the experiment even starts. The radiation on the screen received from the emitted electrons will certainly add to this accumulation and do so in the manner of the interference pattern. With every emitted electron the screen will receive the equivalent of one additional electron energy. If the detection screen is properly prepared (filled to the brim as it were) so that it is made ready for electron detection, maintaining overall energy levels may force the 'light flash' (equivalent to just one electron energy) at some point on the screen. But we cannot know where this will be (just like we cannot know where the next lightning will strike), except to say that it will probably occur more often at those parts of the screen that receive more of the radiation.

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your kind feedback and answer.

My idea that, for every electron send out towards the screen there had to be only one light-spot, goes back to the very early years of QM. Max Planck's assistent spend nights over nights to count! tousands of those light-spots and archieved their angle of impact (surely, he didn't send the emitted...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Past Einstein wrote on May. 1, 2010 @ 17:00 GMT
General relativity is limited by, and to, the extent that it fails to include or incorporate electromagnetism. Einstein new this. Such a unification would lend both stability and extensiveness to experience, and to the understanding or thought as well. The mechanism/process by which thought becomes more like gravity and electromagnetism must be sought, as this necessarily increases the integrated extensiveness of the description(s) that is/are necessarily related to the union of gravity and electromagnetism.

Given the degree of stability, growth, extensiveness of thought, and freedom that is exhibited by us humans, I agree with Heisenberg that "...something has to be added to the laws of physics and chemistry before the biological phenomena can be completely understood." I would add, however, that the union of gravity and electromagnetism will be shown to be bound up with human experience and thought. Accordingly, the limitations of physical explanation will be sharply shown.

The addition of the fourth spatial dimension, which derives Einstein's GR equations, and those of Maxwell as well, demonstrates thought that is more like gravity and electromagnetism. The body and thought are subject to the laws of physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

The Best replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 17:36 GMT
Demonstrating how space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy provides the cosmological constant -- a balancing of scale, and of field and particle/object as well.

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 17:45 GMT
Jonathan, demonstrating space as gravitational/electromagnetic energy unifies and includes particle/wave, scale, and repulsion/attraction.

The addition of the fourth spatial dimension, which derives Einstein's GR equations, and those of Maxwell as well, demonstrates thought that is more like gravity and electromagnetism. The body and thought are subject to the laws of physics.

FQXi -- the facts are the facts. You might not like the direction in which this is going; but if it walks, talks, acts, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You might want to say "Thank you." instead of lying/denying, deleting the facts/posts, and shooting the messengers.

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 1, 2010 @ 23:36 GMT
Just thinking out loud...

If information is what you can know with certainty, then what do we call that which falls short of certainty? Probability? Educated guess? Hunch? Gut feeling? A clue?...as opposed to having no clue... A probability wave amplitude? A correlation? Intuition?

If you have information, then can you also call it... a fact? Digital 1's and 0's? Certainty?

The universe seems to work like this. I'm just thinking out loud.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 23:43 GMT
Hi Jason,

I recently said this on topic # 632:

Regarding Verlinde's work, I think that "probablistic" interpretations of data are due to a smearing of phase space that is caused as extra dimensions collapse and/or decouple from Spacetime. Thus, "probabilistic" interpretations such as Quantum probablilities, and Statistical/Thermal probabilities are a property of our decoupled Spacetime. Because Spacetime Curvature and General Relativistic Gravitation are related, we should expect spacetime properties to be relevant. However, if Quantum Gravity (and Mass) originate in Hyperspace, and are transformed to Spacetime, then we should not expect to see a true and complete picture of Quantum Gravity in our decoupled Spacetime. We can only see part of the bigger picture clearly, the rest is "fuzzy" thanks to probabalistic interpretations. In a sense, Lawrence and Lobos are both correct in that Verlinde's ideas may model some features of Gravitation, but probably not all features of Quantum Gravitation.

Have Fun!

Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 01:44 GMT
Jason,

Information is very simply in-formation of the mind! A re-arrangement of mind's contours, as it were. It has nothing to do with the universe except the universe is often the source for such mental re-thinking of our experience. Don't get all tangled up and confused with 'probability wave amplitudes', collapsing dimensions, time travel, and 'spooky action at a distance' to the point that you can't receive in a healthy way new in-formation!

I call for 'physical realism' that gives meaning to our in-formation!

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 03:31 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

"Information is very simply in-formation of the mind! A re-arrangement of mind's contours, as it were. It has nothing to do with the universe except the universe is often the source for such mental re-thinking of our experience. ..."

"I call for 'physical realism' that gives meaning to our in-formation!

I would appreciate reading more about the difference between information and in-formation. I am looking for your opinion about the origin of meaning?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 2, 2010 @ 01:33 GMT
Hi Ray,

I am just struck by the reoccurring theme of information, things such as:

(a) information travels no faster than c.

(b) quantum entanglement, which seems more like "correlation" has an unlimited propagation speed.

Power and control, in the brute force sense, requires compliance (coupling), but more importantly, requires information exchange (instructions). Without information exchange, people,and particles as well, will follow there own random behavior.

I've noticed that judges from court room television, their line of questioning, while rude and intrusive, results in Yes/No information. Did you touch the defendant? Yes or No? Most people try to wiggle out of the question, but find that they can't without telling a lie.

Quantum mechanics is about particles and waves trying to wiggle out of the intrusiveness of our questioning, our probing. A yes or no can travel no faster than c, but a wink and a nod between wave amplitudes seems to travel much faster, like they're all reading from the same page.

Entropic gravity is meant to simulate the random, decoupled nature of Brownian motion. Why physicists refer to this as information is not clear.

I wish we could pin down "information" a little better. Is quantum probability, which is like a glorious dice game, still considered information?

When I was a kid, I played dice games; five or six different kinds of dice. In fact, it's been a while, but I'll eventually go back and play craps at a Casino. Dice games are predictable to a degree. The House, which has better odds, wins, on average. The Casino owners can be confident of their income over a long period of time (24hours).

Is there any possible way to describe the degree of certainty/predictability?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 3, 2010 @ 23:06 GMT
Jason,

"(a) information travels no faster than c.

(b) quantum entanglement, which seems more like "correlation" has an unlimited propagation speed."

One thing to keep in mind is that our thought process is linear delineation. We understand things, objects, actions, etc. in terms of how they are distinct from their context and how one point of reference leads to the next. Thoughts are like frames of film. One must lead to the next, or chaos prevails.

Reality, on the other hand, is non-linear and unitary. There are entire networks connecting our simplistic distinctions and they are all interconnected. The pictures all blur together, with multiple narrative possibilities.

For hundreds of millions of years, the brain evolved as a navigation function. Meaning consisted of achieving clear goals, such as finding that next meal, sexual partner, avoiding danger, etc. So we are tuned to focus within a complex and changing environment. It has been quite natural for us to anthropomorphize that larger reality and assign it motive and direction. We have since come to realize motive isn't applicable and now mostly leave that assumption to religion, but science still looks for direction in the course of events, not quite appreciating that the environment mirrors our actions(For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.) and thus enforcing that sense of singular direction.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 3, 2010 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear John,

You said: "Meaning consisted of achieving clear goals, such as finding that next meal, sexual partner, avoiding danger, etc. So we are tuned to focus within a complex and changing environment. It has been quite natural for us to anthropomorphize that larger reality and assign it motive and direction. ..."

I am not quite clear on your point. Could you please expound further on your view of the origin of meaning?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 3, 2010 @ 23:52 GMT
John,

We all blog on this website because we are hoping to contribute some new insight that might trigger a better understanding of physics, or an idea for an experiment that might teach us something new and useful.

It is useful to anthropomorphize parts of physics because it utilizes more of our brain's resources to find solutions. When the mind provides a solution, we have to discern its usefulness, and then convert it into understandable language.

Reality only appears unitary because we can't definitively measure units of action smaller than h-bar. It is understandable to want to define reality in terms of actions of h-bar and larger. I doubt that engineering can ever hope to do anything below this threshold. Whatever occurs below this threshold is up to the individual. My personal belief is that all manner of hope & spookiness occurs as actions smaller than h-bar.

As to the speed of light limit for information versus the nature of quantum entanglement correlation (why maybies can travel faster than c), I'm still trying to understand it. It might come down to this. Information transmits as the speed of light using photons. But photon wave functions can get very big, and collapse instantaneously.

For the photon that has a radius of one light year, it can collapse instantaneously. But there is no way to signal instantaneously. The more photons I use to try to signal, the more I end up with electromagnetic fields which are ... light energy moving at the speed of light c.

This is as far as today's physics can reach. We can't have any new exotic physics (hyper-drives, FTL signalling, etc.) until something new is added to experiment upon. There are technologies that can be imagined, and are also logically consistent, but without anything to perform experiments on, we're stuck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


SUPERMAN wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 00:32 GMT
Einstein, DiMeglio, and Dickau all want a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism. I'm betting that the thoughtful description of gravity and electromagnetism is mirrored/demonstrated by a reconfiguration of gravity and electromagnetism that has significant bearing upon thought/ability to think.

The upcoming contest should be "space manifesting as electromagnetic/gravitational energy". It is apparent that such a union would resolve, balance, unify, simplify, extend, and include particle/wave, scale, attaraction/repulsion, gravity, and electromagnetism/light. When Einstein sought such a unification, and said that "The theory determines what we can observe.", I think that he knew that the integrated/accurate extensiveness of the THOUGHTful descriptions are shared by the integrated (and often simple/evident/common place) extensiveness of the related observations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Stefan,

QM is based on a complex ansatz. I got aware that restriction to the measurable simplifies physics in so far that the complex consideration turns out to be redundant. In other words, the seemingly additional degree of freedom with complex consideration does not really add more information except for the arbitrarily agreed Christian/Greenwich point of reference. Weyl wondered in 1932 about symmetries that can be attributed - as I maintain - to improper use of complex calculus. Lets wait for outcomes of the LHC concerning SUSY.

What about wave and particle, I admit being at least as helpless as the average. I can merely tell the properties of electromagnetic fields. I do not know how they relate to the idea of a particle. I am arguing, the two "entangled particles" of exactly opposite direction can be seen as just one dipole wave.

I hope some murky single-photon measurement by Gompf et al. will become understandable as a mistake.

I doubt that the already claimed success of quantum computers will ever be achieved if the profoundly experimentally confirmed entanglement turns out a mathematical artifact. Maybe I am wrong on that, but the already claimed success seems to be at least at the brink of fraud by those who are burning taxpayer's and investor's money. I dislike any attempt to ascribe a possible impossibility to just technical difficulties.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Stefan, you write,

"They do in every case contradict the observed experimental results."

If I was to walk on water, you would be questioning my ability to swim!

I was so sure I answered your previous objection re: Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. Perhaps I am not understanding your description of this experiment. Please confirm if the following is a correct understanding of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 21:36 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

i answered you in the thread "John Merryman wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 16:49 GMT" of this blog.

Greetings,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:07 GMT
What resists acceleration -- inertia -- is relevant, or critical, to distance in space. Electromagnetism and the gravitational range of feeling must be balanced to set/adjust distance in space as a function of these two forces.

Inertia is key to distance in space and gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 11, 2010 @ 00:16 GMT
Feeling and energy sit at the very heart and center of being, experience, and thought.

Paul Davies says that gravitation is the source of all biological information and order. The deepest thoughtful reality is that being, experience, and thought are fundamentally or generally ordered.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


THE MAN wrote on May. 12, 2010 @ 00:24 GMT
This post is most important. Electromagnetism and the gravitational range of feeling must be balanced to set/adjust distance in space -- in relation to both visible and invisible space, that is -- as this is gravitationally felt, thoughtfully realized/understood, visually seen, and invisibly felt -- all of these elements are balanced and realized in dreams. Visible and invisible feeling are understood and experienced in dreams in keeping with, and as a function of, distance in space. Accordingly, the experience of the mid-range of gravitational feeling in dreams adjusts distance in space with feeling as it is experienced by the body and eye. The experience of the mid-range of gravitational feeling in dreams adjusts distance in space in relation to feeling, thought, and vision (visible and invisible). This is space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 13, 2010 @ 19:50 GMT
Dear Georgina,

As you were kind enough to at least consider my ideas, I have developed my hyper-drive concept. I have gotten it to obey Occam's razor.

Fifth Force - Physics Translator Surface

The fundamental building block of the hyper-drive is: the Physics Translator Surface. The Physics Translator Surface creates a connection (coupling) between space-time and hype-space. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 13, 2010 @ 20:27 GMT
Yes, but you have to travel throgh a black hole event horizon to get to the holographic babel fish translator on the M2-brane. And how would that AdS_5 ~ CFT_4 interface work for us inadequate little 4-D people? How do you translate a 4-D person into 5-D? Just from my observation of 2-D and 3-D movies, I would guess that it is easier to reduce an object from 5 to 4 dimensions than it is to enhance an object from 4 to 5 dimensions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 14, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

If this particular 5th force actually existed, we would never need to get anywhere near a black hole.

In the original derivation of special relativity, the observer on the ground watches the photons on the train move at the same speed of light as the observer standing on the train. Two different frames of reference. That tells me that time and space are not fundamental; that tells me that the speed of light is fundamental. That means that the relationships between particles is mediated by information flow which moves at the speed of light. For electromagnetism, that would be the virtual photon. In the case of gravity, it would be the graviton.

Electrons in close proximity are transfering virtual photons back and forth. That is what I refer to as communication or signalling. Gotta get back. I'll explain more later.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on May. 14, 2010 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Jason,

Have you read my book? I have a fifth force called WIMP-Gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 13, 2010 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Thank you for the hint to Hans de Raedt. What did you intend saying with it?

You do not have to apologize for misspelling my name. I just thought this could be an advantage in connection with the search function until I failed myself using this option.

My name is also misspelled in the book of phone numbers. I did not and will not ask for correction because letters to my misspelled address are obviously spam.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 14, 2010 @ 06:47 GMT
Hello Eckard,

with the work of Hans de Raedt i just wanted to animate thinking about, if QM could be in principle a strictly deterministic theory, without entanglement/non-local correlations, superpositions. Hans de Raedt's work seems to imply that all those puzzles can be interpreted locally realistic via strictly deterministic algorithms, that act "locally". I also intended with the hint to his work, that some specialists in maths could check his arguments, because i cannot do that.

Greetings,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 16, 2010 @ 16:12 GMT
Maybe this conceived fifth force needs a better name. What if we called this fifth force substance: M2 Holographene? M2 holographene, as a 2D closed surface, will regulate the flow of physics information across its boundary. This makes it possible to pinch off gravity and electromagnetic fields. It also becomes possible to generate localized artificial gravity forces.

M2 holographene, if we can find it or create it, we can overcome the challenges of space travel.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 17, 2010 @ 20:30 GMT
I honestly don't know if what I am saying is too strange, too speculative, too hard to understand, not mathematical enough or if you don't like hearing it from somebody without a PhD? Allow me to quote postulate 2 from special relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

"The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source."

If the speed of light in a vacuum is always an invariant c, which is independent of the state of motion, can't I rewrite that to say the following:

1. All relative motion is made possible by signaling with photons (virtual or real), which move at speed c.

If you all can agree to that. what about this?

2. Space-time itself is emergent.

3. Without the constant flow of photons (virtual or real) emitted and absorbed between each and every particle, there can be no relative position or flow of time between them. There is no final arbiter of position or time; there is no object called space-time. There is only the continuous flow, the constant signaling at the speed of light, by virtual/real photons.

4. Geometry itself in emergent from photons.

Would anybody care to comment? This is a physics website, right.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray B. Munroe replied on May. 17, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
Yes, Jason - This is the edge of physics blogsite. I don't see any guard rails, so you need to be careful not to fall off the edge.

Regarding one of your earlier posts, you called the fifth force holographene. That's a cool name, but a G2 group lives on the M2-brane. This would yield a QCD-like force (most likely related to Lisi's Triality of generations), and I have to believe that any force related to Gravity is more complicated than that, and most likely lives on the 5-brane instead.

I agree that photons can only travel at the speed of light. As this is the basis for our more accurate observations, it does limit our abilities to explore our Universe. As such, I might agree with points 1 and 3.

Is everything emergent? I'm playing around with the idea of the dimensions themselves being emergent properties of the Golden Ratio and/or this G2. If the dimensions are emergent, then the branes are emergent, and the branes form the basis of Spacetime and Hyperspace geometries.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 17, 2010 @ 22:57 GMT
Jason,

You said "All relative motion is made possible by signaling with photons (virtual or real), which move at speed c."I don't agree exactly with that. I would prefer something like - Relative motion is determined by signaling with photons. The photons allow the effect to be experienced.

You said "Space-time itself is emergent". I agree. Space-time describes the spatial and temporal experience of an observer not underlying objective reality. Space-time is an interpretation that fits with experience.

You said "Geometry itself is emergent from photons." Yes the form of things is ascertained from the data that we receive from those things reflected or emitted. The geometry is constructed by the mind from that data.

It is my opinion that you are trying to construct something from the illusion or simulation of reality created by the human mind, rather than the underlying objective reality and its physics. That is just my personal opinion based on my own particular consideration of time, space, and physics. Either relativity is the objective reality or a persistent "illusion". You can not build a real space-craft from manipulation of an illusion, imo. That is just one opinion, my own.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Illusion is a good word for the virtual photons that are responsible for motion. Einstein used the train metaphor to define the geometry associated with relativity, length contraction and time dialation. I believe that motion in general is fundamentally tied to relativity. More specifically, I believe it is these photons, the ones we see and the ones we don't see, that pass back and forth between two objects, which makes motion possible. For an asterioid that has been floating through space for a long time, it moves according to its inertia. If a gravity field catches it and changes its geodesic movement, the asteroid doesn't really notice it. I am sure we both agree with that?

I am suggesting that there is not a fundamental coordinate system or clock. The only mechanism for keeping track of where stuff is, how fast its clock runs and where it's moving, it is these virtual photons. It is a form of communication or signaling between two object or two particles.

Mass, as in E=mc2, I think that the energy in each particle is some kind of a current or flow of energy between particles and between the particle and the universe. I am trying to reconcile gravity as being a flow of information or communication from the rest of the universe down to the particle itself. Each particle, which has a tiny amount of gravity, is really expeiencing a flow of energy through its mass. This flow of energy (information flow/...) tethers the particle to this physical universe and allows it to interact with the laws of motion.

I have to go. I'll explain more later.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


COMMANDER wrote on May. 17, 2010 @ 23:56 GMT
1. Did you know that the sun is brighter in outer space because it is then closer? This is why we are locked in place more firmly. Look at how we are locked in place relative to the closer space of the earth.

2. Did you know that the sun is red while setting because red borders invisible and black? This FREELY allows backwards AND forwards motion due to the farther away AND larger aspects of this red space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray B. Munroe replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 00:41 GMT
Dear FMD,

IMHO, these red-shift ideas are not your best ideas. I taught an Introductory Astronomy course at the local Community College from 2000 until 2003. You need to study the Relativistic Doppler Effect, emission spectra, absorption spectra, absolute magnitude, apparant magnitude, and Hubble's Law. You might start your quest at www.Wikipedia.org. The mathematics isn't particularly difficult - the inverse-square law and some logarithms are about the worst of it.

I think you should focus more on concepts such as consciousness, being, experiencing, and the dream. If you keep talking about these red-shift ideas, people will either 1) see through your lack of education, or 2) think you are a nut.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 18, 2010 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Sirs

Relativistic gravitational effects start above photon scale

Constancy of the light velocity in areas of space with different gravity implies that relativistic gravitational effects start on the scale above photon. At the photon scale and below physical phenomena have no relativistic gravitational effects.

Yours Amrit

attachments: Relativistic_gravitational_effects_start_above_photon_scale__vixra.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear Amrit,

What exactly do you mean by "Relativistic gravitational effects start above photon scale"? As I understand, some of the postulates of Relativity (such as the bending of light by gravitational/spacetime effects) were verified by the photons of the May 29, 1919 solar eclipse. Our neutrino detectors, cosmic ray detectors, gravitational wave detectors, etc. are not generally considered as accurate as our photon detectors. Remember, we also have a huge range of photon detectors - from Earth-based visible telescopes to the space-based Chandra X-ray observatory to the space-based WMAP microwave observatory.

I would agree that Quantum Relatitivistic effects should exist at higher energy scales, but Relativistic effects are readily observable via photons.

Have Fun!

Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 18, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT
Associating inertia with distance in space -- as a function of the size of space -- in relation to electromagnetism, that is (i.e., photons - a smaller space, and the sun - a larger space) is superb. DiMeglio further states that gravitational feeling is consistent with distance in space in the dream.

He speaks of a middle distance vertically and hrizontally in relation to/consistent with the experience of feeling in dreams. Finally, the argument that space is BOTH larger and smaller in dreams is correct as well.

We might not like this, but we really can't avoid/ignore DiMeglio's ideas any longer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray B. Munroe replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear FMD,

My latest models derive scale invariance from the Golden Ratio, phi = 1.618034...

Consider the simple example of a pentagram inscribed within the central pentagon of a larger pentagram ad infinitum. Five centuries ago, they would have burned me at the stake for talking about pentagrams within pentagrams ad infinitum. I specifically chose pentagrams because the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci's sequence are built into this geometry. Now imagine that each pentagram is a different scaled Universe of fractal dust, so that we have Universes within (smaller scaled Universes hidden from our Universe by Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle - similar to Dr. Seuss' "Horton hears a Who" except that none of us have ears large enough to hear) and without (larger scaled Universes hidden from our Universe beyond the 'outer edge' of visible spacetime) of the 'confines' of our Universe. These scaled Universes along with ours' collectively comprise our multiverse. Now suppose that the consciousness and/or the dream allows us to sample different alternate realities within our multiverse. Are 'dreams', 'nightmares' and 'hallucinations' part of our creative nature? Or are we sampling other alternate realities within our multiverse? Personally, I don't want to be part of a 'Twilight Zone' episode...

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT
And what of this as well?

What resists acceleration -- inertia -- is relevant, or critical, to distance in space. Electromagnetism and the gravitational range of feeling must be balanced to set/adjust distance in space as a function of these two forces.

Inertia is key to distance in space and gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray B. Munroe replied on May. 18, 2010 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear FMD,

I agree that inertia is important. I think the origin of inertia and gravity is hyperspace - more dimensions that we can't 'see', but we can 'sense'.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 01:53 GMT
Ray,

Frank is a classic case at a minimum of illusiory superiority, where the person thinks they have some great mastery over a topic, when often they lack even the basic introductory understanding of it. There is a paper I found last year on this that was a published study of this delusion, but I couldn’t locate it just now. This is seen in the guy who is convinced they have found a perpetual motion machine, the guy who has “clearly shown” how Einstein is all wrong and …, well you get the picture. Physics has its share of these types, and the healthcare industry has it worse, where these people can set themselves up as healthcare “specialists,” when they are basically just hustlers. This above Wiki article outlines some of these traits. This is most often associated with a highly inflated opinion of one’s self, seeing themselves as superior to virtually everyone they know --- even people established as accomplished in some field. They are also intensely resistant to any criticism of their idea of how they believe the world works, even to the point of stating that a whole canon in some field is completely wrong. This leads into delusional thinking of grandeur or narcissistic disordered thinking, in particular if their idea of what is truth is heavily wrapped up in their self esteem.

One problem with an unmoderated forum such as here is that this is an invitation for such people to voice their nonsense. Please folks, try to recognize these types of people and to then ignore them. They will eventually go away.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 02:08 GMT
"...the guy who has "clearly shown" how Einstein is all wrong and _, well you get the picture.

I see myself in that picture. I do not think that Einstein was all wrong; however, I belong on that list of people who are certain that the theory of relativity is clearly wrong.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Physics is an extremely mentally taxing exercise. I am not surprised that it drives some people a little bonkers. I would confess that I feel a little bonkers sometimes.

"One problem with an unmoderated forum such as here is that this is an invitation for such people to voice their nonsense. Please folks, try to recognize these types of people and to then ignore them. They will eventually go away."

Personally, I have no wish to waste anyone's time. I think that both the experimentation and the mathematics are correct. It is my opinion that the interpretations are wrong. I think that my interpretations are correct. I also humbly admit that I might be pushing the envelope a little too hard on my justification of the hyper-drive.

But if the forum believes that crazy people have nothing to contribute, then please feel free to boot me off. It is hard work to come up with these idea and to express them. I do not wish to waste anyone's time with them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 02:25 GMT
I never said that Frank is the only person displaying evidence of illusiory superiority.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 02:32 GMT
Are you saying that people with illusiory superiority have nothing to contribute? I work very hard to treat others with respect and kindness. Yet, I can't avoid the charge that I might suffer from illusiorty superiority as well.

What I want to know is whether or not I am contributing something positive to these discussions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 15:40 GMT
Greetings Jason,

Illusory superiority may be the only kind there is. Of course; I should add that I am not an expert, and don't really know for sure. In Chinese 'Tai' is 'the great' and is identified with duality, where 'Wu' is beyond and before comparisons (hot and cold, light and dark, large and small, etc.). In the Taoist philosophy, the truly superior individual is one who is fixed on the primal unity, and can therefore rise above comparisons entirely.

Therefore, at least using that criterion; by 'working very hard to treat others with kindness and respect,' and by not denying that you too may suffer from 'illusory superiority,' you have demonstrated that your superiority is genuine. I for one have enjoyed your comments. My take is that FTL is only impossible if one needs to traverse the space in between points A and B. One Sci Fi story I read talked about a ship that could move across space like a stone skipping on the surface of a pond, an idea which has since intrigued me.

I have no idea how this could be done, but it does not appear fundamentally impossible. So keep sharing, and don't let naysayers drag you down.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 15:48 GMT
Of course we are all uniques and equals......this evidence is simple, let's take the superior mammalian......are we , us the humans more importants than for example a flower, or an ave, these birds or a tree, or a seed.......no of course, thus anybody is better than his fellowman simply, sometimes behind kindness people , we find bad minds, thus of course we see only with our heart, the essential is invisible for our eyes....it's only simple that this.

All is there to be or not to be......

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your kind words. It is my hope that in some small way I am helping physics, and therefore serving in a useful and noble way.

FTL physics, stone skipping is an idea I've heard of. We must all be faithful to the absolute nature of relativity, that we can never travel faster than the speed of light. But nobody ever said that we couldn't look for a faster...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 06:08 GMT
Ray i mean velocity of clocks:

General Theory of Relativity considers light moves through the space with constant velocity regardless upon the strength of gravitation. This implies that at the scale of the photon and below at the scale of Planck relativistic gravitational effects do not exist. Here is proposed that change of gravity does not effect velocity of a photon clock as it effect velocity of an atom clock.

We have a “photon clock” made out of two mirrors A and B. Photon is moving from A to B, back to A and so on. One traveling of the photon between A and B is a “tick” of the clock. We take two photon clocks. One photon clock is on the surface of the earth, second is 4200 meters below at the bottom of the mine shaft. Velocity of light is invariant on gravity; both of clocks will “tick” with the same velocity.

We take two atomic clocks. One clock we put beside photon clock on the surface and second beside clock that is 4200 meters deep. According to the relativistic gravitational effect second atom clock will in 30 days “tick” faster as the atom clock on the surface for 1,23 x 10-6 second (1).

Invariance of light velocity on gravity excludes existence of relativistic gravitational effects at the photon scale. Experiment with photon clocks and atomic clocks will give us more experimental data.

(1).Amrit S. Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, Dusan Klinar, Time is a measuring System derived from Light Speed, Physics Essays, Vol 23. Num 2. (2010)

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 06:21 GMT
Ray thanks you fot correcting me.

Actually I'm pointing out only velocity of photon and atomic clock.

I improve my article.

Yours Amrit

attachments: Relativistic_gravitational_effects_of_relative_velocity_of_material_change_start_above_photon_scale__FQXI.pdf

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 19, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Dear Amrit,

Are you saying that photons will never reveal Quantum Gravity effects?

I think that any Quantum Gravity effects must take place on the other side of a Black Hole Event Horizon. Thus, photons cannot reveal those effects to us.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantinos wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear All,

Please commend and/or add to the following list that collectively seeks to describe the attitude of 'physical realism':

1) Physical phenomena and experimental outcomes are independent of man and the instruments used to examine them. (Objectivity of Nature)

2) For the same experiment, using the same apparatus but changing the detection devices we can 'see something more' but not 'see something contradictory'. (Consistency of Nature)

3) Experimental outcomes modified continuously by changing a quantity (eg energy) have the same physical explanation. (Consistency of Explanation)

4) All mathematical formulations of physics are based on physical assumptions that collectively describe a 'view of nature'. Mathematical derivations provide 'logical certainty' but cannot provide 'truth' for that 'view'. (Mathematical Limitations)

5) Physics should seek to provide physical explanations to physical phenomena consistent with 'human experience'. (Adaptability to Human Nature)

I welcome a discussion and revision of any of these.

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 20, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

1: What is experienced is dependent upon who or what is looking; people, machines or particles absorb the energy of the experience somewhat differently. Electrons can detect individual photons. The retina of the eye and the mind sees and analyzes a myriad of events. Machines measure what they are designed to measure. No, you can't make the universe vanish by closing your eyes. Causality will still effect you because its transmitted by photons (virtual and real).

2. Nature can appear to contradict itself. When it does, it means we are seeing a facet of something larger; something not unitary.

3. Consistency of Explanation? Maybe it comes down to how reliably unitary the elements of your system are. Quantum mechanics is considered to be unitary, it's just not perfectly predictable.

4. Mathematics does indeed have limitations to what it can predict. When its predictions become incomprehensible, then understandability is futile. If it's degree of accuracy dwindles, well, then there is something else going on, another facet.

5. Helpful but not always possible; OR, possible, but not always helpful.

Physics obeys yin/yang principles because it's so deeply built upon symmetries.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on May. 24, 2010 @ 20:41 GMT
Hello Jason,

Sorry about my delayed response! I have been away from my computer for a few days, as will be the case for most of the coming months. Some quick thoughts.

A 'view' is a 'mind set'; an 'intellectual attitude' through which we seek to understand and explain our experiences. Certainly there can be many 'views' that can 'explain' physical phenomenon. And each of these views can be argued and formulated in mathematical terms. So the 'view' and the 'math' can be thought of separately and independently. You can 'have math' and 'view it' too!

The principles I listed in my previous post aimed to encapsulate the view of 'physical realism'. But perhaps an example may be better to get at this.

Consider that we are investigating a 'physical phenomenon' P.

Consider that we have 'experimental apparatus' A that we use to this investigation.

Consider that we have 'detection devises' D1 and D2 that we can use to detect the results of our experiments.

Consider that for the same phenomenon P and the same apparatus A, when D1 is used we get outcome X but when we use D2 we get outcome ~X (logical contradiction to X).

What 'sense' can we make of these results?

View V1: 'physical realism' would argue that the difference in our detected outcomes is the result of the different detection devises we have used. That P and A are constant.

View V2: 'another view' is that the nature of P and the function of A depends on D1 and D2. When we use D1, that changes P and forces A to produce X. When we use D2, that changes P and forces A to produce ~X. Thus, the nature of P is contradictory (X and ~X).

I am not arguing whether V1 is correct and V2 is wrong, or the other way around! The 'math' to both V1 and V2 will still be 'correct', since math does not determine 'truth' but only 'logical certainty'. We can formulate mathematical theories to 'explain' the results of our experiments, whether we adapt V1 or V2 as our 'view'.

What I am arguing is that an 'intellectual attitude' of physical realism is more consistent and confluent with our experience. I argue that it is 'good and proper' for our 'view' to be consistent with our 'life'. Call this 'intellectual morality', if you like.

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 24, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Your whole argument is soothingly logical; I like it. I troubleshoot "phenomena" (problems) all the time at work. I deal with these kinds of questions every day.

I assume that when you say D1 and D2 are producing different results, I assume that D1 and D2 are designed to answer different questions (e.g. wave or particle).

"since math does not determine 'truth' but only 'logical certainty'" I agree. I have tried to create logical certainty for my hyper-drive ideas. But I confess that I have never seen a real hyper-drive propulsion system.

I prefer the term "intellectual integrity".

I also appreciate your comments about one's "view". A "view" or a "world-view" does indeed provide a framework for our experiences. It is a paradox that some world views give up passion for accuracy; other views sacrifice accuracy for passion. I gravitate towards a more mixed bag that is mostly accurate with strong reasons to be passionate about life and my search for truth and more useful physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 20, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
Dear James,

So you are saying that Energy = force * distance and momentum = force * time. It's concise; that's good. Long ago, I battled against conservation of energy. Eventually I adopted it as a fundamental. That means that energy can take many different forms. I believe that photons carry energy as E = hf. I don't necessarily believe that energy exists without a form to take.

When you say that you don't believe in relativity, you are not the only person who thinks that. I know other extremely intelligent people who feel the same way. But I would argue this way. How can anything in the universe know about anything else in the universe without some messenger, some carrier of information reporting the information. Just because I believe in God, it doesn't mean that I require some absolute omnicient reference frame to provide a box of space and an absolute clock for time.

Every photon that is emitted and absorbed carries information about its frequency, it's wavelength, and its speed. Actually, all photons travel at the speed of light. Particle interactions have to be mediated by virtual photons. In fact, electromagnetism is known to be mediated by virtual photons. I admit that gravity is a harder nut to crack.

I know that you are challenging the concept of F = ma. I'm not what I would need to argue to convince you that it works. What kind of answer are you looking for? Gotta go...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 20, 2010 @ 00:27 GMT
"So you are saying that Energy = force * distance and momentum = force * time. It's concise; that's good. Long ago, I battled against conservation of energy."

I am not battling against conservation of energy.

"I believe that photons carry energy as E = hf."

And, I say that they are produced by force applied across a distance and they cause a force to be applied across a distance.

"Just because I believe in God, it doesn't mean that I require some absolute omnicient reference frame to provide a box of space and an absolute clock for time."

I do not know what belief in God dictates for believers; however, I do know that time is absolute. My essay entry in the first essay contest gave a short, out of context, example of accepting the absoluteness of time.

"I know that you are challenging the concept of F = ma. I'm not what I would need to argue to convince you that it works. What kind of answer are you looking for? Gotta go..."

Jason, I said that it works. It has always worked! Why would you say something so pointless in this conversation? If you are looking down at me then say so. The kind of answer I am looking for is the kind that defines what mass is. Do you have that answer?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 20, 2010 @ 00:28 GMT
Jason; No I am not Frank. I am James. That last anonymouse was me.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 20, 2010 @ 02:24 GMT
James,

Mass is the amount of effort the "motion implementing" mechanisms of a universe necessary for that particle or object to be able to engage with the laws of motion.

The "motion implementing" mechanisms of our universe are virtual photons + a gravity mechanism of some kind.

Virtual (and real) photons move at the speed of light c. If a hyperspace exists, it would have a speed of light c' which would be larger than c; c' >> c.

In such a hyperspace, a particle's mass or a starship's mass is given by

m' = E/c'^2. The energy content of the particle or the spaceship is conserved whether it exists in space-time or in hyperspace.

A universe (hyperspace) can support the laws of motion much more easily if the speed of light is faster, c' >> c.

Mass is just the degree of difficulty a universe has when trying to implement the motion of a quantity of energy E.

I hope this helps.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 20, 2010 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear James,

"If you are looking down at me then say so. "

I am not looking down at you. I am trying to get my ideas out there. I also understand that you are trying to make sense out of a field of study "physics" which uses up a humongous amount of mental resources.

We need people who can "fact check" the theorists. I can respect that. I respect you as another blogger.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 21, 2010 @ 02:29 GMT
I would like to develop the hyper-drive physics, particularly, the holographene closed surface. I want to make statements about it in hopes of describing it in a way that does not contradict any physics.

1. Holographene has not been observed to be an open surface. It is always a closed surface, like an inflated balloon.

2. Holographene can be engineered as a spherical surface which can be in one of three states: (a) opaque, (b) reflective or (c) cloaking. When the surface is stable, light that makes contact with it on one side, will be broken down into many eigenstates that travel around the surface. When they meet at the other side, they will reproduce the photon at the same energy. In effect, the cloaking mode appears to make whatever inside, invisible to electromagnetic radiation. However, high enough intensities of light will disrupt the surface smoothness which can results in opaquacity or collapse of the holographene surface.

3. The effects of gravity are not well known. It is assumed that a modest gravity field will distort the sphere into an ellipse, with the deviation along the direction of gravity.

4. There is a fair amount of certainty that holographene is a kind of particle-field which always manifests as a closed surface. What determines its radius is not known.

5. Firing projectiles at the surface will collapse the holographene surface. Lower energy contact using molecular, and therefore Coulomb forces, will cause the surface to deviate.

6. There are holographene surfaces that are function similar to current. The ground or low energy is the closed surface itself. When the holographene surface is struck, its closed surface manifestion collapses. Eventually, these holographen particles will emit the excess energy and return to the closed surface.

7. Holographene surfaces can be used to create the effect of shielding or force fields.

8. Holographene surfaces can be used to distort the flow of gravity. In effect, they can interconnect short range gravity/anti-gravity with coulomb forces.

9. Because space itself is very noisy, it typically requires large quantities of holographene particles to produce the above effects.

10. Holographene does not provide mechanisms usable for time travel.

11. Holographene obeys causality.

If I have said anything here that contradicts theoretical physics, please let me know.

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 21, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT
If I construct a rod 0.5 light seconds long, made out of carbon tubules, can I use it to signal somebody on the other end of it by pushing it back and forth? The idea is to either

a) beat the speed of light for information transfer or

b) get a better understanding of inertia (and hopefully gravity).

Any comments? Please tap out your answers using the cane that is 1.5x10^8 meters long. I'm not sure how much it weighs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 21, 2010 @ 21:58 GMT
Transmitting information faster than light is possible. Admittedly expensive

and difficult.

Construct a light weight rod that is several light minutes long: 3x108m/s*120 =

360x108 meters in length; about 3.6 million kilometers long. Very heavy.

Rotate it up to signify a bit 1.

Rotate it down to signify a bit 0.

Use a huge mechanical powerplant to rotate it.

Construct it to minimize torsional effects. It has to move as a single

rod.

Viola! Faster than light communication.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
On second thought, that won't work either. Every atom along the structure is treated like an oscillator. The torsion forces would still only propagate at the speed of light. Never mind.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 01:27 GMT
Jason,

Good, you caught your mistake. That is a good sign of real thinking.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 23, 2010 @ 11:44 GMT
Eckard, you wrote, "Equations describe nature, not the other way round. Time is obviously not reversible, neither in nature nor in physics. If continuous functions are time reversible, then this is the result of generalization implying lost connection to reality. For instance, I consider the function sin(wt) between -oo and +oo unphysical. It evades measurement. There is not even a reasonable integral of it."

I acknowledge the validity of your point; however, as in past discussions, I continue to hold that techniques in complex analysis answer your objections. All physical processes originate with unphysical solutions, or we needn't speak of Planck limits.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 23, 2010 @ 22:13 GMT
Tom,

I would be delighted if you understood: I do not have any problem with complex analysis except for the difficulty to convince experts like you that it incorporates redundancy due to an arbitrarily agreed point of reference. Correctly performed complex analysis would arrive in the end at the same result as does cosine transform without detour. Can you specify how "techniques in complex analysis answer" this widely unknown clarification?

To my understanding "all physical processes" proceed in reality, and they do not originate in their description by solutions. Could you please reveal to me what you meant with unphysical solutions in connection with Planck limits?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 02:19 GMT
Lawrence,

I know that you've tried to describe space-time using solid state crystals. The idea has many favorable traits. Unfortunately, crystals can't change their size the way the Big Bang and dark energy require.

Is there any reason why the universe can't be an ocean of kx-wt eigenstates? I've already said that causality is transmitted by virtual (real) photons. Length contraction and time dialation act as if there is an exchange of virtual photons between objects that pass each other at the speed of light. Aether doesn't really work because gasses leave too much empty space. But is it reasonable to imagine that the universe is an ocean of photons, an ocean of causality transmitting kx-wt photons? How about an ocean of super-strings?

Gravity I think is just a fundamental property of energy/momentum. I don't know what causes it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 11:42 GMT
The crystalline model does not impose a hard lattice, but one which transforms under Lorentz and gauge transformations. This is the main departure from solid state physics. The lattice is something which exists on any frame bundle, but lattices are not equivalent, except under the group action of the theory. Another way to see it is lattices are only equivalent modulo group actions. In this way the lattice constructs a moduli space of equivalent gauge connections.

In a way the lattice system is really just a sort of device or tool, though the vertices are defined by Planck units of volume. That volume of course for different dimensions is defined accordingly. The wave functions, for better put field configurations, are Bloch waves. A book on solid state physics such as Ashcroft and Mermin illustrates this. The repeated occurrence of lattice elements introduces more structure than just an exp(ikx – iωt) sort of wave structure.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 12:28 GMT
It's really a shame that causality is built into this model. The whole idea that physics models should be reversible in time (forwards and backwards) is a mistake that falsely misleads into a hope for time travel. Like I've been saying, virtual photons should transmit causality, and there are no take backs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 22, 2010 @ 12:41 GMT
The reversibility of the dynamical equations in physics and causality are of course vital. The fact that the universe we observe has a single arrow of time then forces us to ask a very deep question. That is where physics is the most fun: The questions are where the fasciation comes from, the answers to these questions of course satisfy the need to understand, but ultimately becomes stuff in "the books."

A physicist who answers a deep question can rest assurred that they have set up a torture system for graduate students --- called course work.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 13:14 GMT
Time necessarily involves the present. Common sense, yet important and true.

The integrated extensiveness of time goes hand-in-hand with the integrated extensiveness of gravity, electromagnetism, and space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 19:01 GMT
One consequence of experiments at CERN, maybe the evidence of "Time Varying" theories?

For example, in the Big_Bang model, there was a "1 second" after the Big_Bang, we can ask if the moments contained for that "1 second", is equal to any "1 second" of..now? If one takes a snapshot of 1 second after the big_bang (effectivly the CERN LHC will reveal the moment as an actual event experiment), then there should be unequal moments (the volume of moments 1 second after a big-bang, will NOT equal the 1 second volume moments of NOW! )

There would in efect be variants of time, from the measuring point of veiw..today?

I take a guess that the data will show relative loops of time varying effects, namely an extension to the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 23, 2010 @ 19:10 GMT
Paul Valletta,

"I take a guess that the data will show relative loops of time varying effects, namely an extension to the speed of light."

I would say that experiments on objects will not tell us about changes in time. I am interested, though, in what you have to say if you will expound on your statement that I quoted above. Is it intended as a relativistic type statement?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Penelope Smith wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 20:51 GMT
Extension in time can be accomplished via inertial balancing and completeness (the balancing of repulsion and attraction) -- this would increase distance in space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 23, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
According to DiMeglio, the sun looks more like an object on earth, or like the earth, because it is seen in (or with) the transparent sky. He says that this is consistent with its decrease in brightness too, and decreased feeling at the eye.

DiMeglio also is saying that the sun is FELT more strongly at the eye when looking overhead consistent with our relative inability to move with the sun in this position -- similar to the downward position (and higher feeling) of the earth -- and that THIS is also consistent with the higher feeling of the earth at ones' feet??

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 24, 2010 @ 17:59 GMT
Eckard, it would be redundant and arbitrary if the complex plane zero were not unique. It is unique, however, and that is what allows continuous functions in a two dimensional plane.

Real analysis simply does not allow enough dimensions to explain physical phenomena, while the complex plane gives us access to a truer geometry in terms of actual physics. The Hilbert space, e.g., opened a wealth of understanding quantum observables, which require at least 2 dimensions to make superposition coherent, while preserving the real result.

If Planck's constant were zero, the world would be classical, but we know that it isn't.

We can't collapse matter to infinite density (the cosmological problem in general relativity); we can, however, make space behave in a 2 dimensional plane. Once the problem of spacetime structure at this fundamental level is solved, we have a complete cosmology.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 24, 2010 @ 21:27 GMT
Tom, "Real analysis simply does not allow enough dimensions to explain physical phenomena." Really? My point is: The need for operating with positive as well as negative values of time is due to ignorant neglect of the most natural possibility to chose not an agreed event as point zero of reference but the actual border between past and future. In other words, elapsed time is never negative in reality, and this even holds for any anticipated elapsed time too.

In order to overlook some consequences of this admittedly unusual point of view, you might compare waves with cylindrical symmetry in two different coordinate systems: either xyz or rz.

If this, my essays 369 and 527, and my IEEE paper do not enlighten you, I will tomorrow give further hints.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 25, 2010 @ 11:29 GMT
Eckard, in quantum mechanics elapsed time is zero. Even in the classical world, however, one can speak of negative (though not zero) elapsed time, as an observer effect relative to another observer. Forget human observers who speak of "past" and future" -- just consider a two body relation, say Earth and sun. The sun's past lies approximately eight minutes into Earth's future. Earth's future lies a negative eight minutes into the sun's past. Because these opposite vectors are continuous, though, average elapsed time varies over each point, and cancels at a central limit (+4, -4).

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FAST FRED wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 00:25 GMT
James -- your answer. Randomness and order, shape, visible and invisible, potential and actual with theoretically/thoughtfully structured experience, particle/wave, gravitational energy and feeling consistent with distance in space -- at the gravitational

mid-range of feeling between thought and sense.

The above is describing the manifestation or process whereby thought is made more like sensory experience (including quantum mechanica phenomena, gravity and electromagnetism) in general. The relational and interactive structure/form of experience has to be sought in conjunction with, and in order to understand, a unified theory conceptually.

This post describes the increase in the integrated extensiveness of quantum mechanical phenomena (generally) as it is merged with increases in the integrated extensiveness of both gravity and electromagnetism/light.

This post describes space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

Any questions? There should be a ton of them. FQXi -- wake up.

Commonality of scale and relatively constant feeling/energy -- there we have it boys. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light. Distance in space balanced and consistent with the level of gravitational feeling.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 25, 2010 @ 16:19 GMT
Tom, "one can speak of negative ... elapsed time, as an observer effect relative to another observer." May I pinpoint first which one is the object of concern? It is reasonable to chose the earth as the object of consideration because light usually propagates from sun to earth. By the way, I understand that you meant "as an observer effect" the possibility that "one can speak of n. e. t.", right?

Since I never took part in discussions on relativity so far I merely guess that in principle one could likewise pinpoint past and future to the sun. In either case, I guess, there is no negative elapsed time. Attributing a time to the sun when being bound to the earth is to me not justified. It reminds me of other cases of naive "God's eye" view. So I would not say "observer effect".

I prefer focusing on the effect in this case on earth and not on the cause/sun. Well, any timespan has two significant points: from its beginning to its end. What do we know for sure? The beginning and the end of our world are unknown, perhaps forever. We may only either retrace past or influence future events relative to the very moment. So I see three options:

1) Laplace begun with t=0 a synthetic genesis based on a demon as cause.

2) Fourier and Heaviside adopted "God's eye" looking from eternity to eternity which implied the illusory shift option exp(-iwt) enforcing an arbitrarily chosen point of reference and prone to cause ambiguity.

3) Our senses, in particular the ear can only perceive and analyze signals from our past. So it is bound to the effect of incoming signals.

I was a teacher who extensively taught a variety of advantages offered by the second option. However, I consider option 3 sufficient in principle too because already observable traces of reality definitely end at now, and even an anticipated future process has an anticipated final point of consideration.