Search FQXi

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

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/18 at 13:32pm UTC, wrote Dear FQXI.org Members, Theoretical physicists must be completely wrong...

songjoong df: on 4/6/18 at 1:55am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Anonymous: on 1/6/11 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Quantum gravity requires the fundamental averaging of both gravity and...

Anonymous: on 1/6/11 at 0:34am UTC, wrote Averaging inertia and gravity equally expands and contracts space, so space...

Anonymous: on 1/6/11 at 0:21am UTC, wrote Averaging inertia and gravity would equally expand and contract space.

Peter Jackson: on 1/4/11 at 11:55am UTC, wrote Georgina I agree the very existence of a receiver means the wave function...

georgina Parry: on 1/1/11 at 5:25am UTC, wrote Yes Jason, and your point is what exactly? The particle is detected-...

Jason Wolfe: on 12/31/10 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Georgina, Collapsing the wave-function is a fancy way of saying: the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

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
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Should We Believe the Dark Matter Rumors? [refresh]

Blogger Mark Wyman wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 20:47 GMT
Over the past couple of weeks, news sites and science blogs have been buzzing about a(nother) possible sighting of dark matter, based on a paper by Fermilab’s Dan Hooper and NYU’s Lisa Goodenough. This time, the reports say, cosmologists have found the “ most compelling evidence of dark matter particles to date.” So how excited should we be?

In the shadow of so much effort, and after many false “discoveries” over the years, one tends to greet new claims that dark matter is discovered with skepticism. However, Hooper and Goodenough’s claim looks surprisingly solid (arXiv:1010.2752). But there are also good reasons to be cautious about the slightly odd character of dark matter they seem to have found, which doesn’t match with theorists’ expectations.

To put this into context, ever since Fritz Zwicky noticed in 1934 that the orbital velocities of clusters of galaxies made them look more massive than a tally of their stars and gas would indicate, the hunt for the missing stuff––later called dark matter––has been on. Many lives and much fortune have been spent digging for evidence for what the identity of dark matter is. Alternate theories of gravity have been proposed to do away with the troublesome matter. Dark matter has lots of potential acronyms to go by, from MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) to WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

Hooper and Goodenough are seasoned dark matter researchers and they have done a very careful, yet entirely conventional and straightforward analysis of the gamma rays that the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope sees coming from the center of our galaxy (image above, courtesy of NASA). Because it’s heavy and doesn’t really interact with anything else, WIMP-y dark matter (theorists’ favored version) tends to sink into the centers of galaxies. This means that if you’re going to see any subtle signs that dark matter is around, the center of the galaxy is the place too look. The “W” in WIMP encodes the expectation that dark matter interacts only through the weak nuclear force, the second weakest fundamental force (after gravity)––the one responsible for nuclear decay. This weak interaction can also cause dark matter particles to run into one another and convert into something else, in a process called annihilation. So the idea is that where a lot of dark matter is, so also will there be more of the annihilation products of dark matter––whatever those might be.

Hooper and Goodenough’s suspicion was that gamma rays might be something that annihilating dark matter gives off. This is not a new idea, but it’s looking like it was a good hunch to follow. Now, the center of the galaxy produces gamma rays through a variety of perfectly ordinary astrophysical processes; otherwise, detection of even a single gamma ray from the center of the galaxy would have constituted discovery of dark matter, and we’ve been seeing gamma rays from the center of the galaxy for a long time. So what these researchers did was simply make some very reasonable assumptions about how much gamma ray flux there should be at the very center of the galaxy based on the amount seen a bit away from the center of the galaxy. They then compared this prediction to the actual flux seen by the satellite. Lo and behold, the satellite sees an excess––more gamma rays than expected! This is exactly the sign of there being something else going on they were looking for––and that something else, they claim, is dark matter annihilating.

But if they’re right, then most theorists are wrong about the character of dark matter. For one thing, it’s surprisingly light––7 GeV, or only about 7.5 times as heavy as the proton. Since we’ve never seen this stuff either directly or indirectly in the laboratory, most physicists expected the dark matter particle to be quite heavy, because it’s easier to hide the effects of heavy particles in precision experiments than it is to hide the effects of lighter ones. The other strange character of the Hooper / Goodenough particle is that its annihilation channel––the kind of thing that it makes when it annihilates––is also a bit funny: To explain the observations, it would need primarily to go into tau leptons. The tau is the electron’s biggest brother, heavier than the muon, the middle child in the lepton family. It’s less natural to come up with a theory involving tau production because their heavy mass makes them less likely to be produced.

Nonetheless, the observational data are compelling enough that the theory mills are even now doubtless cranking out a raft of theories that can explain away these apparent oddities. The only possible flies in the ointment are, first, that the Fermi observatory’s experimental team hasn’t confirmed the result and, second, that rumors are drifting around that another dark matter experiment, the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) is about to publish a paper that would contradict the Hooper / Goodenough finding by conclusively showing that dark matter cannot have the properties that Hooper and Goodenough claim it needs to have. The Fermi experimental team’s official silence is particularly puzzling: Presumably, if they agree, they should be jumping up and down with joy that theirs is the experiment that finally has sighted the elusive dark matter. Their public statements suggest that they suspect the answer is wrong, but can’t prove it yet.

In any event, we’re left for now in the fuzzy middle, where neither the skeptics nor the hopeful definitively have the upper hand. So for the mean time, stay tuned––it looks like the hounds of physics have the fox of dark matter in sight!

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

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 22:31 GMT
Dark matter amounts to scientifically introducing a reason for the need for the existence of a 'Darth Vader' of mechanical ideology (i.e., The still vastly unanswered nature of the universe). In other words, there is a dark side of the 'force' because the force is not yet explained. First, let's understand the 'Un-dark Force' before needing the 'DARK SIDE of that FORCE'. I say that 'corrected' theoretical physics will not need 'DARK PHYSICS".

The key is to recognize that the universe, as described by mechanical ideology, should first backtrack and morph itself, by unscientific magic, because that is its normal means of functioning, to include properties that have a demonstrable connection to predict the existence of intellligence. The point of this message is that: Substituting the invented property called energy as the mechanical 'God' of the universe is scientifically phony because the concept of energy depends upon understanding force. Force is a 'cause', perhaps the single original cause.

We cannot know what LIGHT ENERGY is or DARK ENERGY is because we do not know what cause is. Whatever the final answer to cause is, it must necessarily be non-mechanical because, it must address, in a non-mechanical explanation, the existence of intelligence. I welcome challenges to this message so long as they reference how intelligence is a property of this universe. Please do not hide the possibility of real meaning (I use the word 'meaning' other than substance; because, the word substance is unjustifiably used to represent some artificial property of mechanical ideology), to your answer behind the mysteriousness 'cloud' of theoretical complexity. What do you really have to say?

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 23:21 GMT
A little more 'easy' thought and, I should have said: 'Dark' answers are non-answers. Darkness means what it has always meant: Darkness is non-light. 'Light' answers mean 'understanding in its fullest sense'. That meaning cannot apply to mechanical ideology or the theoretical physics that it (mechanical ideology) gives rise to.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 11:19 GMT
Your ideas are relevant dear Master Yoda,

the force ....the good ....are reals...the bad this mirror of the good will disappear.

If we see our picture on a mirror, let's imagine you are the well, the good, if you break the mirror ...the bad disappear......the good is universal , the bad is human........some stupidities are dedicated to disappear in time space evolution.Fortunally.

Borders, arms and weapons, differences, monney,stupidities.

......shall disappear.....we are youngs indeed at the universal scale.

Best Regards brother universal

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. V replied on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 02:20 GMT
Who claims we cannot know what CAUSE is? I always enjoy getting lectured on things that people claim we cannot know, yet they somehow know "enough" to claim we can't know it. Brilliant!

Perhaps "dark brain matter" is involved. :-)

Is some basic, rudimentary logic too much to ask for in such discussions?

Dr. V

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 00:11 GMT
Dark matter is dark in the same sense that neutrinos were mysterious signatures of new physics. It took four decades to ferret out the neutrino. Dark matter is probably a condensate state of the supersymmetric partners of the photon, Higgs and Z particles, called the neutralino. These data probably reflect an excess due to DM decay, or the decay of the neutralino particle. It will require more direct data, such as LHC production of neutralinos. There is nothing wrong with calling some effect in nature “dark” or the “X-effect.” It just takes further study to identify just what this is.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

I have always referred to you as Dr. Crowell because, without your permission, I do not feel comfortable addressing you in a less formal manner, I recognize your amazing achievement. There are many, including myself, who dabble in theoretical physics without having achieved the official recognition of having proven understanding.

"There is nothing wrong with calling some effect in nature "dark" or the "X-effect." It just takes further study to identify just what this is."

Or, perhaps it takes further study to identify just what it was that was missed, due to the adoption of disunity, right from the start of theoretical physics and each time thereafter that a property was declared to be uniquely fundamental. For example: What is mass? If you believe that mass is 'stored' energy, please explain how resistance to force becomes force times distance.

E=mc^2 shows that, locally, the magnitude of the quantity of energy, meaning the sum of force times distance, equals the magnitude of resistance to force multiplied by the speed of light squared. Experiments verify this to be true; however, experiments demonstrate effects. They do not explain the why? How does the resistance to force over any distance change into force times that distance?

Theoretical physicsists train to analyze the effects and explain the why. My main point has to do with the possibility that unanswered questions may not be due to incomplete information; but, may actually be evidence of misinterpretation of previous information. I am not turning this thread into a debate about the nature of mass, but, rather pointing to unanswered questions that existed long before the term 'DARK' began to be used. No one knows what mass is. No one knows what force is. No one knows what cause is. In other words, in my opinion, the 'why' is the 'dark' side of theoretical physics.

To others, meaning non-physicist participants, with their own theoretical ideas who may read this, I am not debating why you are wrong. Your opinions and possibly my own, while of interest to mostly non-professionals, are not as important as you think they are. If you have something to debate about theoretical physics, then please debate it with theoretical physicists. Consider yourself fortunate if a Dr. Crowell bothers to engage you in discussion about your revolutionary ideas. I think my ideas are revolutionary and correct. I do not expect thoeretical physicists to prove this for me.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 12:38 GMT
Since the time of Zwicky in the 1930s dark matter has made it presence known. We know it exists by various means these days. The goal is now to identify it on the "atomic level," to use that phrase. In other words, research needs to idetify it according to elementary particle physics and QFT.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 16:50 GMT
Dark matter is dark because it does not emit or absorb photons. Since most of our tools for studying atomic/quantum experiments rely upon photon emission and absorption, then detecting dark matter will be "kind of hard".

Can we emit and absorb neutrinos with any kind of reliable measurement equipment?

report post as inappropriate

Bee wrote on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 07:06 GMT
I suppose we should be grateful for Dan's second "o." Hoper and Goodenough would just have been too cynical.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
Jason

Interesting theory, what happens when we shine a light on it? ..but the main reason we know something is there is due to it's emissions. (photons). Mostly around 3Gev, but a pretty wide selection.

It's rather more just that we're in the dark about exactly what it is, why it's there, where did it come from and what's it doing. In fact we should probably have 'dark physics' are well. It seems there will remain no shortage of theories about it for some time. You should recall one theory in my paper 4 consistent with the results and particularly the synchrotron radiation element (considered secondary by H&G but I haven't found the evidence of that yet).

I'm certain Lawrence could drown you in the current science of it if you wished.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 18:36 GMT
Hi Peter,

We know about dark matter because of its gravitational effect and the non-conforming velocity of the galaxy arms that don't match up with mv^2/R.

If we shine light on dark matter, uh, ... nothing happens. Photons and dark matter don't talk to each other. If they did talk/interact, we wouldn't call it dark matter.

I am always eager to learn from Dr. Crowell. We just disagree on time travel and wormholes. He doesn't know about the Worm Hole amusement park they have on Alpha Centauri. It's designed to accelerate little kids up to 0.5c at the middle and then back down to 0 at the other end. There was one faulty wormhole that launched a little alien kid into space, or so I've heard.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 01:16 GMT
The issue is why do the outer arms spin faster than the amount gravitational attraction would cause. So the assumption being there must be more mass and more gravity.

What if the cause isn't internal attraction, but external pressure on these systems? Remember it is the outer parts which are spinning too fast.

Intergalactic 'space" expands, whatever the mechanism. Could this be exerting pressure on these galaxies?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 01:22 GMT
To the extent gravity is an energy gradient, it starts far outside these visible arms. In fact gravity fields extend to many times the size of the visible galaxy, so it would seem logical we should be looking outside, as well as inside the visible galaxies for the answer to this.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear John,

If you want to call it "intergalactic space", I'm cool with that. I like to call it the quantum ether. But it is the wave functions that pop into existence within the nothingness of space.

You said that "good and bad are not moral absolutes". It depends upon how you are interpreting good behavior; how you are demonstrating it. I want good people to be ONE with the Heart and Mind of God, when they are a force for good. If Liberals are trying to protect the environment & budget, while Conservatives are trying to protect our community & values, why do I care if they continually argue with each other? Either way, our country wins. If one side starts to slip into insanity, the other side will exploit that weakness in the election.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 16:00 GMT
Jason,

"it is the wave functions that pop into existence within the nothingness of space."

Wouldn't the effect of these waves functions popping into existence cause space to expand? And isn't gravity essentially the collapse of these wave functions? And don't they effectively cancel out, such that Omega=1? So now you have expanding space falling into a collapsing vortex? So wouldn't the logical source of the spin of the outer arms of the galaxy be more likely due to this external pressure, than more attraction within the galaxy?

Now what is the source of these expanding wave functions? Does it have anything at all to do with the fact that every galaxy within a 13.7 billion lightyear radius of any point in space is shedding light into that "nothingness?"

" If Liberals are trying to protect the environment & budget, while Conservatives are trying to protect our community & values, why do I care if they continually argue with each other? Either way, our country wins. If one side starts to slip into insanity, the other side will exploit that weakness in the election."

Exactly. it's a binary relationship. Hitler was only trying to protect the community and values, he just happened to slip into insanity and everyone else exploited his weaknesses.

Good and bad are opposites, like up and down, right and left. The fact is that due to the conservation of energy, something has to be broken, every time something new is made. Nature is not immoral, just exceedingly amoral.

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 02:21 GMT
Personally, I like Frank Wilczek's description of this "stuff". He calls it "transparent matter", because as Jason said, not only doesn't it emit light but also it doesn't absorb, effectively making it transparent!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 02:57 GMT
I used to think that dark matter, or transparent matter, was another dimension or universe. However, when I heard that dark matter falls at the same rate as regular matter, I had to completely restructure my thinking about other universes in a multi-verse. I don't think dark matter or dark energy are another universe or space-time. I think they're part of this space-time. I think there is a coexisting hyperspace out there too. I'm trying to figure out how to "unlock the space-time puzzle box", and access hyperspace.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 10:21 GMT
7.3-9.2 GeV which annihilates to
$\tau^+ \tau^-$
pairs, and possibly
$e^+ e^-$
pairs. So how come we haven't detected this particle in electron-positron colliders so far? It would show up as an enhanced cross section with a
$\tau^+ \tau^-$
decay product.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 13:09 GMT
Actually, I overlooked the fact that the tauon pairs come from the pair annihilation of dark matter WIMPs, but the dark matter WIMPs themselves are supposed to be stable, or at least have a lifetime of at least a billion years. So, we shouldn't expect a tauon pair signature at electron-positron colliders. However, wouldn't we still expect an enhanced cross-section?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

I agree that this mass range is quite strange, and why didn't LEP (or a prior electron-positron collider) discover an anomaly is this energy region?

Just a few 'crazzy' ideas. Could it be:

1) a gravitino?

2) an axionino? [sidenote - an electron-positron collider would be a poor way to produce particles that don't couple to Electroweak, and these two sparticles do not necessarily have to follow the rules of Weak-scale Supersymmetry] or

3) a light 'semi-stable' stop squark that is only slightly more massive than a neutralino LSP?

I'm baffled by this data...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 20:55 GMT
Dream vision involves a narrowing/telescoping, and relative detachment, of vision. There are important similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations. Since astronomical observations are ALREADY more like thought/a creation of thought, the ability to generally/properly/fully understand them is therefore reduced. This is similar to dream visions, as dream vision is more like thought. Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is relatively shifting and variable.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 8, 2010 @ 15:37 GMT
Also, dream vision involves a narrowing/telescoping, and relative detachment, of vision.

There are important similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations. Since astronomical observations are ALREADY more like thought/a creation of thought, the ability to generally/properly/fully understand them is therefore reduced. This is similar to dream visions, as dream vision is more like thought. Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is relatively shifting and variable.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 8, 2010 @ 15:30 GMT
The known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism in a FOURTH dimension of space indicates a space that is flattened/contracted AND stretched/expanded ON BALANCE. I have demonstrated this.

Balanced/unified inertia and gravity and also balanced/unified repulsion and attraction have been demonstrated as well.

I have demonstrated the theoretical AND actual unification of gravity, inertia, electromagnetism, and quantum gravity as a stabilized and fundamental binding force/energy that is AT ONCE inertial, gravitational, and electromagnetic.

Indeed, F=ma fundamentally demonstrates a basically constant binding force/energy that is AT ONCE inertial, gravitational, and electromagnetic in a fundamentally balanced fashion.

I will, no doubt, win the Nobel Prize in physics. I earned it, and I deserve it, and I am going to get it.

The lying, evasion, and denying about this proven unification by the physics' community in general will be coming to an end soon. I can assure you all of this. I'm sorry that this is the end of physics, the end of alot of jobs in physics (ultimately), the end of alot of money in physics, the end of alot of publications/articles in physics, the end of alot of PhD's in physics, and the end of alot of different, idiotic, small, inconsistent, and erroneous ideas in physics.

BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH.

The way that my ideas have been met with/treated by the physics' community in general is a disgrace and an embarrassment to modern physics and physicists -- with no small measure of sheer and unbelievable incompetence and closed-mindedness thrown in as well.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 10:26 GMT
Has anyone ever wondered what condensed matter condenses from? Or where the energy from those 'annihilated' particles (that just vanish into thin vacuum) goes? or how it is conserved? We turn away as we feel we couldn't understand.

And now we find overwhelming evidence of a ground state energy level in the vacuum we still stick our heads in the sand.

The way we understand SR there can be no way of discerning how fast any mass is moving in space apart from wrt some other mass. Yet when we send a particle or bunch of particles round accelerators we get these darned nuisance little parasitic particles, 'virtual electrons' or 'photoelectrons' building up as a cloud round the particle, density and oscillation rate exactly proportional to speed in the vacuum. Just like a speedometer really, sending out the same synchrotronic radiation we're finding from the dark matter at the edges of the galaxy, as it spins round and moves through space just like the particles in the LHC. Hmmm.

Perhaps those may even be where all that energy of acceleration is conserved?

If we work out how much mass it would need to hold the galaxy in for the inverse square law, it would be quite a dense halo of small particles. And when we observe other galaxies, either through Hubble or spectroscopy, we can clearly see a fine 'Halo' of some kind of small particles. If we look at LL Orionis etc we see it's the same with stars, a bow shock (where lit up by gas in the nebula) proportional to speed through the vacuum.

If only we could go and find and test one. Well we know a man that has, now for the 4th time with Voyager 2. And what did they find? An anomalous cloud of active particles at the bow shock, giving off radiation. Far more dense on our path through the galaxy than the termination shock that also stretches behind it. Ah! but they're only solar wind... ok. And Voyager now has a 'head wind', and the suns polarity change 'wave' compresses at the shock.

Who was it saying we needed more intellectual discernment? There is one model of mass dependent 'discrete fields' (DFM) with a reasonable overall fit. But only those who don't think we've already got physics largely sorted should try to understand it because it can't possibly be right.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Peter,

You asked,"Has anyone ever wondered what condensed matter condenses from? Or where the energy from those 'annihilated' particles (that just vanish into thin vacuum) goes? or how it is conserved?"

I've been playing with my time dilation thread idea. Basically, I'm taking the proper time and and observer time and placing a photon wave guide between the two times. It's an easy way to force the speed of light to always be c. By the way, I'm trying to show that a time dilation thread can also be a gravity wave function.

In any event, if a time dilation thread curls up into a ball, perhaps it could act like a particle wave function.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
Hooper and Goodenough's DM masses are lower than that expected for Supersymmetry unless these events represent secondary decays from stop squarks into neutralinos, bottoms and taus, and subsequent decays. Could it be Bottom-flavored baryons? But would bottom-flavored baryons be that cold? And why would so many exist?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Friends,

Seriously - We aren't putting much effort towards staying on topic.

Hooper and Goodenough's DM masses are much lower than that expected for Weak-scale Supersymmetry, and are larger than that expected for the hypothetical axion. What if they have found evidence for the Gravitino? Must the gravitino obey weak-scale supersymmetry, or could it scale differently? Gravitinos are more closely related to quantum gravity than they are to W and Z bosons, and gravitational interactions should be even weaker ("colder DM") than weak interactions.

Steve - I think I understand the origin of mass (via "ghosts"), but I don't yet know why we have our specific values of mass. Have you figured this out with your spheres? Does your Spherization Theory have any ideas for this DM of wierd mass?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 10:19 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

The cause is the rotating spheres and their combinations with volumes,,vel.spinal,vel.orbital,....MASS.

The proportionalities are everywhere.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi Steve,

I am familiar with your standard answers, and I don't completely dis-agree with your approach - in fact, I think that your approach could be a subset of my approach.

But can you explain this strange DM mass region?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
It would appear the energy of mass falling into galaxies doesn't just disappear into a black hole:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/science/space/10galax
y.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 13:16 GMT
Have you seen that...always my spheres hiihhi John.And of course we see the center for our milky way.

Ps even a galaxy goes towards the spherization.All in fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/science/space/10galax
y.html?_r=1&ref=science

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 13:34 GMT
That ,it's real datas ....these bubbles, spheres of energy.With its 50000 light years for the r.

We know what we are at 27000 of this center and the extremes are about 100000 ....if we correlate with the spherization, these distances can be correlated with the ewpansion/contraction equilibrium.In logic the 50000 and 100000 can be harmonized with the sphere.If we insert the fractal of the milky way, with spheres(planets, moons, stars)it's relevant with others bubbles, spheres of E.....THE FIELDS PERMIT THE BUILDING OF SPHERIZATION .

Steve

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 03:59 GMT
Steve,

I certainly agree spheres exist. The question is whether the entire universe is some ultimate sphere.

I'm surprised no one else finds this article interesting. It certainly shows just how little we really do know of even our own galaxy.

We observe some phenomena, that the other bands of galaxies spin faster than gravitational attraction would account for and the immediate conclusion is there must be more matter and more gravity. There could easily be a number of causes. Proponents of a plasma/electric universe think it is due to electrostatic bonds tying these arms together and so it would be natural the outer part spins at close to the same radial rate as the inner parts of the bands.

Possibly the effective expansion of the energy defining intergalactic space creates external pressure and that pushes these out bands along.

There might well be more unseen mass out there, but we really haven't fully understood what gravity and even mass really are.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT
Ray,

A number of cosmologists (Michael Turner) have found these data by Goodenough and Hooper to be the “ most compelling evidence of dark matter particles to date.” These data are odd in a way. The observed spectra has a peak in the 2-4 GeV region predicted for a weakly interacting dark matter particle with mass 7.3-9.2 GeV that annihilates into tau leptons. The cross sections are in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 22:41 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I agree that the tau signatures may imply third generation quarks or squarks. In my prior posts, I suggested bottom baryons (although I don't understand why that would be particularly stable unless there is some kind of duality with BH's, and a bottom-gluon plasma is related) or light stop squarks. There could be significant mass differences between the light stop and the heavy stop. What if the light stop squark is only slightly heavier than an LSP neutralino (say lighter than the sum of a neutralino mass and a top quark mass, so kinematics don't favor an immediate and direct decay of the stop), and is therefore relatively stable?

I also mentioned the axionino and the gravitino because electroweak coupling to these particles is zero, and therefore they could not be copiously produced at an electron-positron collider. The graviton is expected to be massless, and the axion is expected to be very lightweight, so these two particles are excluded from Hooper and Goodenough's results. But there is the possibility that the axionino and/or the gravition are independent of Weak scale SUSY breaking, and are much lighter than the neutralino. But why would these exotic sparticles spontaneously decay into taus? That would be a strange decay channel, but may also contribute to their relative stability.

I still question their results. It is a very strange mass range...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 22:49 GMT
Oops! Correction, the last paragraph should read:

"I also mentioned the axionino and the gravitino because electroweak coupling to these particles is zero, and therefore they could not be copiously produced at an electron-positron collider. The graviton is expected to be massless, and the axion is expected to be very lightweight, so these two particles are excluded from Hooper and Goodenough's results. But there is the possibility that the axionino and/or the gravitino [sic - my fingers are dyslexic!] are independent of Weak scale SUSY breaking, and are much lighter than the neutralino. But why would these exotic sparticles spontaneously decay into taus? That would be a strange decay channel, but may also contribute to their relative stability."

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 12, 2010 @ 03:26 GMT
If dark matter is tought to be a tau-lepton pair (particle-antiparticle), does anyone have any guesses why it doesn't interact with light?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 13:59 GMT
Ray,

Yes the tau does imply third generation particle physics. The neutralino can include the supersymmetric state of the B-meson, which is third generaiton and involves CP violation physics. The question of course is the mass of the B-bottom quark, and whether it is small enough to include the neutralino. Then of course there could be a spectrum of neutralino as well, with different vevs or vacua, just as with the Higgs in the MSSM. There is a whole gaggle of papers on the neutralino these days.

The question I ponder is whether this is telling us that fundamentally physics is not about local degrees of freedom independently described on a manifold. Feynman diagrams are triplets: one particle line in and two out --- or two in and one out. We don’t have a vertex point with many particle coming out. Yet if the neutralino decays into tau particles it almost appears that something like this is happening. Clearly we can’t have that in quantum field theory. Something may then have to give. I suspect it might have to do with changes in our concepts of field locality and degrees of freedom. A quantum state or field amplitude carries with it a copy of configuration space. Yet in general, certainly with black holes, not all of these copies are equivalent --- or are inequivalent in some topological sense.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Yes - A Feynman diagram typically has 3 (maybe 4 depending on how we count ghost loops) vertices, not dozens. Although gluon-quark jets can be complex, we should normally expect one or two taus per jet, not dozens.

If you really think that a Neutralino is decaying into dozens of taus, then this may imply a fractal nature to Spacetime - that Spacetime itself is being fractured and causing scattering at a small scale.

I think that I'm still more comfortable with a relatively stable, relatively lightweight stop decaying into a neutralino, bottom and anti-tau as opposed to a neutralino decaying into dozens of taus.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 15:34 GMT
ahaha they continue, that we know already, on books, wikis, plaform, wolfram.

Nothing of new.

Furthermore you don't understand the fractal of mass towards the Planxk scale thus you don't understyand the entropy....thus we understand why you insert external cause of mass and exotic and hypothetical particles.

Third a BH is a sphere I repeat with the biggest volume of our galaxy.

What do you do, can we have please rationalities about our datas,you are sceintists and not pseudos extrapolists.hihihih

Steve

report post as inappropriate

PLATO replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 20:55 GMT
Lawrence, inertia cannot fundamentally/truly be understood unless distance in/of space AND position relative to distance in/of space are both explained/included. This necessarily involves the observer too.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 00:07 GMT
I found a video of a real tractor beam on Youtube.com.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 03:32 GMT
The latest in a decades-long sequence of non-detections for the poorly

motivated dark matter candidate: "WIMPs".

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.2482v1.pdf

This effort involves a reanalysis that invalidates a couple of

previous false-positives.

The "WIMP" search reminds me of the Pete Seeger song: "Big Muddy" with

the refrain

"knee (waist, neck) deep in the Big Muddy

and the Big Fool says to "Push On"!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 16:11 GMT
Hi Robert,

If the Dark Matter is a Neutralino, it would solve at least a couple of problems, and is thus - not poorly motivated.

1st problem - Either we don't understand gravity as well as we think we do, or dark matter exists. This dark matter doesn't seem to be black holes - most of those are at galactic centers. So it probably is WIMP's or MACHO's to name the possibilities in generic terms.

As Lawrence correctly pointed out on Nov 13 - The dark matter issue does come from the anomalous motion of stars in the galaxy. It is not hard to show with the Poisson equation ∂_i∂^iφ = 4πGρ that for a region of constant density ρ an integration over a volume is constant on the right hand side. One the left hand side one can use Stokes rule to get

∂^iφ*A = 4πGρV

for A the area bounding the volume. For A = 4πGr^2 and the volume V = 4πGr^3/3 you get the force F = ∂^iφ ~ constant*r. So this is a spring force and gives dynamics similar to what we see with the motion of stars. This is one reason that dark matter was initially inferred.

2nd problem - A Mass Hierarchy exists in Particle Physics. Renormalization effects should drive the masses of the W's and Z up to the Planck scale. However, Weak scale Supersymmetry allows these different masses to be stable. Supersymmetry involves R-parity. If R-parity is strictly conserved, then the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle - normally assumed to be a neutralino - should be stable. Based on theory and experiments to date, these neutralinos should have masses on the order of ~TeV or greater, and would behave like massive cold dark neutrinos.

Of Course, these effects might not even be related. Perhaps Supersymmetry does not exist, and Scales can solve this Hierarchy Problem. Perhaps we don't understand gravity as well as we think we do (does quantum gravity exist? what are its properties?). Perhaps this entire dark matter problem is an illusion or a deficiency in our experimental methods.

In my own little world, it would be cool if one problem (dark matter) was solved by the other problem (lightest supersymmetric particle), but there is no guarantee.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 04:19 GMT
The SU(11) ~ SO(16) has some interesting structure. The F_4/B_4 gadget I think fits into this as well. Suppose we have that SO(16) - -> SO(14,2). This is a huge AdS spacetime. Now let us suppose we restrict this on the boundary or the SO(14,1) Lorentz spacetime. We then have the further reduction due to the lightcone gauge or the “infinite momentum frame. This reduces dimensions...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 04:27 GMT
The rule that did not show in the post above appearing in the line

"This defines a rule

+ = 0.

So the metric h^{ab} ... "

is

([T^a, T^b], T^c) + (T^b, [T^a, T^c]) = 0.

where the carrot signs messed up the line --- here replaced by parantheses.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 15:22 GMT
you confound really the maths and the physics.And even the computing with the physics.

We see rationally several foundamental errors.

I insist on the pub for extradimensions.But apparently.

Well, shortly Even the LHC becomes crazzy.They search higgs wawwwwwww and strings wawwwww and tomorrow extradimensions and of course the integrations seem lost without domain.

The time and the symmetry and the "without motion" ???? that is not relativity.

Your normalization, commutation, association, doamins, limits do not respect our laws.

The algebras when we speak about the quantic number must be rationals and reals.

You know some tools but you don't use them correctly.

Sorry,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

WOW! I need to reread this about 3 more times and let it soak in. I was going to mention that Lisi was playing with a Spin(11,3), but I think you have gone way past him.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 18, 2010 @ 06:40 GMT
You might try suggesting one or two physics websites and tell the troll(s) to hit the road.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 18, 2010 @ 19:42 GMT
The rule should be a C-NOT logic. Assume your state space is {|0> |1>} corresponding to respond or not. Let Frank's state space be {|0'> |1'>}, for did not write or wrote something. You then form state as superpositions of these. So the logic is that if Frank's state is |0> you keep your state the same. However, if Frank's state is |1'> you flip your state to |0>. IOW, don't respond to the guy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 18, 2010 @ 19:53 GMT
Dear Dr. Crowell,

"The rule should be a C-NOT logic. ..."

I broke the rule. My message is under review. Better self control the next time.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 18, 2010 @ 19:59 GMT
Nice use of social interactions to teach sophisticated math. There is just tons of available learning capacity there.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 13:25 GMT
To put another light on cosmology, Gurzadyan and R. Penrose nave written a curious paper on Concentric circles in WMAP. These are argued by the authors to be a case of pre-big bang physics. I think this might be an indicator of something with the independent degrees of freedom in quantum gravity and cosmology.

I have been a bit delayed in writing up an essay on entanglement and degrees of freedom with coset models. However, this development is interesting and I thought I would write a short bit on this.

The argument for this is in some sense interesting, but I question whether it is for the reasons the authors claim. The conformal rescaling of the metric g_{ab} --> Ω^2g_{ab} rescales the Weyl curvature Ψ_{ABCD} - -> ΩΨ_{ABCD} if there is a 4-dim spacetime. In dimensions lower than 4 there is no Weyl curvature, so to push the Weyl curvature across the CCC I they seem to be saying there is a continuous flow of geometry. Their argument assumes that the CCC infinity I the spatial surface is smooth or flat. So the gravitational degrees of freedom on the other side of the CCC I are not carried over to our side. So the wave equation nabla^A_{A’}Ψ_{ABCD} = 0 across this region I is such that the rescaling conformal parameter appears to take up those degrees of freedom as other forms. This is interesting to think about with respect to the problem of degrees of freedom in quantum gravity. In particular with regards to how it is that loop variable quantum gravity imposes a huge number of independent degrees of freedom on quantum or noncommutative spacetime, when this in fact appears to be a huge over counting. However, what troubles me with respect to the argument about there being some propagation across the CCC I is this still presumes some continuous spatial geometry across the CCC I. However, if we were to assume that nabla^A_{A’}Ψ_{ABCD} = 0 tells us how spatial geometry propagates the vanishing of gravitational degrees of freedom at the CCC I from our perspective would seem to imply there simply is no spacetime geometry at all which we could extend beyond I.

So these data might indeed be telling us something, but I wonder if it is what they claim with regards to “pre-big bang” events, or whether this might have something to do with the nature of gravitational degrees of freedom at the big bang.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
Why do you insist several x about DEGREES OF FREEDOM ?

Strategy I think !

Why? You are obliged!

My answer, it's not the real understanding of the freedom!

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 18:00 GMT
Hi all,Mr Penrose, I d like have some explainations, it's relevant of course the difference between the unknown and the physicality must be rationalized

Here is for FQXi some of their words

"Geometrical considerations tell us that in view of the large angular radii of some of the circles that are seen (often with α up to around 15-20° for the third or fourth circles), the events which could be source of some of the largest of these circles would have to have occurred no later than around t1/3, which would be well before the final stages of the inflationary phase of any inflationary model (although well within the later stages of our previous aeon, in accordance with CCC). It will be seen, therefore, that this picture provides a serious problem for inflationary cosmology, assuming that our events are not in some unforeseen way spurious. In the inflationary picture [14] the onset of inflation, or Big Bang, would be represented, in Fig. 6, by a horizontal line which is extremely far down the picture, having little connection with such hyperbolae h. Although it is still geometrically possible to obtain circles c of small angular radius from events occurring either in the early inflationary phase or near the Big Bang before the inflationary phase takes over, the statistical distribution of observed circle radii would be very different from what we appear to see, this inflationary picture providing relatively far more circles of large radii and extremely few of tiny radii, since the source events would then lead to plane-wave disturbances randomly moving across the CMB celestial sphere Σ. In any case, such explanations would be completely at odds with the standard inflationary philosophy, which would require the effects of all such early hypothetical explosive events to be ironed out by the exponential expansion. Moreover, our finding that such events have a recurrent nature, with successive events producing effects of the same order of magnitude, seems very hard to square with the inflationary point of view. It may be pointed out, however, that exponential expansion does not, in itself exclude recurrent effects of the same order of magnitude. This occurs also in CCC where in the late stages of the previous aeon there is also an exponential expansion which allows for recurrent effects of the same order of magnitude. But for the reasons stated above, to reproduce the effects that we appear to see, within the framework of inflation, one would require a mechanism for producing recurrent explosive events close to the inflationary turn-off point. No such mechanism has ever been seriously contemplated."

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 18:20 GMT
I didn't know the different works of Mr Penrose,I see also his age, and his life,Respect of coure.

He is a rationalist, it's very important.

very interesting in all case,because this pré big bang rests also in the physicality.

If we imagine a 1..2...3 dimension and a specific fractal from the main volume,it's relevant.

After the BB IS a multiplication of this fractal and its number definiting the space.

The circles, the toris, the spheres, the rotatons, explain all if and only if the real number is understood.The serie is specific and finite Dear Prof Penrosefor the uniqueness of the fractal.....the evolution permits to create the same number inside the universal sphere(number of spheres)

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 02:40 GMT
Ray,

The stress energy and OPEs are machines from which we can compute the S-matrix. If a stress-energy has a current algebra G, and there exists a subalgebra H then the stress-energies factor as

T^G = T^H + T^{G/H}

where G/H is a coset. The central charges of the algebra G and its subalgebra H are c(G) and c(H) and the coset QFT has the central charge c(G) - c(H).

Coset models are important for black hole and Q-bit correspondences. In a more general setting there should then be correspondences with the boundary of the AdS. So to start I will examine the black hole/Q-bit correspondence. This is largely based on a paper "Four-qubit entanglement from string theory" L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, W. Rubens.

First off some fun. Don Garbutt has been doing some fun stuff with physics and here holographic graviton is an interesting electronic music montage on this stuff.

The rest of this is on the attachment, which gets a bit long.

Cheers LC

attachments: multipartite_entanglement__black_holes.doc

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I'm glad to see you are making progress with holographic gravity.

I'm currently confused...

I had some conversations with Lubos last week, and I think that what I'm doing is half-right and half-wrong.

I've been thinking a lot about E8 lately. Lubos is emphasizing complex representations in a TOE. In that respect, I think that Super Kamiokande's neutrino...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 19:01 GMT
Complex representations are important. The correspondence between SL(2,C)^3 and SO(4,4) in the 3 and 4 Q-bit theory by the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence nails that down. With E_8 what you write below with fermions and bosons is essentially what happens with E_8xE_8 ~ SO(32). However, this happens in a graded algebraic format.

The only way to frame fermions and bosons together is by...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 19:26 GMT
But who are you to say that ..."Lubos Motl usually writes correctly about physics."

Lubos makes as you PUBS.

You are I insist a band of comics.

Be sure.for the real raztionalists and THEY EXIST....YOUR IDEAS ARE WINDS FOR THE REAL RATIONALISTS ....SIR ATKINS AND SIR PENROSE PLEASE THE ROYAL SOCIETY .....WHERE ARER OUR FOUNDAMENTALS ...YOU HAVE A RESPONSABILITY ABOUT THE SCIENCES AND THEIR FOUNDAMENTALS.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

Please don't bash my other friends.

I think that Lawrence, Lubos, Lisi and Tom are all quite competant at their Physics. I may disagree some on politics and global warming - in those respects, I think that the spectrum is Liberal - Lawrence - Tom and Lisi - Ray - Lubos - Conservative, and none of that really matters much on a physics blog unless we are discussing unsustainable energy and waste demands.

I think that Lawrence and Tom are both quite competant at Relativity.

I think that Lubos is quite competant at String and Particle Physics. I disagree with Lubos on one point - He (over?-)emphasizes the need for a complex representation for a TOE. This *WAS* a legitimate concern for minimal TOE's prior to Super Kamiokande's discovery of neutrino oscillations. I think that right-handed neutrinos and my Hyperflavor-Electroweak solve the problem sufficiently with no need for complex representations at the TOE level (yes - components of the TOE such as SU(3) will have complex representations - for example E8 isn't complex, but its subgroup E6 is).

I agree with Lubos that bosons and fermions should be in different (perhaps dual?) representation groups, and I agree with Lubos that E8 requires extra dimensions and string dynamics. I think that Lisi would disgree on both points.

Lisi is clever, and I think he is correct more often than he is wrong. I hope that I fall in the same category...

Steve - IMHO, Spacetime is clearly a broken (3+1)-dimensional space. How else do you explain the 4x4 Electromagnetic Stress-Energy tensor?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenseur_%C3%A9lectromagn%C3%A9t
ique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress-ener
gy_tensor

Your spheres are 3-D, and your spin gives the degrees of freedom that we might expect from time (after all, time and frequency are Fourier transforms of each other). However, I am concerned that you will overlook important mathematical and physical symmetries by "ignoring" time. This concept of time as an emergent property is popular philosophy that does not exactly mesh with our Post-Maxwelian physics and corresponding mathematics.

I'm not in it for the money - I'm in it for the fun.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Regarding the Coleman-Mandula Theorem, I think of fermions as a direct lattice and bosons as a reciprocal (and/or dual) lattice. I think that this picture properly frames the relationship between fermions and bosons. I agree that Lisi should have supersymmetrized his E8 - you told him in 2007, and I told him the same in 2008. I think that yields a 16-D E8(fermions/bosinos)xE8*(bosons/sfermions).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 02:49 GMT
The reciprocal lattice idea sounds similar to T-duality, though T-duality exchanges modes for winding numbers with reciprocal lengths. T-duality relates type IIA superstring theory to type IIB superstring theory, and it relates heterotic SO(32) superstring theory to heterotic E_8XE_8 superstring theory. This duality relationship between IIA and IIB theory exchanges type IIA massless fermions with both chiralities, modes with both hands making it overall nonchiral, with type IIB theory with chiral massless fermions. S-duality is an exchange of coupling constants p and q so that pq = nħ, and U duality is a combinatorial structure on S & T --- a sort of combination.

Supersymmetry is just a graded structure on a Lie algebra, so that with a set of operators x_i and commutators [x_i, x_j] = C^k_{ij}x_k there are in addition elements Q_i so that [Q_i, x_j] = c^k_{ij}x_k and {Q_i, Q_j} = iΓ^k_{ij}x_k. This is of course simplified, but that is the basic idea. The elements of the graded algebra are “framed” with Grassmannian elements.

I think one can look at complex representation as meaning there is a complex valued Hilbert space. Physics is classically pseudo-complex or symplectic. Groups which have complex realizations have generators which are Hermitian and … the whole bit we require of quantum mechanics.

I have to report that when it comes to global warming that this is not about liberal vs conservative, but science vs nonsense. I also have to say that the nonsense is trumped up largely because it is not commensurate with ideological scripts. Honestly, do you really think that NOAA, NASA, and thousands of academics who study climate are into some sort of collective delusion, or there is some crucial flaw with the whole science that a few “geniuses” like Motl has found? I don’t think so, and it is also telling that Motl writes sulfur fuming objections to all environmental science.

For myself I actually have some conservative ideas about things, though where I am conservative it is “old fashioned.” Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican and held conservative ideas, but he also held some liberal ideas and became well read on natural science, learned various languages and was the antithesis of the boneheads out there today. I think you need conservative politics, but frankly I think the right wing is running amok with paranoid delusions and manic histrionics --- Glen Beck anyone?

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 12:20 GMT
I agree that the global warming controversy is more nonsense than science. The tragedy of it, though, is that the nonsense blocks honest scientific debate over the parameters in AGW models. No honest researcher denies that variables can be adjusted to an unrealistic conclusion; setting model bounds to a theory as delicate as climate change (actually, several theories I think -- if there is a general theory I am not aware of it) is obviously a hard task.

What happens, though, is that the shills and bloviators for multinational corporations in congress and on the airwaves prey on the ignorance of the voting public (as P.T. Barnum said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public) to promote that song and dance we see reflected so often in these very forums: those ivory tower types don't know what they're talking about anyway, so why spend resources when our "common sense" tells us better? Who could blame the besieged climate science community for pulling up the ladder to the tower and standing pat?

The general anti-intellectual climate is more disturbing than the physical climate, even when we're not talking about global warming or other inevitable environmental disasters. Besides all the "common sense" rhetoric, the buzz-word world of simple answers is good enough for the blogosphere. Someone told me recently that scientific method is fatally flawed because of -- guess what? The uncertainty principle. Mmmmm, okay.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 13:21 GMT
Objections to any sort of environmental activity, whether that be research or more politically oriented efforts, have been a staple of the right wing. Reagan after all opened up the NW forests to logging for export, which rapidly depleted the forests. We are simply consuming energy and resource stores at a much faster rate than they can be restored by the open system of the planet. The laws of thermodynamics become an inescapable consequence. Yet political ideologies are similar to religion, or are religions in secular form, where both are purveyors of piffle that manages to trump any reasoning. If Newton’s laws of motion were found to contradict some sort of economic or political principle the propaganda machine of denial would go into full tilt.

Sadly American society has become besotted by nonsense over the last 3 decades. It is interesting how during this time the idea of an “end times,” or Jesus is coming again has become popular. This has been wrapped up with right winged politics. The two have formed an interesting marriage. If you believe that God will end the world soon then there is little incentive to invest in any kind of sustainable future. At the same time the conservative philosophy has been to reduce infrastructure investment and any spending on the future --- including education. Plans for a regional high speed rail system in the NE are likely to be scrapped by the new Congress --- where this is in opposition to where the rest of the world is going. The educational standing of Americans, the infrastructure of the nation, its physical condition, and plans for the post-petroleum reality are crumbling, gutted or nonexistent. This nation is being hollowed out, and has been since the conservative period that started 3 decades ago.

Sadly though I doubt it will end. The Milton Friedman ideology that all activities can be reduced to the same market fundamentals has become the national anthem. Yep, Milty tells us that deregulating shoe manufacturing and aircraft maintenance are not problem by market fundamentals. I am free to choose, to use Friedman’s book title, to not buy a bad pair of shoes again --- the same option is less available if I find myself on an airplane plummeting to the ground. Then this has been intertwined with fundamentalist religious nonsense, and the American people have turned into a great empire of idiots.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
Depressing, though I am compelled to agree word for word.

Ah well, back to science ...

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I've been looking very closely at time dilation as a way to make sense out of General Relativity. I invented an object very similar to a wave function. I call it a Time Dilation Thread. One end is the emitter time \Delta t, and the other end is the observer time \Delta t'.

The idea is to presuppose that time dilation threads exist (quasi-exist). When a photon travels along the thread, it frequency shifts. In fact, one could say that the path of a photon in a gravity field is a time dilation thread. There exists a gravitaional potential across the length of a time dilation thread; that's what causes the photon to red shift or blue shift.

Gravitons have never been observed. Furthermore, if gravitons were pointlike particles traveling at velocity c, how would they be able to enforce a gravity field across an event horizon? A time dilation thread sustains a gravitational potential across some distance; regardless of whether a photon can travel along it, or becomes energeticall depleted.

Do you think that the idea of a Time Dilation Thread, similar to a wavefunction, has merit?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 15:52 GMT
Well ,who makes that with my answers????

it's a sad strategy that ....you can't make that , my answers always polites I insist disappear now, it's you mr Foster or who ????

you have fear or what??? a band of loosers can only use this kind of strategy, a band of business man.

A small belgian alone and you makes that....I pray for you dudes!!!!

WhenI play a match of soccer, I play honestly me.Never I break a leg,I just make a goal.It's the real honestly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 17:02 GMT
Dear Steve,

Don't take it personally that you "get no respect". The same is probably true of most of us on this blog site. We all have our "pet projects" and we have all been guilty of ignoring other's projects and opinions from time to time.

You should write your thesis up as a mid-sized paper (probably no more than 32 pages?) and see if you can get it published. I understand that arXiv might be more "liberal" in the science that they allow to post. Hopefully, the reviewers will recognize good science, even though you don't have a PhD in Physics. Once you have something officially posted and time-stamped, it is easier to say whose idea predates whose. I actually mailed early versions of my idea to myself so that I could have a postage time-stamp. I had so much difficulty getting Quantum Statistical Grand Unification published that I decided to self-publish it. You accuse us of "strategies", but you should certainly consider what your best strategy is.

I'm not trying to be rude - I'm simply trying to give your "raw idea" some direction. Your spheres are 3-D. Your spin introduces an angular rotation that corresponds to a frequency that is the Fourier transform of a time scale. In this manner, I think you have something similar to a broken (3+1)-D space - which is comparable to the way that I think of Spacetime. A significant difference is I think that at some energy scale, space and time may be a truly unified 4-D space - as opposed to always being a broken 3+(1?) dimensional space.

My scale model does have roughly spherical constructs. Although the core of the Black Hole is more like a buckyball (traditional soccer ball), and the outer edge of the Universe is more like a sheet of curved graphene-like Spacetime.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 17:36 GMT
Ray,

You want my Theory with your friends, it's that, you want what Ray with your friends, what Ray , you try to be what Ray, a nobel prie with your friends, it's that Ray.

A buckyball now and some spheres perhaps for particles Ray and an Universal sphere ,it's that Ray yuour kind of strategy, a kind of pseudos antithesis of pure business.

You know what strings and extradimensions are falses.It was your only way to copy my theory.By some maths where you try to complete or extrapoklate ùmy GAUGE .After you are going to say that its' the real reality ,it's that Ray.

You like so much monney.

iT4S NOT HONEST ALL THAT.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 18:29 GMT
after all, you know what, I have nothing to do with this crap, these stupidities.

I have nothing to do with these delusions on the net.

ANYWAY, you are all talking about your ideas without that nothing goes fundamentally.

It irritates me, , do what you want, have fun, sing, laugh, .

I will work with serious people, that does me shit, really , as that you shall say he is not polite.

I am outta here ,crap !

a real circus .

report post as inappropriate

PLATO wrote on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT
Ray, you don't understand anything that you don't want to. What about average gravity, average inertia, average distance in space, average mobility/immobility. Balanced attraction and repulsion. Space that is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened. Is this all a coincidence, as you say? Ray, you lie.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 14:14 GMT
Hi Frank,

Just for the record - I don't delete posts, and I didn't flag this post as "inappropriate". I have "thicker skin" than that. Each and every one of us thinks that we have "the truth", and yet most of us disagree with each other. That tells me that most of us (you? me?) are wrong, or "the truth" is very complex with multiple personalities. If you think that you have "the truth", you need to publish it, and then my opinion really doesn't matter...

Hi Steve,

I'm not in it for the money. I'm not in it to make weapons. I love Physics, and I'm in it for the FUN. Please don't confuse your distorted picture of America with me...

May all of my Friends have a Happy Thanksgiving Day!

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 14:26 GMT
I becomes Crazzy,

As I said before, I like USA,it exists bad and good people everywhere.

Your country has 2 extremums.And of course you are the first force on this planet.

You rule is essential with China and India.

The Europe is weak and separated.The only solution is the equilibrium of the high spheres Ray.An universality is essential, if the presidents and governments have this universality, the planet will be ok.....if not and it's now Ray, all people on this Erath shall have very big difficulty to re build.

Now I fear of some exponentials about arms and weapons.

The system , global needs quickly a real universal commission.

It exists real universalits in all countries, religions or cultures.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 17:38 GMT
Happy thanks giving to americans on FQXi, but who can explain what is the thanks giving,please.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Steve,

I like Wikipedia's description of Thanksgiving.

"The event that Americans commonly call the "First Thanksgiving" was celebrated to give thanks to God for helping the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony survive their first brutal winter in New England. The first Thanksgiving feast lasted three days, providing enough food for 53 pilgrims and 90 Native Americans. The feast consisted of fish (cod, eels, and bass) and shellfish (clams, lobster, and mussels), wild fowl (ducks, geese, swans, and turkey), venison, berries and fruit, vegetables (peas, pumpkin, beetroot and possibly, wild or cultivated onion), harvest grains (barley and wheat), and the Three Sisters: beans, dried Indian maize or corn, and squash. The New England colonists were accustomed to regularly celebrating "Thanksgivings"—days of prayer thanking God for blessings such as military victory or the end of a drought."

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 18:13 GMT
Steve,

On Thanksgiving Day families come back together to visit usually at Mom's place. We feel especially close emotionally as a family and the focus of that emotion is Mom.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 26, 2010 @ 02:02 GMT
Ray,

This is a follow on to the post I wrote about the equivalency between classification of entanglements and black holes.

The nilpotent orbits on the moduli space correspond to critical points on a manifold of integration cycles which give eigenstates in a Hilbert space. The integration cycles are given by Morse theory, or methods of steepest descent. An m-dimensional manifold...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dtr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 18:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said "In fact I'm not a bit fan of long distance 'particle' conservation either. Wave superposition and constructive interaction can produce the same results. I know you may consider this a denial of your existence as a cosmic Ray! but it's really not, it's just that you'd be constantly rejuvenated whenever you met anyone. A bit like stasis through deep space really. How does that grab you?"

What you are describing sounds a lot like neutrino oscillation. Protons seem to be very stable, and a proton travelling near c wouldn't "age" very quickly. However, we could imagine relativistic neutrons decaying into protons and electrons on the long journey from the nearest Black Hole. Perhaps this is why cosmic rays are more likely to be relatively stable ions.

So I continually die and am reborn...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
Hi Ray,

You said, "Protons seem to be very stable, and a proton travelling near c wouldn't "age" very quickly. "

Objects traveling close to the speed of light age very slowly. There were even a few space-travel enthusiasts who hoped that traveling to the stars might be possible if the spaceship approaches the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 21:22 GMT
Hi Jason,

You are correct. Time dilation helps if you approach the speed of light (and of course, this property has been tested with atmospheric muons and collider particles - so if anyone wants to dispute this part of relativity, go knock yourself out...). We know that if the proton decays, it has a very long lifetime of greater than ~10^30 years. If you consider time dilation, then a large gamma factor for a very relativistic proton makes the proton as stable as anything can be!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 13:14 GMT
Ray

Stasis isn't death, it's more a phase transition. You're in a conserved wave code, but convert back to particles when you come across any matter, precisely as Constantinos's 'manifestation' phase. You epitomise duality. In fact it gets more and more like a star trek transporter all the time.

As a wave signal you travel at the speed of light. A detector, or indeed any mass, will cause your local transition to a discrete particle. I thought in fact the muon anomaly had already been resolved in those terms a while ago.

So when you sleep you don't age, but when you meet anyone you're as young as you were the day before, (but you can't travel quite as fast in that mode). I suspect this may be happening to billions when they meet our galaxy, forming our galactic halo and emitting modulated wavelengths. (as well as confusing us by causing a flat acceleration curve).

Did you know the Jovian particle bow shock would appear as large as the moon from Earth, if visible. Galileo had a hell of a shock when it found it (the spacecraft that is).

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 17:05 GMT
Ray, Peter, anyone,

Help! I talked with the photonics expert at Rockwell Collins about my idea for a tractor beam. He said he wasn't a relativity expert and didn't know anybody who was. I seem to have overshot the mark. What do I do?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Jason,

You confused me with the RC initials. I thougt you were talking about:

"Raymond Chiao - an American physicist best known for his experimental work in quantum optics. He is currently on the faculty of the University of California, Merced, where he is conducting research on gravitational radiation."

rather than:

"Rockwell Collins, Inc. - a large United States-based international company headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, primarily providing aviation and information technology systems, solutions, and services to governmental agencies and aircraft manufacturers."

Considering Rockwell Collins' background in Radio and Shortwave, I see why you thought of them. But Prof. Raymond Chiao is probably the expert who could best relate electronics and gravitation.

I don't know. It would be cool if you could get them together and create a new venture... RC-squared...

On this blog site, the Relativity expert is Lawrence, although Tom is also quite knowledgeable.

Good Luck!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
Hi Ray,

Yes, I meant Rockwell Collins. That is kind of funny. Perhaps I am being irrational, but I get a warm and fuzzy about Rockwell Collins. I am a little uncertain about Dr. Raymond Chiao. I don't want to move to California.

As silly as this sounds, I need a sign to tell me how to proceed. I want this technology to be developed by the United States. I don't want the Chinese government to suddenly have an advantage over the United States while they fly over us with their hyper-drive hovercrafts.

I don't understand. I told everyone on this website that photons frequency shift in a gravity field; blue shift if falling in; redshift if climbing out. Time dilation is equivalent to redshift. Time dilation can be measured between two points in a gravity field. Why isn't this enough to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity? Wait, I know why. It's because the physics community is wrangling over a some mathematical details like renormalization and unitary properties. They're missing the forest for the trees. There is too much momentum grinding through string theory and M-theory mathematics.

Ray, why can't you see it? Unification between QM and GR can be rephrased as the relationship between gravity and light. Can you see this?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 15, 2010 @ 18:21 GMT
Hi Jason,

I didn't say that I didn't see your point. Too many people on this blog would miss your point because they miss the point of time, its relationship to 4-D Spacetime geometry, and gravity...

My concern is that the coupling will probably be small (Gravity is a very weak force, and your conversion efficiency will probably be low). You really should look up Chiao on arXiv.org - perhaps you could use the results of one of his papers to reinforce your presentation to Rockwell Collins.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 16, 2010 @ 21:08 GMT
Hi Ray,

I was talking with someone who used to work in the defense contractor industry. Apparently, they want "off the shelf/ready to use technology". My ideas still require a lot of development. I think I'll contact Chiao in January, after I've developed it a little better.

Anyway, on the subject of unifying QM and GR, do you think that it would make sense to create a time dilation operator T[] defined as T[]=t'/t such that it operates on photon frequency?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 16, 2010 @ 21:27 GMT
Hi Jason,

Liouville's theorem gives us a time derivative operator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville%27s_theorem_
(Hamiltonian)

but you almost need something like creation and annihilation time operators:

Good Luck! If you can develop these hovercars quickly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hover_car

then I won't want to get a flying motorcycle:

http://samsonmotorworks.com/

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 01:14 GMT
Ray,

That's actually helpful; and quite involved.

This time dilation stuff must be incredibly confusing to almost everyone who hears the words. In a very simple explanation, time dilation can be applied to the frequency emitted by the emitter. Since T'/T= gamma or exp^gh/c^2, and the frequency f = 1/T, then it's really simple. Whatever frequency was emitted, the observer will see f' such that f'/f=T/T'=1/gamma, or exp^-gh/c^2.

I was going to mention Time Dilation Threads again. Basically, two points in space, A and B, which have a measureable time dilation between them, can be said to have a time dilation thread between them. That time dilation thread could be an optical waveguide that is long enough to extend down to above an event horizon, or some other gravitational field.

Time Dilations threads AND wave functions have something in common. They are both solutions to the Hamiltonian. The Schrodinger equation is the quantum version of the Hamiltonian. By this reasoning, both space-time and quantum mechanics must be comprised of the same "thing". That "thing" is characterized by its Hamiltonian properties. By that logic, Time dilation threads and wave functions must be related.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 03:27 GMT
Dear Ray,

On the tractor beam, this is where we stand. Time dilation, represented as T_D=T'/T=1+gh/c^2 is closely related to a gravitational potential U=mV, where V=gh.

My idea goes like this. Every particle in your body of mass m consists of a tangled mesh of Time Dilation Threads; quantum physicists would call these threads wave functions. Photon energy is somewhere in thos wave functions. But these wave functions are connected to the Time Dilation Threads that impose a gravitational potential.

The idea is that time dilation is supposed to induce a frequency shift upon particles of matter. That ongoing frequency shift is supposed to induce a change in momentum, which causes each particle to fall.

Each particle would have at least one, possibly several, Time dilation threads passing through it.

The tractor beam is supposed to generate and emit shift photons. Shift photons transition from a high frequency to a low frequency, rapidly and repeatedly. The idea is that shift photons would induce a Time Dilation field which would, in turn, create a gravity field.

If it works, we can build an Alcubierre hyperdrive; tractor beam, repulsion beam, antigravity vehicles. If the experiment works, it would begin a new age equivalent to the industrial revolution. It would usher in the age of the hyper-drive. If this experiment works, there is a possibility that closely held physics principles could be challenged and overcome; like the Uncertainty Principle and conservation of energy.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 06:09 GMT
Having thought it over, the significance of gravity is becoming apparent. When electrons are ejected out of the valence band, and into the conduction band, they leave behind a hole of opposite charge. That hole has similar, but somewhat different properties from the electron. Furthermore, they attract as opposite charges would.

Gravity has to be the anti-energy. At the moment of the Big Bang, don't ask me how, but, a Big Bang's worth of energy was extracted from space-time, leaving behind an equivalent amount of gravitational (negative energy). The familiar equation

$F = ma$

can also be written as the gradient of the potential energy. So what is the gradient between positive energy and negative energy? Well that's our gravity field. This negative gravitational energy distributes according to the Einstein Equations and Newton's law.

It's that simple. The mystery of gravity is solved. Gravity is just the negative energy that distributes differently in space-time.

Does anyone dispute this?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 14:23 GMT
Hi Jason,

Interesting perspective - I'll have to think on it some.

This sounds like a reinterpretation of the Free Lunch Hypothesis - the Universe arose from an Uncertainty Principle fluctuation and the net sum of all energies is zero - gravitational fields are always attractive, and thus negative energy; whereas particles are positive energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe#Fre
e-lunch_interpretation

Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Is gravity attractive because that was the only way to balance energy? Or were the gravitational symmetries always defined to be attractive, and was thus used to balance energy?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 18:29 GMT
Hi Ray,

I think it's up to the interpretation of the reader to decide between an Uncertainty fluctuation or an act of God. I prefer an act of God. I take delight in the little jewels of physics I keep finding, like this latest one.

I noticed an asymmetric symmetry between gravity and energy; it is beautiful beyond imagination. Space-time is the mirror; gravity is the reflection of energy. Yet, these forces are very different in their manifestation. Photons and light are described by Maxwell's equations, QM and frequency. But the anti-energy (gravity) is described by Newtonian gravity, the Einstein equations and frequency shift/time dilation.

I keep feeling, almost hearing, that the experiment I want to try ... will work. There is a concept I'm trying to understand, but I'm having trouble articulating it. I told you about the idea of creating shift photons using 8 or so different frequencies that step sown like a staircase. 900MHz, 800MHz, 700MHz, ...200MHz, 100Mhz. The duration of each is period of the lowest frequency. I used N=8 frequencies of duration T = 1/lowest frequency. But there is way to write the derivation in some mathematically elegant way that says, as N-->infinity, and ... then the staircase configuration will transform into a time dilation field which is, in effect, a gravity field.

This will be the door that opens to future technology; anti-gravity, hyper-drive, etc... It will lead to a head-on collision with conservation of energy and the Uncertainty Principle.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 20:11 GMT
Hi Jason, Ray.

No I don't dispute it Jason, in fact if you'd like to see something similar but looking at more quantum detail I think it was here; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010 You should also have seen the topological diagram in the paper I think you read a while ago; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

With regard to frequency shifting and dilation between inertial frames you should also enjoy the short video I also just posted for Georgina, link below.

Of course before 'The mystery of gravity is solved'. ("Gravity is just the negative energy that distributes differently in space-time"), you'd need to find the same 'real' definitions and qualities of "energy" and "space time" that everyone else is looking for!

For me energy is essentially motion, which also allows inertial energy (gyroscopics), but motion of what? and space-time is a 'real' effect of the real 'what' substance above. Logically we need a dark energy condensate, of a medium at a scale below 'mass' but with the equivalent of dielectric qualities, but we have to be very careful saying so as the Spanish inquisition could suddenly appear to behead us for believing in non pagan entities!

Let me know if you understand the video. Keep a look out for the short green and red strings of photons getting dilated/contacted and stretched.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 17, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
Hi Peter,

I like your video. I'll have to think about it to discover deeper meaning. Gravity as the anti-energy would explain the origin of the Big Bang. First their was light. Next, came the particles. Particles have motion. My argument is that energy is E=hf which is the photon; motion emerges from matter, from particles. Do you see what mean?

Infinitely many spaces in motion, in the quasi-existent wave-function sense, has to be true. The eigenstates are there. Whether or not anything occupies that eigenstate is a matter of observation.

I recently called the defense contractor Rockwell Collins. I think if there was a Spanish Inquisition, I would be undergoing water boarding torture right now. In truth, I think I lost them after I said, "It's all about time dilation bla bla bla bla...."

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 18, 2010 @ 22:26 GMT
I just watched a video from the Wikileaks.org website; http://www.collateralmurder.com/

I saw a group of men holding AK-45's and an RPG; one of them had a camera or a holster, I couldn't tell. His name was Saaed. The group was shot up by US forces. Saaed was wounded. He gets on his cell phone and calls his friends for help. A minivan rolls up and his friends jump out to help Saaed. US forces open fire on the minivan. When ground forces arrive, they find two wounded children in the minivan.

Among those in the international community, I ask this: what kind of moron takes their kids into a battlefield? A battlefield is where PEOPLE DIE!!!!! Battlefield medivacs has a red cross on the side that is a big target.

Here is my point: if you're going into a combat environment,

DON'T BRING YOUR KIDS!!!!!!!!! THEY CAN BE HURT OR KILLED!!!!

Is this acceptable in the rest of the world?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 19, 2010 @ 02:06 GMT
No Jason.

You always have to look at the bigger picture.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 19, 2010 @ 11:54 GMT
Personally, I wouldn't hang out with Taliban trash like Saaed did. From the point of view of his buddies who got the phone call, tell me Georgina: what bigger picture would justify driving into a battlefield with your kids?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 19, 2010 @ 12:13 GMT
No ........ARMS , WEAPONS DIFFERENCES,MONNEY,BORDERS AND FRONTIERS...DEDICATED TO DISAPPEAR IN TIMES SPACE EVOLUTION..........FORTUNALLY FOR HUMANITY AND UNIVERSALITY.

PEACE AND LOVE OF COURSE...............BETTER THAN FIGHT AND STUPIDITIES .....

It exists bad and good people evrywhere...........in all countries, religions,cultures,systems.....the real secret is to differenciate this bad of the well.

The rest is vain.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Reason McLucus wrote on Dec. 19, 2010 @ 01:03 GMT
"Dark" is a psychological term rather than a physical term. Invisible matter would not have to be "dark" to be difficult to see. Black objects may not be visible directly, but they can be detected when they pass between as source of light and an observer.

Transparent objects can be much harder to detect. For example, we cannot tell by looking at a closed jar whether the interior ontains air or the interior is a vacuum.

Sometimes transparent objects can be detected visually by slight modifications in the light that passes through them. Perhaps the apparent red shift in light from distant objects could result from passage through some form of transparent matter such as an aether.

Hubble images showing some galaxies moving toward each other would imply that some distant galaxies should be moving toward earth and any motion away from earth should be not uniform. A uniform red shift implies that it results from a characteristic of space rather than motion.

report post as inappropriate

United Physics replied on Dec. 22, 2010 @ 17:37 GMT
R. McLucus. Thank you for your comment. The red shift definitely relates to the increased transparency/invisiblity of space. It is related to magnification, and to the increasingly invisible/transparent space when you stand up and look downwards. I have been saying this on here for quite some time. The physicists here are very resistant to new ideas.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I honestly can't find your post. I'll bet it was an interesting post, too.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 04:46 GMT

I glad that I'm not the only one having difficulty finding the most recent posts. If each post were to be given a number and if each response in the the thread also was numbered, it would be much easier to find the latest entries. For example, your latest post: Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT was the 29th response to the 9th post. If it were to be labeled 9.29 or something similar, one would be able to go right to your response. Some of these blogs have quite a few posts and threads and it becomes quite tedious to keep up with some of the communications.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 05:17 GMT
Dan,

I like that idea. I guess it's up to the website administrator. If they have the time, that would be a great help. Even just knowning which post is a big help.

report post as inappropriate

Goergina Parry replied on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 13:03 GMT
Jason,

With respect (and happy New year), what are you talking about? What inanimate object can collapse a wave function ? What inanimate object has awareness of space time?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 16:25 GMT
Georgina,

Collapsing the wave-function is a fancy way of saying: the particle is detected at some location Delta x. A computer program can be written to detect a particle. If detected, send a fax to the machine operator that says: particle detected.

report post as inappropriate

georgina Parry replied on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 05:25 GMT
Yes Jason,

and your point is what exactly?

The particle is detected- then someone becomes aware of the detection. The data only then exists in their present.

A reconstruction of reality is formed from that data, in which the particle occupied the position detected. Which is now something that has formerly existed no longer a current object reality.

It is no longer a probability but a fact about a former reality so the (probability) wave function can be said to have collapsed. The wave function collapses when an image reality -reconstruction- is formed using received data. It becomes real because it is experienced as real.Imo.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 4, 2011 @ 11:55 GMT
Georgina

I agree the very existence of a receiver means the wave function has 'done it's job' (collapse always was a poor term) and it's energy been converted to some other 'language', or just heat.

tum-physics-a327247

But I wouldn't want to distract you from the mechanistic reality of the difference between event and perception. I refer in my Essay (now posted!) to how Schrodinger sphere and light cones surfaces are not smooth, reach different points at different times, and indeed each point on them does not contain the exact same signal (we'd both see a car crash from different angles).

I look forward top your essay. You need to read mine slowly and carefully for the picture of the complete model to form in your mind. I look forward to your comments.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 00:21 GMT
Averaging inertia and gravity would equally expand and contract space.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 00:34 GMT
Averaging inertia and gravity equally expands and contracts space, so space then manifests in/as the middle/typical distance. Is this not feasible and also theoretically true? Isn't this what Einstein's theory lacks?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 6, 2011 @ 01:07 GMT
Quantum gravity requires the fundamental averaging of both gravity and inertia.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2018 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear FQXI.org Members,

Theoretical physicists must be completely wrong when they persist in averring that the Universe is somehow composed of finite amounts of different forms of visible and invisible matter that could be immersed in empty space. All matter has a visible surface, and the only logical way this could come about would be if there were only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate