At first I thought that Oppenheim and Wehner were attempting optimal obfuscation, but then you pointed out that they are transposing a quantum problem into a game theory framework. It seems that the key to what's going on is the following statement:
"...for any theory it would be Bob's best interest to perform measurements which are very compatible and have weak uncertainty relations..."
I interpret this to mean that if Alice is cooking up precise states of momentum, Bob is best not to be focusing on the most precise position measurements. Am I missing the point here?
They then go on to say that, if Bob is tuning his system for a certain type of measurement, that Alice can 'steer' the system to optimize Bob's results.
With respect to the 0.75 probability for classical vs. 0.85 probability for quantum mechanics, this appears to be due to the possible 'peaking' of the distribution of quantum eigenstates versus a more distributed spread over all possible classical states (a continuum). That is, Alice can send 'sharper' packets than would be the case classically. Again, am I missing the point?
Florin, thanks again for another excellent presentation, and your patience in answering all questions. I look forward to your response. I'm interested in this topic but it may require a few questions for me to get in sync.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
Florin,
My point was not that they would collaborate, but the physical reasoning behind how they would collaborate. I think that your first paragraph confirms my understanding of the issues.
I'm a little less clear on the classical/quantum -- .75/.85 probabilities and the reasoning behind these. I still believe that it's essentially the 'peaking' of quantum probabilities at eigenstates versus the continuous spear for classical object's states. I suspect it provides 'better steering'.
Also I found your use of 'collapsing the wave function' in your hypothetical race very interesting. I basically do not believe in 'collapse of the wave function' and will give some thought to your analogy.
Florin, I'm also curious about your remark:
"But how can one reason meaningfully over unphysical situations? [the answer] Discuss QM and hypothetical theories in the language of information and game theory."
What exactly are you referring to as 'unphysical'?
Along these lines, I am more and more convinced that no one really understands what 'information' is. Some big name physicists treat information as if it is particles. Information is NOT a particle! (This is not a criticism of Shannon's info theory, only an observation on our understanding of information in a physical world.) In this sense I find it interesting that the use of 'unphysical' information can potentially shed light on 'unphysical' physics, whatever you mean by that term. (I don't disagree that such change of perspective is useful.)
Finally, are the two assumptions here that:
1. local realism has no meaning
2. entanglement is a proven fact
or is some version of 'hidden variable' still in the offing?
Thanks for you answers.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
PS: Florin - do you plan to enter the analog/digital essay contest?
PPS: John - I'm enjoying your comments and looking forward to your essay.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 00:55 GMT
Dr. Klingman,
"Some big name physicists treat information as if it is particles. Information is NOT a particle!"
I agree firmly with this statement. I do not assume that you agree with how I would extend my own objection: I think the problem of misrepresenting physical states as 'information' on a par with the meaningful information available for use directly by our intelligence was encouraged by Boltzmann's interpretation of entropy.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 01:07 GMT
Dr. Klingman,
I should have made it clear that I consider Boltzmann's interpretation of entroy to be incorrectly interpreted for its fundamental meaning. It is the probability appearing part that is emphasized, but, I see the role of Boltzmann's constant as not given its appropriate place in establishing the meaning of his formula for entropy. I guess demonstrating that is my challenge for sometime in the future.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 03:01 GMT
James,
I'm still sorting out entropy in my own model, so I will look forward to anything you have to say about it.
By the way, I just finished Roger Penrose's "Cycles of Time", which was apparently motivated by the fact that FLRW models of a general relativistic universe fail to satisfy his Second Law of Thermodynamics criterion of low initial entropy. He attempts to design a cyclical universe such that as one ends up, it does so in a condition that the next universe will begin with low entropy.
I am against all such models that depend on specific conditions occurring 'before' the big bang (whatever that means) but I had not realized that all FLRW models had this problem. As it turns out, my model begins with extremely low entropy, and is apparently (?) the only model that does so.
Therefore I'll be bringing myself more uptodate on entropy issues.
I'm looking forward to contributing my essay and also to reading yours.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
John,
I knew that Alice is called something, I just did not know she was called a "rabbit". Thanks for pointing that out.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 14:23 GMT
Edwin,
By unphysical I meant theories which are not confirmed by nature: a PR box, and the whole range of the continuum intermediate theories besides classical and quantum mechanics which are singled out as a C* theory. We can imagine them, but nature does not agree with them. The same way we can imagine space times geometries with 123 space and 1 time dimension. We can reason about them, but they are not physical.
I would like to enter the contest, but I have some strong doubts. The basic problem of "is nature digital or continous?" was solved by Alain Connes in his non-commutative geometry approach. So I know that the answer is "both", but to explain it, while interesting, it would not be in the area I have wored on myself and this would violate one of the contest rules. Therefore I keep searching for an appropiate sub-topic and it I would find it, I will enter the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Are you refering to the "concentric circles" in WMAP's data? I'm also not a fan of "structure" occuring before the Big Bang. My interpretation is that we may have had close-packing spheres (similar to Causal Dynamical Triangulation and Steve's theory?) in that tiny fraction of a second between the Big Bang and Inflation. If so, then 3-D close-packing forms a Face Centered Cubic (CDT-like?) direct lattice, and a Body Centered Cubic (String/Membrane-like?) reciprocal lattice.
To the question of particles being information, I fundamentally agree. Every particle represents a set of quantum numbers. Although some of these "quantum numbers" may seem continuous, that is due to the properties of direct vs. reciprocal lattices and scales, and the resultant conflict of discrete vs. analog properties.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 21:20 GMT
Lawrence,
What are you trying to evaluate it against in order to judge whether it fits and is therefore in some way real? It can not be causality within the space-time universe. So it must be some other notion of causality perhaps coming from personal experience of a present and assuming that causality is actually occurring in that present, when it is not.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 22:15 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
I'm sorry this last post has needed up in the wrong place again. I should be more careful. When I say what are you trying to evaluate it against I am referring to the wave function.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
...that last post has ended up..I really should be more careful
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 22:41 GMT
The whole point of Florin's post, or the paper he reviews, is that quantum nonlocality has properties which are given by nonsignalling and PR-box structures, but are restricted. This paper illustrates how this restriction is due to the uncertainty principle. The more general question to then ask is whether this is completely the case for all quantum systems, in particular quantum gravity.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT
Dr. Klingman,
I will write a second essay on entropy in pdf and add it to my website. Responding here in message form is more challenging; but, I have been thinking it over and think that I can do it. First, it is probably more respectful of your time to say a few things and then see if I should continue here.
1. Thermodynamic entropy is not a property of state. A system in thermodynamic equilibrium does not have thermodynamic entropy. Rather, thermodynamic entroopy is a measure of a property involved is a process that occurs between two different equilibrium states that are allowed to come to a new single combined equilibrium state. Once that new state of equilibrium is achieved, that state no longer has thermodynamic entropy.
2. Boltzmann's constant is the result of reducing a true thermodynamic constant, the universal gas constant, down to a theoretical property of a single molecule. The importance of this is that Boltzmann's interpretation of entropy does use his own constant. That causes his new interpretation of entropy to remain connected to the macroscopic interpretation of thermodynamic entropy. In other words, the meaning of his interpretation is properly understood by recognizing that his own constant links his interpretation to a process and not to a state property. I can explain what I believe his definition actually represents. My answer is not a state property.
Since you are reviewing thermodynamics from the point of view of your own theory, I will pause here to see if there is any attraction for you in these two points that I have made? I can explain the bases for each claim I make if there is interest. I have much more I can say.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 23:43 GMT
Lawrence,
Let us know when you have figured it out. Have read Florin's post but stopped understanding it after the first few paragraphs.
Is it saying that non locality could be an artifact of the approach itself, which would be more serious than just non simultaneous detections and other loopholes? Or something else?
I like the last paragraph as it highlights the possibility that -far simpler- ways might be found to do the same things and get the same out comes.
The middle part makes me wonder where the GPS and ironing board have got to though.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Georgina,
This "steering" stuff has to do, I think, with choosing variables that are share minimal relationships or are unrelated.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 00:23 GMT
To Florin, Ray, James:
Florin,
I suspected the PR box was what you meant, but one never knows. I hope you do find a reasonable sub-topic to address. We would all welcome your essay.
Would you address the following: Is it assumed here (this blog) that local realism has no meaning, and that entanglement is a proven fact, or is some version of 'hidden variable' still in the offing? These issues are not settled, as far as I'm concerned.
Ray,
I finished Penrose's book a few weeks ago, and I just came across his WMAP 'circles' that he is treating as evidence of a 'before the big bang' event. I haven't had time to analyze this yet, but I am in principle opposed to such explanations. I've just finished Yau's book on Calabi-Yau manifolds, and understand many things that I did not before. Most of these support my model, so I'm working on them now.
I understood your statement above to be that you agree with me that "information is NOT a particle."
Particles may 'carry' information (mass, spin, charge) but information does not exist in particulate form. In other words, information is not a physical entity, like charge, mass, spin. It is 'about' physical entities and may be encoded with physical entities, but it is not an entity with physical characteristics. It is basically a measure of coding, expressible in bits. Bits have no mass, charge or spin.
I don't mean to beat that horse to death, but some popular treatments of information falling into black holes make statements that are very misleading in my opinion.
James,
Entropy, like information, is a measure, not an entity. I think we are in agreement here. I believe that you say this in both of your paragraphs. As for the other specific statements that you make, I need more time to think about them. Entropy is different in physics and in information theory; it's been awhile since I studied entropy in detail, and at the moment I am absorbing a lot of new info on Calabi-Yau manifolds and trying to apply it to my theory.
I believe that information and entropy, being non-physical, but implicitly linked to the physical, confuse a lot of people. Just as Feynman said 'No one understands quantum mechanics', some one on another fqxi blog said 'No one understands information'. I wouldn't argue either point.
The next book on my list is Anton Zeilinger's book on entanglement, and in order to understand it I may have to resolve some of these issues. I would be happy to read your pdf. Please provide a link when it's ready.
Thanks all for your comments.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 00:29 GMT
Steering involves how you can take a certain state and use it to prepare by entanglement another state. A quantum teleporation is basically of this sort. Alice has a state A and Bob has a state B, which are first entangled. Then Alice can by various means take another state, entangle it to her state and convert Bob's state into this other state. This is a form of steering.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 00:46 GMT
Dr. Klingman, Georgina;
DrK: "Entropy, like information, is a measure, not an entity. I think we are in agreement here."
From my perspective this response is major. The standard treatment of thermodynamic entropy has always been that it is a property of state. I will write that essay and provide the link. Afterwards, I think I may explain to Georgia why I once said something to the effect that "Leo Szilard's solution to Maxwell's Demon is not correct".
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 01:04 GMT
Jason,
thank you. I'm not sure it isn't all overcomplicated speculation as it isn't even clear that there is entanglement because of problems in determining simultaneously produced particles and other loopholes of experimental accuracy.
I don't think I'm going to try to understand this when I have only just got to grips with photons not behaving like socks.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 01:30 GMT
John Merryman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 02:32 GMT
Edwin,
A thought bubble on this one:
"'No one understands information'"
Information is inherently digital. Energy is inherently analog.
Information is distinctions. Whether gradients, divisions, classifications, comparisons, it is a judgement.
Energy, as a physical effect, requires some transfer and thus connection, from one state, level, or field to another.
Information is static, while energy is dynamic. If information is dynamic, then it is blurred and thus uncertain. Energy is force or motion that would be lost in a truly static condition.
Energy creates information. Information defines energy. One way to consider this point is in the social, legal and economic realms, where laws seem immutable foundations of functioning society and markets, until destabilizing energies build up, or otherwise emerge and break down old structures and create new ones.
Information aspires to ideals. Energy manifests essentials. Top down, vs. bottom up.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 05:06 GMT
Edwin,
I was reading this:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/paradox
ical-truth/
And a further delineation between energy and information occurred. Information can be paradoxical, but energy can't.
Because it is necessarily static, we build information models of energy that are exponentially precise, but fail to capture the inherent dynamic of energy and only result in paradoxes. Consider the original, Zeno's Paradox:
Peter Lynds resolved this some years ago by pointing out that a dimensionless point is a contradiction. If it has no dimension, it doesn't exist, so the distance cannot be infinitely divided.
The point I would make is that energy does not care about distinctions. If the car is moving from A to B, it doesn't matter if the distance can be infinitely divided, the car will travel the second half as rapidly as the first half. If you add units of measure together, you don't get more units of the same size, but fewer larger ones. The marks between them are being erased.
If I make the statement that: This statement is false. It is an informational contradiction, but does it have an application outside its own self reference? Is it any more physically real than an Escher waterfall?
Consider Schrodinger's Cat: The informational assumption is that the quantum state is in either one position or the other, but what if the underlaying situation is fundamentally fuzzy? The atom shedding the electron is considered an instantaneous event, but what if it's fuzzy, that a quanta is actually the smallest measure of energy and not an irreducible unit? Then the collapse is something like the straw breaking the camel's back, a tipping point, rather than the entirety of the transfer?
It seems that since physics views information as fundamental, such that it tells energy what to do, then reality becomes subservient to statistics, rather than statistics being a model of reality.
The tipping point, the tripping of the detectors, since it is the observable information, is the basis of energy and so the photon becomes this irreducible particle of light that collapses out of the statistical wave function.
We can only conceive of this underlaying reality/energy, in terms of observable information, the static digitized cresting of the waves, tipping points, objects bouncing against one another, but from them, we have to deduce the continuity of which they are reflections.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 05:12 GMT
John,
Nice thought processes. Information is digital, unless it's passed through a high pass filter which removes some of the distinctiveness.
Georgina,
From some of the descriptions of steering,
L:"Then Alice can by various means take another state, entangle it to her state and convert Bob's state into this other state. ", it just vaguely sounds like the way I process physics information in my mind. Of course that is completely useless information to anyone else. But it always has to do with asking a better question.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Oops! I misunderstood you. Particles carry information, and in that sense, are information, IMHO. If you are talking about entropic gravity such as Verlinde's being deduced from the entropic-information properties of Black Holes, then I would say that I disagree with Verlinde. I expect relativistic gravity to be an apparently analog projection of quantum gravity (such as the ideas in my book combined with the properties of scales). Although I am proposing a different gravitational idea from your "magnetic gravity = C", your idea makes more sense than Verlinde's - I'm amazed that he got two million euros to advance his idea - I guess he was in the right place at the right time...
John said "Information is inherently digital. Energy is inherently analog." These apparent differences are due to the properties of scales. We have a large-scale boundary from the relativistic speed-of-light scale limit, and we have a small-scale boundary from the quantum Planck scale limit. Scales lead to the differences between particles/discrete/fermions/kissing spheres vs. waves/continuous/bosons/strings. Neither is right and neither is wrong - both are absolutely necessary to insure the stability of our scales.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 15:30 GMT
Verlinde ??? 2 millions for this copy, interesting,
Wawwww VIVA EL SCIENCES COMMUNITY wawwwwwww and Lubos also No the comic.
Well ROYAL SOCIETY WHERE ARE YOU ????? Prof Atkins and Prof Penrose,WHERE ARE YOU ????
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Steve,
Perhaps you should go to grad school at Utrect or Amsterdam...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 15:50 GMT
In fact it's just a pub from some Universities from holland and others .And Hooft who says to Doc what the Lubos stringly universe has some correlations with the entropy ahahahah well .
A circus , a real circus.
It's even not a EPR correlation, NO even not .Copenaghen LAUGS STILL AND ALWAYS
Is there a rational community about our foundamentals, if yes, come here please?
Because if the gravity is not a foundamental interaction, thus of course I am the queen of England,and Mickey Mouse exists really.
Steve who loves the rationalism of Copenaghen .
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 16:10 GMT
AHAHA ray yes of course, yes of course .....
let's be rational please if it's possible.We speak about the difference between the stupidities and COPENAGHEN AND MY FRIEND BORH .
But I doubt really,it's not that you are not competent or skilling, no you are an interestinbg person, it's just that you do not understand the whole and thus the real details.You insert this and that there and here....any sense for the rationalists, sorry I am frank.
You play indeed, you have fun, simply.
Like some of your friends.But Ray,Dr Cosmic Ray,our laws are our laws and our eqautions are our eqautions.Do you think what the governments are going to find extradimensions, or a method to travel in time.Or perhaps to pass the light speed also no ??? you think that the Earth can at this momment puts its monney in the ocean of stupidities and ironies.
THE SCEINCES AND THE ACTULAL STATE OF OUR EARTH IS NOT A PLAY LIKE YOU SAY,we have responsabilities like a scientist , an accelerator yes ...to find Higgs and extradimensions NO !!!! Be sure the rationalists exist.
Strings,MWI,multiverses, M theory or K...,extradimensions, tachyons, higgs,......all that is a pure joke for the rationalists, be sure Mr the Ph D , like what it's not always necessary to have the certifiates.
Well.
Can we have here serious discussions about our foundamentals and its ^proportionlities ????
The uncertainty principle do not stipulate that the hidden variables are bizares or this or that,no in fact it's just a lack of evolution and perception of our system .But the system is the system.
In fact it's sad that people focus on false roads.In fact you search in all directions, on the other side the fractal is towards the Plnack scale and we know the direction of fractalization of mass and its fields of energy.
Do you understand really that the Energy at this Planck scale, this ultim main coded sphere, the main volume, is the maximum entropy ....how could yu thus interpret the localities if the entropy is not understood.
It's the real meaning of E=mc².All has the same maximum E more we go towards this main sphere, the biggest volume of the fractal.
In fact you use equations but you do not understand their real and spiritual meanings.
E and m and c are the same dear Dr Cosmic Ray,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 18:13 GMT
Ray,
I realize energy and information, analog and digital, are opposite sides of the same coin and thus fundamental to the whole, but are they the same thing? I was trying to delineate how they are different. The yin from the yang.
This is a simple effort of understanding on my part, but it seems to me that the universe would make more sense if such energies as light might be better understood as analog, rather than digital.
This was dismissed a hundred years ago because there is no medium for light to travel through as a wave, but possibly neither wave or particle are concepts which accurately capture its qualities. Possibly both are consequences of the methods used to measure it.
As such, the energy that is light and the information which we perceive as defining it would not be the same thing. Even if simply because that information is not complete.
Also, how would you have information that is both precise and dynamic? Essentially the uncertainty principle paradox of position vs. momentum. Does this mean the underlaying energy is paradoxical, or that different properties of information contradict one another?
It seems to me that energy and information have fundamental differences, even if they are opposite sides of the same coin.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 18:26 GMT
the duality in fact is just due to TWO MAIN SENSE OF ROTATION......the waves and particules are just different in their sense of rot.
Light and mass ...stability or linearity ,
the informations are correlated and encoded in the mass with a main chAngement of sense.
A wave and a particule are the same but different in their rotations!!!!
Light and mass are same .....the evolution permits the rest.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi John,
I think it is similar to Solid State Physics, but the scales are more extreme. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_lattice
In Solid State physics, regular arrays of atoms (particles) lead to interesting wave-like quasi-particle (phonon) effects.
In one scale extreme, we have something like Causal Dynamical Triangulation, which is essentialy a sub-quantum FCC lattice (or the multidimensional equivalent thereof). I think of this extremum as representing particles and fermions.
In the other scale extreme, we have something like Cosmic Strings, which is essentially a super-cosmic BCC lattice (or the multidimensional equivalent thereof). I think of this extremum as representing waves and bosons.
It is interesting that photons are "born" as a quantum event between two distinct energy levels, and yet they seem to be red-shifted continuously in a gravitational field. Either something is fundamentally different between light and gravity, or the gravitons operate at such a weak scale (weakened by the inverse of Dirac's Large Number, 10^(-40)) that their effects seem continuous - even though they are still discrete.
In this scenario, Supersymmetry (SUSY) plays the same role in Particle Physics as a Fourier Transform does in Solid State Physics. SUSY takes us back and forth between fermions and bosons, between particles and waves, between digital and analog... Neither view is 100% correct, and neither view is 100% wrong. The specific application must be considered. If I say anymore, then I'll completely give away my essay ideas...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi John,
I wanted to share more ideas...
Jacques Distler criticized Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE because it wasn't framed properly, and thus failed the Coleman-Mandula theorem. If we try to place all fermions and bosinos (all spin-1/2) in one E8 representation, and all bosons and sfermions (all spin-0 or 1) in a dual E8* representation, then this might satisfy Coleman-Mandula (and Distler's biggest problem with Lisi's idea) AND help explain this paradox between digital vs analog. IMHO, the reciprocal/dual representation doubles the effective number of dimensons (3-D space is paired up with 3-D momentum, scalar time is paired up with scalar Energy, etc...), thus taking a minimum 8-D E8 into a minimum 16-D E8xE8*.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Ray,
"It is interesting that photons are "born" as a quantum event between two distinct energy levels, and yet they seem to be red-shifted continuously in a gravitational field."
May I ask a question I've been posing lately, but haven't had a response: Is a photon an irreducible quantity of light, or the smallest measurable quantity of light?
It seems that every example of how it's tested and expressed, that it is the latter, but the general assumption among physicists seem to translate as the former.
Since light is also redshifted proportional to cosmic distances, if it is in fact the latter, it would explain this redshift as a natural consequence of having coalesced out of an increasingly diffuse field of light.
Otherwise the assumption that these are irreducible units requires the source to actually be receding to cause redshift and in order to support this Big Bang cosmology, increasingly fantastical fixes have to be applied, from the requirement of Inflation to explain why the background radiation is so smooth, to dark energy, to explain why the redshift reflects a cosmological constant, an idea originally proposed to support a flat universe. A fact which has been observed in studies of the CMBR, by WMAP and COBE.
Not to mention the problem of assuming an expanding universe defined by a stable speed of light. What extradimensional geometry determines C?
Here is a recent observation that some additional fix will have to be conjured up to explain away:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101125_galaxies.
htm
On the other hand, we could consider photons as just the smallest measurable quantity, that which trips an electron to a higher energy level and conversely the smallest amount that can be shed by an atom, but with this as a tipping point and not an irreducible unit. Then redshift would simply be a function of it taking longer for the energy to build up to this tipping point, thus more space between one "photon" and the next.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi John,
I prefer to think of a photon as a single quantum of light. That way, E=h*nu makes sense as a single frequency, whereas a bundle that adds up to that energy would definitely complicate that interpretation. Of course, photons are bosons, so we could - in theory - have a very large number of photons in the identical state. IMHO, "beam-spliters" must send (more-or-less) every other photon in a different direction.
The Relativistic Doppler effect is a "simple geometric" effect (that is complicated by a Lorentz transform) that doesn't seem to require a coupling between photons and gravitons (and a coupling between photons and spacetime sounds odd unless "the Higgs" or "ghost loops" represents "drag" between the photon and the spacetime frame?).
However, the redshift of light by a neutron star's gravitational well seems to require a coupling (such as a direct Feynman diagram or an indirect coupling between an electron's spin and spacetime's curvature?) between photons and gravitons.
Whether a property seems to be digital or analog seems to depend on which scale is probed.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 21:56 GMT
Hi Ray,
If the graviton particle exists, then how does it produce time dilation effects? Time dilation occurs between an emitter and an observer. Yet a graviton, like other point particles, is just a point.
If a graviton really did exist, shouldn't time dilation be included within its very nature?
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Hi Jason,
Is time dilation tied into the interaction between a photon and a graviton? Or between a photon and the spacetime frame (Higgs, ghost loops)? I think that Lawrence has made some progress on understanding time.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
A gauge particle, where we will treat the graviton as gauge-like here, can be thought of as defining the vacuum with virtual particles. So the vacuum has a these particles which have some uncertainty in their momentum Δp so that Δp Δq = ħ/2. Now assume this virtual quanta couples to two real particles. Then momentum of one real particle can change k --> k + Δp and the other can change by k --> k – Δp. If these who particles are charged particles they have a change in momentum by their interaction by the electrogmagnetic field. This Δp uncertainty fluctuation then has been a conduit for the interaction. The momentum operator in gauge theory is a covariant form p – ieA and the vector potential in this case is evaluate between states of the field and the particles --- in QED they are electrons.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 23:56 GMT
Ray,
Doesn't it strike you as a problem that we have an enormously patchwork cosmology that will likely need much larger patches, should the James Webb telescope ever come on line and continue to find ever more distant and older galaxies, as the article I referred to observes, in order to support a concept about light which is very much a conceptual mystery in the first place? That of emergence from a statistical cloud.
Why do photons have to be particles, or even bunches of (I suppose) particles? Why can it not be an analog transmission? The ways in which light interacts with atomic matter might be described and measured as quanta, but couldn't that effect as easily be a consequence of how the atom absorbs energy, than entirely a property of the light?
Obviously quantum theory is a jungle into which I only wander in trepidation, but if there are as many fantastical patches being applied to the microcosmic, as there are to the macrocosmic, it's no wonder it is so arcane.
As 'simple geometry,' the Doppler effect works because the frame is stable and the source is moving in that frame. It is not about the frame being stretched. When the Big Bang was first proposed, it was assumed to be a simple geometric effect of the other galaxies moving away from ours. The problem was that this redshift was proportional to distance, such that it appeared that our galaxy had to be at the middle of the universe. The theory was then changed to say that space itself is expanding and every point appears as its own center of the universe. The fact remains though, that lightspeed is our only constant measure of such volume and distance as exists between galaxies, yet it is presumed to remain constant, while the universe expands. So what extra-dimensional geometry is it that determines lightspeed, if the space we otherwise measure is not constant?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 00:39 GMT
Time dilation is an observer effect between relativistic mass points, not an independently real physical phenomenon. Hypothetical gravitons, like all energy exchange particles (bosons) are massless; like photons, they also travel at the speed of light and therefore also like photons do not experience time dilation.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 01:10 GMT
Hi John,
The other day I was goofing off and said "What is the aether? It is that "thing" that we don't understand about the propagation of electromagnetic waves through space and time. It is the "vacuum", "strings/branes", "tachyons/Higgs", "quantum gravity" and the tooth fairy. The aether doesn't "exist", but we have many oddball ad-hoc phenomena that are (or may be) related to it."
Seriously though, there is stuff that we don't understand...
Our speed-of-light limit represents our large-scale limitation - this limit shields the effects of super-cosmic-scaled quantum gravity from us. Similarly, our Planck scale limit represents our small-scale limitation - this limit shields the effects of sub-quantum Higgs (and/or the vacuum and/or tachyons) from us. Our existance seems compatible with a fractal fragment of an infinite Cantor set, but how can we ever understand it if scales "blind" us from the true and complete reality? I don't claim to be a prophet who sees things that no one else sees - I'm simply trying to build a complete and consistent framework for a TOE.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT
Tom,
T:"photons, they also travel at the speed of light and therefore also like photons do not experience time dilation."
Photons do experience time dilation. That is what causes their frequency to shift when the climb out of a gravity well or fall into a gravity well. If that were not true, then conservation of energy would be violated. Admittedly, the frequency shift of light moving between the surface of the earth and a satellite is incredibly difficult to detect, but it's there.
Lawrence,
I only have a minute to respond. The change in momentum that you described as occuring due to a graviton, this approach might be hiding the actual phenomena. By comparison, if the quantum vacuum itself is causing the time dilation, then the change in frequency of light, whose period is T and T', is automatic. Gotta go.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 03:15 GMT
James you write,
"A system in thermodynamic equilibrium does not have thermodynamic entropy."
I completely agree with that, since there is no duration of time that a physical process takes when it is already in equilibrium. Then the system simply 'is'.
Your views on thermodynamic entropy agree well with my results in
Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time'. There I show that thermodynamic entropy ΔS = kνΔt ,where Δt is the duration of time a physical process takes (to be 'manifested') and ν is the 'rate' at which the physical process attains equilibrium (is 'manifested'). In my view, for a physical process to become 'manifested' it must attain equilibrium. So I completely agree with you when you say that entropy is some measure of the transition of a system to an equilibrium state. This measure is related to time, and in my modified definition of entropy it is nothing other that time itself.
Your views on Boltzmann's constant are very interesting and relevant. This gives a new insight into that constant as being the scaling of the universal gas constant from the 'macroscopic' down to the 'molecular'.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
Ray,
I certainly didn't set out to find a theory of anything, but to just try to make sense of this reality I find myself in. After years of peeling away layers of history, religion, philosophy, physics, etc, I seem to find ad hoc arrangements everywhere and the funny thing is, the more ad hoc they are, the stronger and more resilient the belief systems built up around them. It seems a...
view entire post
Ray,
I certainly didn't set out to find a theory of anything, but to just try to make sense of this reality I find myself in. After years of peeling away layers of history, religion, philosophy, physics, etc, I seem to find ad hoc arrangements everywhere and the funny thing is, the more ad hoc they are, the stronger and more resilient the belief systems built up around them. It seems a very deep subconscious impulse is at work, where the process can be very open and hesitant, but as soon as switches get thrown in a particular direction, this feedback loop kicks in and the crowd stampedes, as believers get promoted and doubters get sidelined, or otherwise taken care of.
I think it safe to say that today, one has as much chance of advancing in cosmology by questioning Big Bang theory, as one does of advancing in the Catholic Church by questioning the Holy Trinity.
I myself never considered the idea of doubting it, until I happened to read Hawking's A Brief History of Time, when it first came out, 22 years ago. In it, he made one simple point, on one page: That for the universe to be as stable as it is, expansion has to be as closely balanced by gravitational contraction as possible. And that this was a coincidence of cosmic history. My mind immediately started flashing lights and saying that's a cycle, not a coincidence!!!!! If you already have the expansion being neutralized by contraction, then there is no larger movement towards expansion, because it is cycling. So I've been reading whatever bits of news about cosmology and physics related to it, ever since and that first hunch has yet to let me down. I quickly likened it to Einstein's Cosmological Constant. I recall writing to a cosmologist who wrote an article in Astronomy magazine, mentioning this point. Since the CC was little more than a function in some equation and historical footnote at that point in time, he didn't even recognize that as a counterforce to gravity, it would have to be an expanding effect. So I wasn't surprised when it was discovered that the rate of expansion didn't match what was predicted by Big Bang theory and was eventually compared to the Cosmological Constant. Though this was originally predicted as a requirement for balancing gravity and keeping space flat has been overlooked.
I also thought the Hubble would find evidence of an older universe than Big Bang theory could support, but every observation so far has managed to be squeezed into the timeframe, even though some have been quite a tight fit. I think we will discover in the background radiation evidence of ever more distant galaxies that have been completely redshifted off the visible spectrum and with that recent article at World Science, this seems to be coming closer.
This then was my introduction to not completely trusting what goes on in the physics disciplines. I have to ask myself, when your compatriots are talking 8 or 16 or twenty four dimensional geometry, are they really explaining reality, or have they lost themselves in an enormously complex Rubik's Cube? It seems to me there is an obsession with theoretical precision that willfully ignores the ways that information can become its own trap. As the old saying about expertise goes, one knows more and more about less and less, until one knows absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.
So now I look out across this discipline populated by fiendishly complex math that keeps spitting out the most preposterous concepts, from multiworlds to multiverses and it seems those inside this bubble are as obsessed as any religious fanatic.
One only has to look at the history of science to know that sometimes when the theories spit out an anomaly, it does signify some deeper reality, but often it signifies that the theory has gone off the tracks.
I think we need to re-examine the photon to finally make sense of cosmology and not just keep adding patches every time another hole pops in BBT.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 04:12 GMT
John,
Thanks for the 'bubble'. My guess is that you were being as much poetic as serious. I'm not sure about digital. Probability wave functions carry info, but aren't digital. Also 'static' isn't totally clear to me yet. "Aspiring to ideals" is poetic.
Your best definition, IMO: 'Information is distinctions.'
You say that 'energy creates info' -- that's probably true, but an equation can be solved to create almost infinite information. Hard to nail down the energy there, but it's almost certainly in the act of 'solving' the equation to produce the info. And certainly no constant energy-expended-to-info-produced ratio involved.
Ray,
I believe "Particles carry information, hence are information" is far too simple. --- I do thank you for making me aware of scale invariance. I'll make use of it in my essay.
Part of the problem is that information is all of the things John said and more. An electron is an electron is an electron. However you conceive of an electron, real 'hard' particle or 'effervescent' wave function, it is what it is. Information is harder to nail down. As I initially stated, the treatment of information going into (and coming out of?) black holes has produced what I consider almost nonsense on the part of competent physicists. If it were simple, these bright guys would not have argued for decades over it.
Makes me appreciate Shannon even more.
I stand by my remark that I'm not sure anyone truly understands information.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 06:09 GMT
Ray -- thanks for stating it so clearly and succinctly:
"Seriously though, there is stuff that we don't understand."
That's why there's a 'q' in fqxi.
John -- I believe a big part of the problem arises from the fact that almost nothing new has happened in particle physics for forty years. Particle physicists can't just quit and go home. One thing they can do is say the same old stuff in new ways, and that typically means new math, so the math becomes more abstract and abstruse. This of course appeals immensely to certain minds (nothing wrong with that) but this leads, in my opinion, away from physical intuition, which, again my opinion, has guided the greatest physicists, and into an abstract math world that, in the minds of some, actually produces physical reality.
Some relief may be appearing in cosmology where new physics is actually being discovered, versus LHC where it's not, so far. Unfortunately the whole thing is contaminated with ideas that depend on the Higgs, and on SUSY partners actually existing, and I predict neither does, and have been predicting this since 2006.
I've learned to read the titles in Physical Review Letters: If the title of the paper is "Search for [fill in the blank]" you needn't read the paper. They didn't find it.
Most of quantum field theory evolved based on scattering experiments, when we were trying to figure out 'what's there?' My belief is that the particle zoo is fully populated: photons, neutrinos, electrons, and quarks, and resonant combinations thereof.
Eventually, after no Higgs, no SUSY, no dark matter particles, some will turn to new thoughts. Most will prefer to defend their theories and collect their paychecks. I don't think they'll be able to pull this off for more than 3 to 5 years, given the world economic situation. I believe (having had experience with govt agencies) that this is the real reason behind the slower ramp up of LHC energies than originally planned. Keep that good job as long as possible. You can't blame them, but it does defer the day of awakening to new conceptions of physics.
Recall that fqxi roughly divides into those who think math is the problem and those who think our physics concepts are the problem. I'm in the latter group.
Ideas that developed when we were attempting to find out what's there are almost guaranteed to include misconceptions. After all, it's taken about a century to find all the particles (*if* we have...). When you are shooting high energy points at other points, and seeing what comes out, symmetries are almost all you have to go on, so you sharpen up and evolve your symmetry tools-- all the way up to E8*E8. But what if that was just the best way to understand scattering experiments, and *not* the best way to understand particles? Heresy.
Rant ends here.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 06:12 GMT
Perhaps information is carried by photons? In a very simple way, if a detector detects a photon in some time interval, you have 1 bit of information; that bit is: true, a photon was detected. If your detector can determine frequency and wavelength to so many decimal places, then you have that much information as well.
Of course the same thing could be said about a particle. Did the detector detector a particle? Yes. What kind? electron. What was its momentum? etc... All of this is physics information, the kind that the LHC might compile and store on millions of CD's.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 09:38 GMT
Hi Jason,
Why the perhaps and why the question mark? Of course photons carry information how do you think we see what is around us?
The rod and cone cells of the retina of the eye are stimulated by photons of different frequency and the collection of data is summarized as red /green and blue/ yellow balance and brightness. This information is then sent to the brain for further processing. This is an interesting little site .
Human vision and digital imagingWhat we see is an internally constructed representation built using the information input at the interface with external reality, (which for vision is) the eyes.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 10:48 GMT
Happy to see you again Constantinos.
Ray,OH MY GOD !!! I have nothing more to say.OH MY GOD!!!!
It's funny indeed it's funny.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 11:45 GMT
Edwin,
If there is a non-fluctuating vacuum, how much information does it carry?
"You say that 'energy creates info' -- that's probably true, but an equation can be solved to create almost infinite information. Hard to nail down the energy there, but it's almost certainly in the act of 'solving' the equation to produce the info. And certainly no constant energy-expended-to-info-produced ratio involved."
This is the problem for physics: Enormously large amounts of information can be derived from very little energy and stored in it, re: Moore's Law. but if you don't have that elementary energy/fluctuation/disequilibrium there are no distinctions.
There is no Platonic realm of information and mathematics guiding energy. Complex functions build up out of simpler functions, as a function of complex forms of matter building up from simpler forms. When they get too unstable, they collapse.
It is an interplay between the absolute and the infinite.
Yes, I'm being vague/poetic, but do infinitely complex formulae lead you any closer to some grand truth than simplicity does, or it is all just subjective to what we need to find in order to solve, resolve particular issues?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 11:57 GMT
PS,
When the wave function of modern physics collapses, a simpler, not more complex model will emerge.
I think it will involve seeing time as an effect of motion, not the basis for it and that the current cosmology will be replaced by an infinite universe, where the elementary state is equilibrium, not a singularity. I think the concept of the singularity derives from the assumption of zero as a point at the center and not the potential of blank space.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 12:20 GMT
Always false your relativity John.
A pure false interpretation of what is space time and its evolution.
The uncertanty principle is not that.
You confound in fact some basic errors about the infinity, the 0 and the - .....how can you insert a harmonic serie if you do not insert a real domain.
Impossible.
Your topology is false, your referential is false, thus your interpretation is false.
In fact you want speak abnout realtivity but like some people here you do not understand it.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 12:44 GMT
Jason,
To understand "time dilation," you have to understand the role of time in relativity. Because time has no reality independent of space, any reference to physical interactions involving time concerns the dynamics between spacetime and mass. You among others are confusing particle-like energy exchange with classical momentum. Two different things. Because time dilation actually means mass contraction, massless photons regardless of frequency cannot contract. There is no time interval from a photon's perspective, between emission and absorption; these are quantum mechanical phenomena.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 13:26 GMT
If rotating spheres=duration
Thus the only way is the check of this duration....thus we can't travel in time but only check the internal clocks.
The future looks like .....but never for the past.
If we take the Lorentz transformation,The length is maximum in the frame in which the object is at rest......
If we take the lifetime of a muon for example ????
Now if we take the increase of mass due to the correlated speed ,it's a proof of E=mc² also , take the cyclotrons for example.Or take the rest of relativistic mass.
It exists problems about the interpretation of the variables mass,the lenght contraction and the time dilatation are relativelly relative hihih.
Thus it's well about the duration due to spinning spheres.
In fact the relativity of the space time is logic and not irrational.The mass is the light.
What about the relativistic mommentum and the relativistic energy if they aren't understood about their real realtivistic links.
My spinning spheres explain this relativistic problems, humbly of course.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear John,
The ad-hoc stuff really bothers me. QED works very well. QCD is pretty "coarse" in its accuracy. And the Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) pretends to be a TONE, but is far uglier than my original expectations of a TOE.
It is true that I have flipped over to the opposite extreme. I am currently playing with 28 dimensions, and don't be surprised if that number jumps radically...
view entire post
Dear John,
The ad-hoc stuff really bothers me. QED works very well. QCD is pretty "coarse" in its accuracy. And the Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) pretends to be a TONE, but is far uglier than my original expectations of a TOE.
It is true that I have flipped over to the opposite extreme. I am currently playing with 28 dimensions, and don't be surprised if that number jumps radically upwards in the near future. Hilbert space can be infinite-dimensional. How can we represent that in 3 or 4-D? Of course, we can call it degrees-of-freedom, but it behaves just like dimensions that have been curled up small or expanded out huge. If it has a bill like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it might be a duck. Or maybe I've just deluded myself into building a model that can't be falsified (It isn't right! It isn't even wrong!). I never got into the Rubik's cube, but I play several Sudoku puzzles a day.
In "Ray Cosmology", The Multiverse is an infinite Cantor set that was "born" of the Big Bang and Inflation. The Universe is a fractal fragment of the Multiverse, and we can't see beyond the Universe because of the speed-of-light and the age of the Universe. The Multiverse has greater complexergy than the Universe, and other fundamental forces exist there (probably concepts such as quantum gravity and WIMP-gravity). Perhaps we see degraded holographic projections (self-similar copies?) of quantum gravity and WIMP-gravity as relativistic (geometrical) gravity and the CC in our Universe.
But it doesn't stop there...
A sub-quantum scale also exists, and we can't see within that because of the Planck scale. The "Higgs" and/or "tachyons" exist at that level, but we can't see them directly either. We simply see properties of the "aether" or the "vacuum".
I also dislike "fine-tuning". I think these types of problems require Scales.
Hi Edwin,
I agree that information is a complex "entity". It reminds me of a conversation that James, Tom and I had. "What is the origin of Intelligence?" In "Ray Cosmology" (is that equivalent to Gene-Man World?), every fundamental thing is a self-similar copy of the Multiverse. Thus the Multiverse is infinitly intelligent, the Universe is intelligent, the electron is less intelligent, etc... So we derive our intelligence from the Multiverse beyond and from the fundamental particles within. "Information" is probably equally complex. I also like Shannon's ideas - they emphasize the similarities between information and entropy.
I think that we MUST discover SUSY. In my models, SUSY is important to Scale stability. Remember that Weak-Scale SUSY was applied to solve the Mass Hierarchy problem (Why are the W and Z masses so different from the GUT/TOE energy scale? IMHO, SUSY is a better than excessive fine-tuning).
I don't think that we will discover the "Higgs" per se. I think that Higgs-like tachyons exist at the sub-quantum scale, but we will never "see" these properties directly. Rather, we will see properties such as the "vacuum", the "aether" and/or the "origin of mass".
Dear Steve,
Should I include Mickey Mouse with the Tooth Fairy? I know that my ideas don't sound physically relevant. Have you solved any of these ad-hoc probelms with your 3-D model? If so, then you really need to publish it and claim your Nobel and 2 million euros...
Have Fun!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 15:13 GMT
Constantinos,
You: "...entropy is some measure of the transition of a system to an equilibrium state. This measure is related to time, and in my modified definition of entropy it is nothing other that time itself."
Yes, thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes for the exchange of heat to occur. It is strictly a time period with relevance only to the transfer of heat under...
view entire post
Constantinos,
You: "...entropy is some measure of the transition of a system to an equilibrium state. This measure is related to time, and in my modified definition of entropy it is nothing other that time itself."
Yes, thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes for the exchange of heat to occur. It is strictly a time period with relevance only to the transfer of heat under conditions of thermal equilibrium. The rate of that transfer is fixed by the requirement for thermal equilibrium. The temperature would be that rate if temperature had not been assigned an arbitrary scale of measurement. Adjusting the definition of temperature so that it directly represents that rate and given the amount of heat to be transferred yields the period of time for that specific transfer to occur. That time period is the thermodynamic entropy.
You: "Your views on Boltzmann's constant are very interesting and relevant. This gives a new insight into that constant as being the scaling of the universal gas constant from the 'macroscopic' down to the 'molecular'."
This reason for stressing the importance of Boltzmann's Constant does have to do with scaling down; however, Boltmann's Constant has meaning that goes beyond being a constant of proportionality. It is that meaning that is being scaled down and carried over into Boltzmann's interpretation of entropy. It is Boltzmann's constant that makes clear what it is that is being calculated by Boltzmann's definition of entropy. It is essential that Boltzmann's Constant be viewed in light of its correct units.
That is why I have stressed in the past that units should not be shifted around and assigned arbitrarily to constants of proportionality. Some constants are simply proportionality constants. They will not have units. Any term, including a constant of proportionality, that requires units to be assigned in order for the units to match is a term with important meaning that needs to be learned. That meaning is made clear when invented units are replaced with true fundamental units.
There are only two true fundamental units. They are units of distance and durations of time. Boltzmann's constant has natural units of seconds. It is a fundamental measure of a duration of time. I can explain the physical meaning of Boltzmann's Constant and, therefore, I can explain the meaning of the calculation of Boltzmann's entropy. I told Dr. Klingman that I would write this explanation up and, I am doing that.
I congratulate you for deriving thermodynamic entropy as a measure of time. Your units for thermodynamic entropy are correct. It is also important to get the units of energy, temperature and Boltzmann's Constant correct.
It is crucial for theoretical physics to remove all invented units and replace all remaining units with their natural form. The problem of inventing units and assigning unnatural units goes all the way back to interpreting f=ma. This problem permeates all of theoretical physics.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 16:41 GMT
Let's go for the belgian humor...hihihi Ray Ray Ray , don't be a hater jaleous please.
It's not serious you know you aren' t right.
You can learn real sciences you know.
I insist a real team of comics.It's not sciences that but sciences fiction.
You could contact Disney World perhaps.
My nobel ahahah I don't wait a prize, me I work Ray,I don't wait monney,I work my Theory of Spherization .And if I win prizes, it will be for real sciences and for the International Humanistic Sciences Center.
Well I repeat all these stupidities aren't sciences,you know extradimensions, tachyons, external cause of mass, strings, m or k theory of nothing for nothing,reversibilities of time, multiverses,....all that is a pure joke of second zone of the sciences community.
Humor or reality???
Why I suppose it's for fun and for business strategy or I don't know, in all case it's even not a EPR vs Copenaghen.
It's a pure irony for rationalists, you know people who search in the correct road our fields of ENERGY? YOU KNOW THE REAL searchers at the LHC ,not the second zone which implies a lot of lost of monney.No the real universalists who try to find solutions and real discoveries for humanity.
It's not a joke that Ray, it's the research of truth.
mvV ...CONSTANT FOR ALL PHYSICaL SPHERES they turn thus they are....3D .
After all the vanity catalyzes the creatives people no? HIHIHI
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 18:03 GMT
Tom,
A photon may not have mass, but presumably it has energy.
If it propagates as its own wave(as Mead describes the electron), it doesn't have mass, since it is expansion from source to reception, but doesn't it essentially contract/collapse at the point of contact, where the photon is "created?"
Light can certainly expand from mass, so it has to have some mechanism for getting in there.
mc2=E.
Ray,
I agree with the idea that reality is infinitely dimensional, but unless there is a specific problem the geometry will solve, simply seeing how many you can fit together is a juggling act. It takes a lot of skill and practice, but does it get you where you want to go? Or are you simply playing the same game as everyone else? Information is knowledge. Wisdom is editing it. Maybe there is another tool in the toolbox, besides dimensions.
The idea I'm working on in this thread has been information vs. energy. I would categorize dimensions as information. As I pointed out to Edwin, an enormous amount of information can be stored in a very small amount of energy. Theoretically down to the Planck scale, though practically down to photons. Unless they invent quantum computers. That's a lot of potential dimensions/information. Figuring out the potential geometry would take several lifetimes, but you could probably program a computer to do it much quicker.
On the other hand, what is the question in the first place?
The fact is that energy is required to record information. If you record new information, you do so over old information. Since the amount of energy remains the same, creating new information erases old information.
Now we could go with spacetime geometry, where every bit of information exists somewhere in that four dimensional geometry, but it is completely deterministic. There is no room for probabilities and information that almost was. It's either in that geometry or it's not.
Or we could go with QM, where the energy grows to accommodate the ever expanding information of all possibilities and multiworlds spring into existence with every sub-atomic wave trying to decide which particle to collapse into.
Since I have no professional requirements as to which school to belong to, I prefer to think of time as the collapse of probabilities, as future potential becomes past circumstance.
This way, there is only the energy that is and the information is in constant flux, with some clocks and change happening faster than others.
Dimensions are like the jungle. I only go in there if I have to.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT
A photon is the quantization of energy exchanged between mass points. It does not "contract, collapse or expand from mass," or "time dilate" or anything else that implies classical action.
Really, guys, millions of words and countless experiments have been expended on this.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 18:59 GMT
Tom,
What is mass contraction? Did you mean length contraction?
I'm trying to keep General Relativity and Quantum Mechanical simple. I am basing my ideas upon,
1. Conservation of energy;
2. Invariance of the speed of light;
3. Equivalence Principle.
Time dilation and redshift are equivalent. Time dilation, t'=gamma*t, is experimentally verified for gravity fields. Incidentally, the g-forces produced by centrifuges, fighter jets, rockets and lead-footed motorists will produce time dilation effects as well.
I am attempting to descibe time dilation as a wave functions that is stretched into a line or a thread, which has two ends, t and t'. A frequency shift will occur as the photon traverses between the two ends. It's frequency will change from f'=1/t' to f=1/t.
Tom: "You among others are confusing particle-like energy exchange with classical momentum. Two different things."
I don't know where you got that idea.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:07 GMT
Tom,
You said,"A photon is the quantization of energy exchanged between mass points. It does not "contract, collapse or expand from mass," or "time dilate" or anything else that implies classical action."
Let me quote from wikipedia what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
I
t says,"It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity. The test is based on the following principle: When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. "
Sorry dude, photons WILL time dilate/frequency shift in a gravity field as it moves between "mass points".
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:18 GMT
Came across this quote again:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality " Einstein.
And it made me think of this: A Geometric Theory of Everything
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a
-geometric-theory-of-everything&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20101129
Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of exquisite geometry
By A. Garrett Lisi and James Owen Weatherall November 29, 2010
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:23 GMT
Tom,
Is a photon an irreducible quantity of light, or the smallest measurable quantity of light?
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi John,
You said "I agree with the idea that reality is infinitely dimensional, but unless there is a specific problem the geometry will solve, simply seeing how many you can fit together is a juggling act."
As a phenomenologist, I am more interested in building workable models, than I am in overwhelming everyone with so much math that they are convinced I'm correct. I am studying the symmetries of these membranes. IMHO, this will lead us to new interactions, the nature of dimensions and branes, and - hopefully - a reasonable TOE model. In contrast, string theorists are bogged down in the mathematics of 10, 11 and 12-dimensions. Garrett Lisi's E8 requires a minimum of 8-dimensions, and I think his newer Spin(11,3) requires a minimum of 14-dimensions. Supersymmetrize it, and you have something distantly related to my 28-D F-Theory model. But why travel that far into the jungle? I'm not afraid of lions and tigers and bears - Oh My! - my pit-bull mutt will protect me...
Be careful talking about mass. It is true that photons have zero rest mass, but they have an equivalent relativistic mass from E=mc^2=h*nu, and this is relevant for gravitationally-induced red-shift.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:29 GMT
Sigh. Just what do you think generates a gravity field?
Hint: not photons. Dude.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:43 GMT
John, light doesn't have a quantity or a measure the way that you are using the terms. The measure of any energy exchange between particles is in the quantization by energy packets (quanta) that obey Bose-Eiinstein statistics. The classical analog is statistical mechanics -- where discrete particles are treated as an ensemble.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
Hi Ray,
You put your finger on something really important. You said, "Be careful talking about mass. It is true that photons have zero rest mass, but they have an equivalent relativistic mass from E=mc^2=h*nu, and this is relevant for gravitationally-induced red-shift."
I'll bet there is confusion between mass and energy as it relates to gravity. Newton's gravity equation is famous. It says,
But I don't see "energy" anywhere in this equation, do you? However, Einstein gave us E=mc^2, another famous equation. E=hf came from the group that developed quantum mechanics. I don't think everybody knows that gravity attracts energy as well as mass.
As near as I can tell, mass (leptons and hadrons) is just the effect of photons and wave-functions tied in a knot. I work with fiber optic cable at work; I actually worry that it might get knotted. But if it did, it would be like a particle. If I put some light inside of it, and it didn't get absorbed, it would be like a particle. But if you let it out, the light escapes as energy. That's how I envision particles.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 20:03 GMT
Tom,
Where does gravity come from? Conservation of energy requires time dilation (threads) to exert a gravitational potential. Probably because excitations of time dilation threads are...photons!
Why is there time dilation? Time dilation has to be a property of quasi-existent wave functions called Time Dilation Threads. Wave functions and "time dilation threads" are quasi existent and they have properties. One of their properties is the ability to interweave in some orderly way, connect with each other. Call it the weave of space-time if you like. That's why black holes can build up a gravitational potential so strong that photons are red-shifted to f=0 before they can escape the event horizon.
I don't think gravitons exist. If point-like gravitons traveling at the speed of light were implementing gravity, they would have a terrible time escaping the event horizon. In fact, point like particles can't produce an event horizon. To get an event horizon, it takes a line with a t and t' at each end, and a gravitational potential between them. Dude. :-)
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 20:10 GMT
Dude,
Have you ever chased a graviton to see if it travels at the speed of light? Or do you assume that based on the Michelson-Morley experiment and our ASSUMPTIONS about spacetime (or are they assumptions about the propagation of electromagnetic waves through spacetime)? Personally, I think that the properties of scales allow gravitons to travel much faster than the speed of light. If so, then we will have a very difficult time trying to determine if we have seen gravitons...
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Dear Dude,
I don't believe in gravitons. I defined the Time Dilation Thread because I can measure two points at different elevations in a gravity field, define t' and t, then shine a laser along that path and show how its frequency will change along the gravitational potential. But Time Dilation Threads are quasi-existent. That means that they exist only by the characteristics that they manifest.
I play world of warcraft to relax. I regularly get attacked by monsters. But I have never been attacked by a cpu, a cache memory or a register because those things are quasi-existent from the point of view of a virtual environment.
I have concerns and suspicions that Quasi-real "building blocks" are the NO-GO area for physics. Anyway, I'm sure there is a super-luminal space-time out there somewhere.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 20:53 GMT
John,
I don't think Ray answered your question. You asked,
"Is a photon an irreducible quantity of light, or the smallest measurable quantity of light?"
He answered, "I prefer to think of a photon as a single quantum of light."
My answer has consistently been for a long time now in these blogs that a 'quantum of energy' is the smallest amount of energy that can be 'manifested' (observed or measured). Most physicists will argue, however, that 'energy quanta' are irreducible physical entities that 'exist' in their own right, like a stone exists or a bucket of water exists.
This is a significant difference. The view that energy is made up of 'quanta' locks physicists into a 'discrete view' of Nature. My view has been that 'energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely' (see for example,
A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment). This view seamlessly opens up our thinking of the Universe as being both 'continuous' and 'discrete'. This is a consistent complete view, and not a 'patchwork' of theories stitched together by more mathematical abstractions contrary to our physical experience and intuition.
The difference comes down to this. Whereas most physicists seek to know what 'is', I believe that it is not possible to know what 'is' but can only know our measurements of what 'is'. For all epistemological purposes, 'appearance is reality'. Politicians have known this for a long time. Most physicists have yet to 'see it'. At the scale of the 'un-manifested', energy can be continuous. Yet, when energy is 'manifested' it is discrete. This is because for anything to 'exist' it needs to be in equilibrium with its environment.
Constantinos
P.S. Sorry about this late response to your earlier post. I have been away from this for a few days.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:23 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
Nature is both continuous and discrete. It is a paradox that we are stuck with, whether we like it or not. Why else would we need both Bose and Fermi statistics?
When you used Bose (continuous) statistics to represent (discrete) detector fermions, I thought you were absolutely wrong. I think you had the right application for the wrong reason, but it did cause me to question whether the properties of scales could allow us to cross that distinct boundary between "continuous" bosons and "discrete" fermions. For example, consider the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) Theory of Superconductivity in which a Cooper pair of fermionic electrons behaves boson-like. Furthermore, if SUSY exists, then it should be the operator that transforms bosons into fermions and vice versa.
Somehow, the properties of scales and measurements allow "continuous" properties to transform into "discrete" measurements and vice versa - a property that others call "collapsing the wave-function".
I still think of a photon as a single particle-like (from 2nd quantization)quanta, but electromagnetic waves are a group of photons with related characteristics. I think that diffraction phenomena statistically sample groups of photons individually.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
James you write, "Adjusting the definition of temperature so that it directly represents that rate and given the amount of heat to be transferred yields the period of time for that specific transfer to occur."
In my paper
The Temperature of Radiation I do define there temperature as a rate. It is the rate at which 'accumulation of energy' occurs. Have you read that very short paper? I am interested in your comments.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
PLATO replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Ray, we are talking about reality, right? F=ma is rock bottom reality Ray.
Ray, still lying about all this:
This is the unification of gravity with inertia: Inertia relates to immobilization, and this fundamentally relates to distance in space/scale. Inertia is key to generally balanced attraction and repulsion.
Gravity relates to mobility ultimately. So, we seek the middle to unify them.
Gravity is key to distance in/of space.
Full gravity=full mobility. Full inertia=full immobility.
Semi-immobilized in dreams is balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity/acceleration.
Accordingly, both gravity and inertia are equally reduced in dreams, so that they meet in the middle. The semi- (or half) inertia/immobility in dreams is a relative increase in inertia, however, that balances with/offsets reduced gravity and provides generally stabilized and fundamental distance in/of space in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion.
=================
F=ma then fundamentally equals balanced/equivalent parts of inertia and gravity/acceleration in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion and essentially constant force/energy.
============================
What of your honesty and credibility Ray?
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:47 GMT
Constantinos,
I agree with your view of energy propagating continuously and interacting discretely. In fact I've been using some of your ideas to clarify my own thoughts.
One of the main reasons I've allowed myself to get dragged into discussing the nature of light is because of my view that current cosmology is such a mishmash because of assumptions about the nature of light which only allow it to be redshifted by the actual recession of the source. There isn't any quantum confusion in the macrocosmos, only some very twisted geometry.
I know you don't like to get into the cosmology discussion, but here is an interesting bit of news I've posted before that you might have missed:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101125_galaxie
s.htm
Tom,
Is it safe to say, from the way you phrased it:
"The measure of any energy exchange between particles is in the quantization by energy packets (quanta) that obey Bose-Eiinstein statistics. The classical analog is statistical mechanics -- where discrete particles are treated as an ensemble."
That you view these "packets" as irreducible, rather than the quantity of light required to trip an individual atom to a higher level, or can be released by one.
As I mentioned to Constantinos, I am pleading ignorance as to the nature of light. In and of itself, it doesn't matter to me if it is an irreducible packet, or smallest measurable quantity. My interest being the chaos in cosmology that could very easily be resolved if light at such faint levels as recorded from distant galaxies that it is measured in terms of individual photons, built up to the tipping point of detection, rather than just emerged from the statistical fog, fully quantized. The resulting increased duration between the detection of such individual photons from ever fainter sources would result in a redshifted wave pattern, relative to distance, just as is observed.
As it is, the reasoning and logic for them being irreducible packets seems somewhat questionable, given they only supposedly exist at the point of the detector registering them. I suppose there are lines in cloud chambers attributed to electromagnetic phenomena, but are these actual particles moving through, or lines of charge polarizing the particles in the chamber?
As I've said, I think we will eventually be forced to re-evaluate the cosmology and this would result in reconsidering how light can be redshifted.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:47 GMT
Ray -- you make several interesting points. You remark that Hilbert space can be infinite-dimensional and ask "How can we represent that in 3 or 4-D?"
I would respond that Fourier series can also be infinite-dimensional, and we represent it with a violin string (among a myriad of examples).
It's the infinite dimensionality that allows almost every possible finite "object" or "event" to be described to any desired order by an infinitely extensible representation scheme. Any other scheme will almost surely fall short. It does not, IMO, imply infinite (or even just higher-) dimensional objects.
I believe that the basic goal of all formal descriptions of the physical world is to arrive at the simplest structure consistent with all observations.
In this regard, you also state that 'QED works very well, while QCD is course in it's accuracy.' But QED has almost the same accuracy as QCD, since QED cannot calculate the radius of the proton to within 4%. This is QCD accuracy (at its best). In "Chromodynamics War" I discuss the 60 year history of QED's using the fine structure constant to refine the the anomalous magnetic moment, and then using the refined moment to refine the fine structure constant. After 60 years of convergence in this tail-chasing circle, no wonder QED achieves dozen place accuracy.
But come up with a new entity, like muonic hydrogen, and QED is off by 4%. This really is QCD accuracy. Do you think this is telling us something? Also, for fifty plus years "virtual particles" were used to derive QED results, but in 1998 the vacuum energy of QED was found to be off by 120 orders of magnitude! Did everyone recalculate the last 50 years of QED results based on a realistic vacuum energy? I don't think so.
Finally, I agree with you that "We MUST discover SUSY." For a while everyone seemed to agree that if the Higgs was not found, this would imply our current theories were nonsense, but now many seem to be weaseling away from this conclusion. But it does seem that SUSY is now baked into the cake. So hopefully when no SUSY partners are found (they won't be) the whole apple cart will finally be turned upside down and everyone will realize a fresh start is needed. I can't wait.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:52 GMT
Hello Ray,
You write, "Nature is both continuous and discrete. It is a paradox that we are stuck with, whether we like it or not."
In my view, there is no 'paradox'! A 'paradox' is the result of an incomplete (exclusive) view that puts you at odds with other people that hold the opposite (equally exclusive) view. But I am pleased that you have resolved your differences between 'continuous' vs. 'discrete' statistics.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:53 GMT
Ray, when space is stretched/expanded, in like measure, it is also detached.
report post as inappropriate
PLATO replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:58 GMT
Constantinos, something can be opposites at once. Understand that clearly.
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Super-Cosmic Ray replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:59 GMT
"Plato" Dude,
How does F=ma relate to your "theory"? What is the mass of a dream? Should a dream have zero rest mass (and travel at the speed of light like a photon), a tardyonic rest mass (and travel slower than the speed of light, and perhaps be measurable in an experiment), or a tachyonic rest mass (and travel faster than the speed of light)?
Can you write down your Lagrangian or your equation of motion? Your ideas lack proper mathematical representation. If the purpose of this blog site is to write down as many antonym pairs as we can think of, then this site wouldn't be applicable to the foundations of physics, and it wouldn't make any sense.
Have Fun (somewhere else)!
report post as inappropriate
PLATO replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:05 GMT
John, light is red-shifted for the same reason that you look downward and space is receeding and yet larger/closer. Accordingly, this [increasingly] transparent/invisible nature of space in telescopic/astronomical observations involves the red-shift.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:07 GMT
Wow Ray, you are such a liar.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:11 GMT
General question,
I have, for a year or so, been seeing the statement that QM implies that information is never lost. Without checking my library to be sure, I'm almost certain that I have QM books from the 1930's (Dirac), through the 40s (Slater and others), 50s, 60s, 70s, and a few QFT and QCD books from the 90s and 2000s. Of course I don't know every word in these books, but I cannot remember ever seeing it stated that QM implies that info can never be lost. So when and where did this idea become so well known and so sacred?
And the idea that I have seen stated repeatedly is that if you throw a book, say the Bible, into a black hole, then in principle, when the black hole 'evaporates' one can reconstruct the info in the Bible.
Does anyone really believe this? And if so, why?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:14 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Like you, I was being critical of the Standard Model. I don't have a problem with QED radiative/renormalization corrections - these are justified in a consistent manner at the Feynman diagram level. QCD renormalization is "upside-down" - it looks like it should diverge (like superconductivity) but then it remarkably converges - like a fermion - and they give it a name like confinement and consider our knowledge to be complete...
It sounds like we are cheering for different teams on the SUSY issue...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Dr. Klingman,
Thank you for actively participating here. It is very helpful.
"Does anyone really believe this? And if so, why?"
I could ask this question about almost all of theoretical physics. I am used to receiving unhelpful book-type refutations. That does not stop me; but, I recognize that it takes someone who truly knows a lot about empirical evidence to dent the din.
James
report post as inappropriate
PLATO replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Ray, what about this? Light is red-shifted for the same reason that you look downward and space is receeding and yet larger/closer. Accordingly, this [increasingly] transparent/invisible nature of space in telescopic/astronomical observations involves the red-shift.
Ray, generally balanced attraction and repulsion in the dream -- increased inertia and decreased gravity on balance. Idiot. Liar. (You're not the only one though Ray.) Ray, you are seriously wide open as a lying/denying and misrepresenting idiot and phony. This is why Steve also tells you this. It is sickening. Your agenda is not the agenda of truth.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 02:17 GMT
(...) you write, "...something can be opposites at once." Yes. Like something simultaneously being 'shorter' and 'taller' than something else. That is not the problem!
The problem is when the mind is asked to simultaneously hold two contradictory ideas about the Universe and is given no 'physical view' that makes sense. Then we get 'intellectual schizophrenia' and twisted tortured explanations without coherent reason. We get logic detached from reality.
The problem I have with physics is its failure to provide a 'physical view' that makes sense! I believe this is possible. As I believe this is necessary!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 11:13 GMT
I love this platform,In fact Ray with Lisi and these persons, you are a band of business man, that's all .
How can you make that Ray ,it's not well that .
Oh My God I PRAY FOR YOU.hihihi
aND AFTER WHAT? lISI AND YOU AND lAWRENCE AND COMPANIES SHALL INSERT MY SPHERE INSIDE AN UNIVERSAL SPHERE ALSO NO .Congratulations for the winners,ahahahah you nthink what , because wijipedia exists ....ahahah interesting.And the doctor who says me, Steve take your meds,if not I see small green ceatures around me.
DISGRACE FOR YOU .....AND ALL THAT FOR MONNEY? VANITY AND RECOGNIZING.
incredible band of pseudos scientists, plagiarists of the rationalits.
A geometric theory of all now ahahha let's me laugh .With Verlinde, Hooftss, Doc,Th, lubos and Baez perhaps also and Mr Witten no but who are you to make that.
Are you so taken by these pappers of disgrace dudes.ahahahah you can pubish dudes you can publish.
Dear Frank,you can say everywhere what people try to have my prices.REVOLUTION FRANK REVOLUTION HIHIHI if you want help with rest of mass , I am thetre, because with me about sceinces he do not make the intelligent.First he doesn't understand what is a rest of mass due to relativity , we can pass c , he uses tachyons ahahha or this or that but in fact it's a joke.
They speak about infinitesimal dimensions INCREDIBLE !!!!and strings and of course we play violin.
Me also I play music , guitar and piano, is it a reason to try to make poetry ahahaha well where are we .in a circus of vanitious ahahah me the first, after all I must adapt me , and I begin only.
We are going to laugh in live Frank and dream a little because there that becomes tedious FQXi .They repeat always the same , ahaha and furthermore that exists already in books
a REAL TEAM OF COMICS.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Argh, John. "Irreducibility" only applies to photons (or any boson) as a unit of a statistical ensemble. The continuous wave function provides the same description of a given phenomenon. Let's take a classical example of an energetic exchange -- say, molecules hitting the face of a piston in an internal combustion engine. It's hardly useful for an auto mechanic or engineer to describe the action at this micro level; the classical parameters of volume and pressure are adequate. A quantum mechanic concerned with energy exchanges among discrete particles, whether they are reducible or not (which is irrelevant to the case) is treating the particles as a statistical ensemble, i.e., classically, where a discrete outcome lies on a point in a continuous interval.
Jason, remind me to google Time Dilation Thread when I get around to it.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 13:34 GMT
Edwin,
I don't know the answer to your question, but I do sort of like the idea of tossing all our religious books into a black hole and seeing how it turns out.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 14:25 GMT
In fact, it's very relevant what says Dr Klingman,Edwin for friends.
In fact,it exists a consciousness indeed and a correlated intelligence.
Prof Penrose has made interesting works about the consciousness also.
Like you Dr Klingman.Indeed
If the informations is linked with the volumes and the rotations of the entanglement.Thus it exists several steps of informations, fields,....before the main central sphere and its pure codes of evolution.Now the volumes decrease in my line of reasoning towards electro magnetism ...but the sense of rotation must be inserted with a difference between mass and light.
The encoding is aged from the same age than all.About 13.7 for our datas.more I think.
If the volumes are inserted ...the informations are ubnderstood with the rotations and the difference for a polarity of evolution between mass and light is resolved by the sense of rotation,2 main senses!
The consciousness appears with the increase of mass and the volumes which polarises.The gravity fractalizes the light and the coodes are intrinsics in the mass.The evolution of sorting makes the rest.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
This thread began by discussing the character of information. Near the beginning of this thread John Merryman stated (among many definitions) that "Information is knowledge. Wisdom is editing it." And now Steve has brought consciousness back into the picture.
That, I believe, is why no one understands information. It's not just a physical entity (if it even *is* a physical entity -- which I doubt) but it plays into knowledge, which is almost certainly not a physical entity, and wisdom which is for damn sure not a physical entity.
It's probably best to take it at it's root: "In-forming". Information allows us to "In-form" or 'form ideas' or form neural network circuits, etc.
It is these aspects, as opposed to simply 'sending message' across an info channel that complicate the issue of "What is information?" I don't believe anyone knows.
Tom
I think it's been tried, (Communist Russia, China) and it didn't turn out any better.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 08:36 GMT
Answer:senses of rotation of spheres and volumes of these spheres....orbitals and spinnals.......fields of evolution and sorting....
PS Well jedi THE INFORMATIONS ARE AGED OF 13.7......AND THAT CONTINUES WITH THE EVOLUTION AND THE POLARIZATION.THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS LINKED OF COURSE.
tHE KNOWLEDGES IS INFORMATIONS,INDEED BUT OF COURSE WITH GOOD BOOKS AND EQUATIONS.
The spherization answers to your doubts......the knowledges is foundametal for good extrapolations, rationals.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 09:33 GMT
Edwin,
One can not separate the information from the observer who uses it to form his/her reality. Unless it is interpreted it is not information it is just matter, particles and waves in space.It is the brain that produces experience from input and the brain that produces physics theory from that experiential information.
Now it is necessary to take into account the input, and processing by the brain to account for the output which is the reality perceived. That reality does not exist without the observer. Another unseen concrete reality -does- exist and does not depend upon an observer for its existence. That reality is necessary to provide the input and solves the foundational questions and paradoxes.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 11:32 GMT
Edwin,
I agree information is a function of informing the consciousness of the nature of its environment, but there is a mechanical aspect to it. Think in terms of a movie camera; If we perceived the information carrying energy directly, it would be like having the shutter always open, with the film streaming past it. It would all just blur together in an analog wave. The reality is that our eye functions much like an actual movie camera, taking rapid series of static images and reconstructing motion back out of them. The rest of our mind works in similar fashion, whether words, mental images, etc. Breaking the flow into bits and then reassembling it.
Whether this mirrors processes in nature, such as breaking analog light into quanta and reassembling it is a possibility that might be considered, but will meet some resistance.
Tom,
By and large it is irrelevant whether photons are reducible or not, except when they are coming from so far away, such as distant galaxies, that the detection process is reduced to individual photons. In that case, whether the act of detection is a tipping point, vs. an irreducible particle would determine whether a redshift would be caused by increased duration between tipping points, due to the diffuse energy, proportional to distance beyond the point detection is reduced to individual photons, or whether the source has to be actually receding.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 4, 2010 @ 16:23 GMT
Well dear Scientists and thinkers.........you speak about consciousness....don't forget .....it's the sister of love, the brother of intelligence,the father of compassion, and the mother of universal faith....
IT DOESN4T EXIST FAITH WITHOUT ACTS.....
THE REAL GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS IS TO ACT ....UNIFICATION OF UNIVERSALISTS WITHOUT VANITY.....ACCELERATION OF PROCESSUS OF RESOLUTION.....SIMPLE AND CONCRETE ...ALL PROBLEMS HAS SOLUTION.....
In fact several speak about consciousness, but I don't see solutions my friends, well if you have a consciousness for the humanity and the universality, thus all intelligent person will agree about the acts and the necessity to work together......
INTERNATIONAL HUMANISTIC SCIENCES CENTER.....FOCUS ON PRIORITIES FOR OUR FELLOW MAN......IT S AN ACT OF CONSCIOUSNESS INTELLIGENCT,F LOVE AND COMPASSION....FORGET YOUR VANITY AND WORK DEAR SCEINTISTS OF ALL THE WORLD.
SOME FORGOTTEN WAIT .....
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Dec. 9, 2010 @ 23:05 GMT
Constantinos and Dr. Klingman,
Constantinos: "In my paper The Temperature of Radiation I do define there temperature as a rate. It is the rate at which 'accumulation of energy' occurs. Have you read that very short paper? I am interested in your comments."
I did see this message. I don't have simple agreement with it. We would probably be conversing back and forth in an effort to resolve our differences. I need to take time away from debate in order to write my response to Dr. Klingman and my essay for the contest. I think that your approach to accumulation of energy and "...that a 'quantum of energy' is the smallest amount of energy that can be 'manifested' (observed or measured). ..." fits well with the subject of this new essay contest. I hope you are planning on submitting an entry in the new essay contest.
Dr. Klingman,
I had to go back and reread that which I have written, including the mathematics, about thermodynamic entropy. Significant time has passed since I did the work. It was one thing to remember, generally, what I believed I found to be the meaning of Boltzmann's constant. It is another thing to write, in a step by step manner, about how that meaning is first established and then transferred to Boltzmann's interpretation of entropy. Today I have decided that I am ready to begin writing my explanation. I appreciate your interest in what I have to say. I will provide a link to it when it is ready.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 13, 2010 @ 10:59 GMT
MASTER YODA AND OBIWAN KENEBI WHERE ARE YOU ???
report post as inappropriate
hide replies