Search FQXi

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

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:24am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 11/12/12 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote Michael: Do you think that just adding "only" 22 dimensions is a solution...

Michael Haddid: on 11/12/12 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark...

inferveAngeme: on 9/17/11 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote Atkins, you will find out your individual carbohydrate count that will help...

inferveAngeme: on 9/16/11 at 23:47pm UTC, wrote Weight loss does not come easy to most people, so I set out to find...

Spoilkimi: on 7/19/11 at 10:59am UTC, wrote the drugs that are around today are dangerous but I do not recommend even...

Spoilkimi: on 7/14/11 at 18:09pm UTC, wrote Regular exercise and eating healthy is the basis of a healthy body and a...

Spoilkimi: on 7/9/11 at 22:38pm UTC, wrote But this isn't the reality. SlimQuick2day, the CD audio slimming sensation...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Re Blogger Ian Durham replied on Aug. 25, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT..."Free will..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "So, define “free will” Ian. It’s obvious that you are not talking..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Anthony, you have briefly explained the fictitious (centrifugal) force...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Vipul Agarwal: "All about this post is very informative and unique. I am thankful to you..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

RECENT ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

FQXi BLOGS
August 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: New Year, New Universe? [refresh]

Blogger Matthew Johnson wrote on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 19:37 GMT
Hello! This is Matt Johnson, and I was recently asked to write a brief guest post for FQXi about some of my recent work with Stephen Feeney, Daniel Mortlock, and Hiranya Peiris on observational tests of eternal inflation. To supplement some popular stories (e.g. Science) and blog posts (cosmic variance, backreaction) that describe this work (as well as the papers themselves), I thought I'd use...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 04:28 GMT
Hi Matt,

Happy New Year, and Long Live the Multiverse! I think that Scales applied to Inflation demand a much larger Multiverse (and a much smaller Hyperspace). I don't think that the Cosmological Constant can be fine-tuned to 10^(-120) - it must be a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number 10^(-120) ~ (10^40)^(-3) or it is leakage from a Scale of greater Complexergy (Complexity-Energy) than ours (i.e. the Multiverse).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 11:36 GMT
Hi all,Matt, and Dr Super Cosmic Ray.

HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR ALL.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 1, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
The main question I have with this model is the extent to which the inflation is “eternal.” The dynamics of the space manifold

(a’/a)^2 + 8πGΛ/3 – k/a^2 = 0

is driven by the cosmological constant term Λ that has an energy density ~ 10^{110}GeV^4. For k = 0 the solution to this DE is exponential and the spacetime is de Sitter-like. The cosmological constant...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 02:57 GMT
There is a glitch in this web page. If I click on the comment tab in the "Recent comments" section there are four posts, though the tab says there is only 3. However, if I go to the "Classic Article: When Universes Collide" page and click comments there are only two, two different ones.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 02:59 GMT
False alarm! My bad. I was thinking the universe collide and New Year New Universe went to the same site.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 03:01 GMT
The irony of this is that Alan Guth used the term inflation when he came up with this patch to save BBT because it resembled the compounding effect of monetary inflation that had been roiling the economy in the seventies.

The fact though, is that Paul Volcker didn't really cure inflation with higher interest rates and tighter money, because inflation is due to an excess of capital and higher rates hurts the demand for capital, but preserves the value for those holding lots of it. Inflation was actually brought under control by a greatly increased Federal deficit, since not only does this draw down excess capital, since the Treasury sells far more new bonds than the Fed sells ones it is holding, but the extra public spending serves to facilitate increased private sector growth. The problem with capital is that it is subject to the laws of supply and demand, with borrowers as demand. So the illusion of enormous wealth has been created and sustained by the manufacture of artificial demand, ie, ultimately bad debt. By squeezing all notational value out of the productive economy, we have been creating the illusion of wealth by destroying the actual process of investing in real productive assets.

So now that the situation is finally spinning out of control after thirty years, the cosmologists are still chasing the meme of eternal bubble growth in their little red wagon.

Does anyone wonder why Wall Street went to MIT and not to good accounting schools, when they needed math nerds to create those derivatives and synthetic securities? It is because in the accounting schools, they learn from the very beginning that if you mess with the math, you can go to jail. On the other hand, those physics grads think whole universes can just pop out of their equations. Go figure.

Good luck in the New Year and many happy multiverses.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 14:05 GMT
Inflation in the monetary sense is induced by social psychology. A currency can rapidly devalue if the population simply thinks it is diminishing. An example is with the Brazilian Real, which replaced the Colonias that was hyperinflating. The Real was introduced as a sort of virtual currency in 1994. People could convert the official currency to the Real and as time went on prices were negotiated in the currency. In a miraculous (seemingly miraculous) change of events the Real proved to be a stabilized currency. The reason comes down to a group think or social sense about the value of the currency. Inflation ended because people believed it had ended.

Ultimately money is a complete fiction. It holds a value because everybody has a collective sense or belief of its value. Much the same holds for a wide range of things in the human sphere of affairs, for instance gods or a God has power only because most people believe it does. Money as with so many facets of the human social sphere is a purely artificial quantity. I am also not arguing for a gold standard either, for gold also has a value because people believe it has a value.

Inflation in the cosmological sense solves the flatness problem, which permits us to understand how antipodal regions of the CMB are generically similar. It also permits a physical understanding of the small anisotropies observed. This is a bit different from currency inflation, which occurs because people are thinking in a certain way. The cosmological data which supports inflation will not vanish if scientists cease to consider inflationary cosmology as realistic.

Back in the 1990s I was enticed to join up with the “Wall Street rocket scientists” who were applying math to market systems. I figured out then this was to science what astrology is to astronomy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT
At the end of the day, we only accept a currency as payment for our goods and services if we think that someone else will accept that same currency. It's like an electric circuit. Money can't flow if it can't find a pathway. The pathway is people's trust that the currency has value.

It sounds like some kind of financial alchemy.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
Money is a contract and its value is a function of faith in the sanctity of that contract. A history of reliability can increase the credibility of that contract, but only makes the fall that much more severe when the faith is destroyed.

The reason for cosmic inflation was to explain an anomaly which the original big Bang Theory could not. Why the Background radiation, as residue of a primordial explosion, out of which many mass objects had coalesced, was still as smooth as it is.

What if there are other reasons for this smoothness? Say there is a phase transition level at that temperature, 3.7k, at which mass objects start to coalesce out of this radiation? This would would be an ongoing and vital explanation for the smoothness that could even fit reasonably into the Big Bang scenario and wouldn't require such an enormous physical extrapolation as the entire universe expanding from a very small size to many times the visible universe in a fraction of a moment.

Unfortunately many careers have been spent validating Inflationary cosmology and they are not going to change course without a fight.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 18:31 GMT
There is no such phase transition. Certainly not at 3.7K. Inflation solves the flatness problem, where the conditions which established the CMB are the same, which leads to the high level of isotropy. There are of course unknowns. In particular the inflaton field is not characterized well, and it has this funny potential which is defined by nothing more fundamental. It is in effect a sort of curve fit. There is a phase transition, which was set in after about 63 efolds, or where the observable universe expanded by e^{63} ~ 2.3e27. So the most early universe with a volume of about 10^{-25}cm expanded to 10^{2}cm within about 10^{-35} seconds. This stretched out any isotropy which existed prior to inflation and set a single set of conditions for the later universe.

Money has a value because we believe it does. One might call that a contract, “Good faith and backing of the US government etc,” but ultimately it is no different from the idea of a religious covenant Abraham or Moses claimed. One piece of evidence of this is how it is that trillions of \$ disappeared in 2008. The collapse of markets meant that lots of money, money which had previously been taxable, literally vanished. What money was available was taken up by those who got out the game first. It is not quite like electrical circuits, for charge is conserved. Dollars and their value are not. Of course what we are facing is more of a deflationary situation: fewer dollars which can become of higher value. We have not yet hit the tipping point for outright deflation, which can kill any investment activity and business, but money flow has slowed and dollars are hard to find for many.

Things like economics, nationalism, religions and so forth are purely artificial systems. They persist as means of social order or control so long as people believe in them. Once that belief ends the system blows away. Anyone familiar with Russia and the former Soviet Union sees that in the late 1970s and early 1980s Russians began to stop believing in the system. As the saying goes, once you lose moral you have begun to lose everything.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT
Maybe the argument can be made that the belief in the financial institutions should be perpetuated. When I think of the financial system collapsing, I think of people running in the streets, shouting, gunfire, mobs breaking into shops, riots, violence, disruption in utilities.

Why is that better than just perpetuating the belief in the financial system?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 18:54 GMT
Answering John, Lawrence said "There is no such phase transition. Certainly not at 3.7K."

The Cosmic Background Radiation was formed by the recombination of free protons and free electrons into Hydrogen atoms. This happened at a temperature of ~4000 K when the observable Universe was ~400,000 years old. This radiation has since red-shifted and adiabatically cooled to a temperature of 3.7 K.

This recombination event occured about 400,000 years AFTER the Big Bang AND Inflation (recall that Inflation should have occured within a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and the phase transition that caused Inflation may have originated from the spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the original TOE).

The American Dollar bill is fiat money that only has the value we ascribe to it (paper, cotton and ink are cheap commodities). At least American Gold Eagles and Silver Dollars were based on the value of precious metals. But you can't eat metal, thus it ultimately only has the value that we are willing to pay or trade for. I have heard projections that more American jobs will be created this year than at any time since the 1990's. That is potentially both good and bad news, because with more jobs, we may also see hyper-inflation of the dollar. This is the most efficient way to repay our debt to China, but it will drain the value of existing savings accounts.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 7, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Lawrence,

They are not artificial, but finite. You and I will both break down and die, as we age relative to our context. If any system doesn't have more validity than the alternatives, it doesn't get going in the first place. Once it does get momentum, it tends to maintain it until all accumulated energy and mass has dissipated.

What happens if and when they start finding the signatures of ever more distant galaxies in that background radiation, which have been redshifted completely off the visible spectrum?

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101125_galax
ies.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

I suppose they will be described as mirror galaxies, maybe? Reflections on the background/curvature of the universe, etc? Some patch will surely be concocted.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
Does anyone here know about the expression for force, \vec F = -\vec{\nabla} U

$\vec F = -\vec{\nabla} U$

U is the potential energy. Potential energy is normally associated with particles and mass. However, if I try to create a slope with electromagnetic energy density, can I get it to generate a force?

What I want to try to do is vary the electromagnetic energy using lasers.

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 03:48 GMT
Laser traps sound a bit like what you are talking about. That is a dipole interaction between an atom and an EM wave, with the interaction Hamiltonian H = P*A.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 06:43 GMT
I was hoping it would be a gravity beam. But the force is the same everywhere in the field, not the g-force. If it worked, the force would be 1 newton everywhere in the field. It would impart a 1N force to everything in the beam. Objects with large mass wouldn't move. Objects with a tiny mass would undergo high acceleration.

What am I doing wrong? How do I generate a constant 1g artificial gravity field beam? I'm a long way from understanding Ricci curvature; if I could, it would lead me to the actual curvature of space expression, which is the acceleration. Mmm...

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 8, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
Gravity works so that masses of any size, but small enough so as to not generate much curvature themselves, accelerate equally. It is not force which is equal. This is an aspect of the equivalence principle.

A laser of gravitons can be generated! If a coherent beam of photons is directed into a black hole there is a coherent beam of gravitons which can be generated. For this gravi-laser beam to have any significant percentage of the energy of the input laser the input laser energy has to be some significant percentage of the black hole mass.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 02:53 GMT
The earth is only 6000 years old department:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-astronomers-d
istant-galaxy-cluster.html

"Scientists refer to this growing lump of galaxies as a proto-cluster. COSMOS-AzTEC3 is the most distant massive proto-cluster known, and also one of the youngest, because it is being seen when the universe itself was young. The cluster is roughly 12.6 billion light-years away from Earth. Our universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old. Previously, more mature versions of these clusters had been spotted at 10 billion light-years away.

The astronomers also found that this cluster is buzzing with extreme bursts of star formation and one enormous feeding black hole."

"The lump sum of the mass turned out to be a minimum of 400 billion suns -- enough to indicate that the astronomers had indeed uncovered a massive proto-cluster. The Spitzer observations also helped confirm that a massive galaxy at the center of the cluster was forming stars at an impressive rate.

Chandra X-ray observations were used to find and characterize the whopping black hole with a mass of more than 30 million suns. Massive black holes are common in present-day galaxy clusters, but this is the first time a feeding black hole of this heft has been linked to a cluster that is so young."

So at a time when the entire universe was a billion years old, this amount of matter had managed to condense out of, according to inflation theory, an extremely even and widely dispersed radiation field?

I would love to know what brand of KoolAid these cosmologists are drinking. Does it only work on highly trained minds, or can it turn any shmuck into a mental zombie?

Cosmology doesn't even have a Federal Reserve to keep pumping up the currency long after everyone with half a brain understands it isn't going to end well. Can anyone hear me? Are there any rational people left? This is starting to feel like some old horror movie.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 03:13 GMT
Hi John,

The universe is 6000yrs old? Uh, no.

"So at a time when the entire universe was a billion years old, this amount of matter had managed to condense out of, according to inflation theory, an extremely even and widely dispersed radiation field?"

I wouldn't use them in your essay. Didn't you say you submitted it?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 11:18 GMT
Jason,

Yes, I submitted it. It's been up since Jan.5. If you read the article, or at least look at where I put my quote marks, that isn't their quote, but mine.

Think about this for a moment. The Milky Way takes about 225 billion years to make one rotation. So according to the current theory, black holes of 30 millions suns and distinct galaxy clusters of a minimum of 400 billion suns could have condensed out of the radiation left after the Inflation stage in one billion years. Now it you read what is argued with Inflation, it is that in a fraction of a moment, the universe expanded out to much larger than what is currently visible. This means that the level of radiation left after that stage was actually fairly thin. Not that much more than if you distributed all matter and energy visible, across the space it currently occupies, fairly evenly.

So saying that accumulation of mass of the size being discussed could have condensed out in a billion years is like saying the time between the invention of the wheel and the development of the Model T was only as long as it would take someone to drive around New York City four and a half times. It doesn't even come remotely close to adding up.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 17:29 GMT
John,

report post as inappropriate

Xiang He wrote on Apr. 1, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT
During the ages when humanity understood little of reality, theologians also served as scientists who tried to do their best to make sense of the world with all sorts of wild imaginations. Reading such notions as eternal inflation, multiverse, and bubble collisions, I wonder if today's scientists are turning into theologians without realizing it.

In terms of cosmology, almost all scientific theories being advanced today are unscientific in nature: they all try to account for the physical properties of a non-rotating universe without any physical evidence proving that the finite universe we live in is actually not rotating as a whole. Our conceptual problems lead us to preconceive that the finite universe cannot be rotating as a whole, and this preconception prevents us from recognizing all the empirical evidences showing that the finite universe is in fact rotating on its own, just like all its internal systems.

Einstein is correct in insisting that the most fundamental problem in physics is a conceptual one, not a mathmatical one. No amount of hidden spaces or extra dimensions associated with a non-rotating universe can account for the reality and beauty of a rotating cosmos. Once our conceptual mind is clear -- this will involve a lot of philosophical thinking (contrary to what Hawking claims in The Grand Design) to clarify such fundamental concepts as energy or such non-fundamental non-concepts as "nothing" -- we will know that it's thanks to eternal rotation, not eternal inflation, that the universe is the way it is. There are no bubbles.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 02:40 GMT
Edwin,

I have finished my paper on 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy'. It is typical 'James'. That means it gives results that pertain to the universe as I see it. I have said many things here and have not yet gained attention for them. So, this paper comes with a 'Reader Warning'. It is part of a theory that begins and hopefully will sometime end with fundamental unity always in sight. Fundamental unity allows for only one cause right from the start. Therefore, extra causes must be shown to cease to be causes.

It was too restricted in length (limited to 15 pages) to explain the nature of that single cause; however, it does change definitions for mass, force, electric charge, temperature, and includes an example that calculates and gives new fundamental physical meaning to the universal gravitational constant. Those parts were necessary to lay the foundation for explaining the nature of thermodynamic entropy.

I will leave it for you to decide whether or not the presentation holds your interest long enough to read my conclusion about thermodynamic entropy. It presents my opinion about the physical basis of Boltzmann's constant, and the connection between thermodynamic entropy and Boltzmann's entropy.

No question that our approaches are very different, but, they are the two that I like best of all that I have read here. My opinion is that it has become urgent, for the sake of scientific learning, that some real physicists move away from the very over-theorized views of the operation of the universe that currently occupy the scientific limelight.

You expressed an interest in reading this paper when it was finished, so here it is: The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy. Your agreement and approval are not expected, and, your opinion, should you choose to give it, is invited to be forthright.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 21:22 GMT
Edwin,

So many rewrites, so many files, I saw that my calculation of Newton's equation for the force of gravity was incomplete. I have connected the correct file to the link [Entropy].

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on May. 23, 2011 @ 23:59 GMT
What is energy?

At another forum, one which is proudly narrow and intolerant in its effort to protect book answers for theoretical physics, I saw the question: What is energy? The 'Contributor' response was that: Energy is the capacity to do work.

In an effort to say something with physical meaning for the benefit of the questioner, as opposed to agreeing to mere word substitutes. I wrote that: Energy is the sum total of force times distance. A sum that can be calculated even between two points close enough together to have infinitesimal separation. I took the position that work is another name for energy under a limited interpretation. Obviously, I then went much further into the matter.

The resistance by 'Contributors', was surprising. They stuck by their explanation and met my input with attacks on my low level of education and high level of ridiculous stubborness. The thread is now locked for reason of moderation. I would like to move the question here and see what our experts say: What is energy?

James

report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 07:09 GMT
Energy is the capacity to do work.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 17:26 GMT
James,

Force times distance has no kinetic meaning. Force implies motion, and motion is measured as change in position between mass points. No mass, no force. No change in position, no distance.

So your formulation of force times distance is effectively 0 X 0. That might describe rest mass, yet because rest states are relative, you could only refer to a universe of continuous mass at perpetual rest. Possible, I suppose, if the kinetic theory of matter is false -- but in that case, one is obliged to explain why motion is only apparent and not physically real. That seems like a hard row to hoe; if you're right, however, it requires no force and one goes no distance at all. Great work if one can get it! -- where do I apply? :-)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 24, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
Hi Tom,

I have missed you. Let my response wait. I am curious: Are you attending ICCS 2011?

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on May. 24, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
Thank you PeterV,

I am interested in having a PHD physicist say that.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 26, 2011 @ 14:07 GMT
Lev Goldfarb's new book in the making:"Redoing Our Science: Integrating Mind Into the Universe"

Not Lev Goldfarb

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on May. 26, 2011 @ 21:52 GMT
Tom,

"Force times distance has no kinetic meaning. ..."

What does that mean. Without force there is no 'kinetic'.

"Force implies motion, and motion is measured as change in position between mass points. No mass, no force. No change in position, no distance."

Well yeah ok so what?

"So your formulation of force times distance is effectively 0 X 0.

It would be helpful right here if you would explain your thinking?

"That might describe rest mass, yet because rest states are relative, you could only refer to a universe of continuous mass at perpetual rest. Possible, I suppose, if the kinetic theory of matter is false -- but in that case, one is obliged to explain why motion is only apparent and not physically real. That seems like a hard row to hoe; if you're right, however, it requires no force and one goes no distance at all. Great work if one can get it! -- where do I apply? :-)"

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
If one doesn't understand that kinetic energy is independent of force, I don't think anything else I say will make a difference.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on May. 27, 2011 @ 15:01 GMT
Tom,

Well this didn't get off to such a good start. We always have difficulty communicating. I don't dispute what you have said. My interest is whether or not phd physicists define energy as the capacity to do work, and, that it is not defined as the sum total of force times distance. That is what I am looking for.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 23:56 GMT
Capacity to do work is one way to define energy. The potential for change is another. Any way one looks at it, though, energy as a measured quantity requires a differential between points of influence.

Take the example of Archimedes's lever ("Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth"). An ideal lever resting on an ideal fulcrum at perfect equilibrium has no potential. Move the fulcrum either direction away from equilibrium, and potential for change increases with distance. This does not mean that either force increases with distance, or that energy increases with distance. It means that the points of energy exchange -- the endpoints of the lever -- are proportionally related by the relative distance that separates each of them from the fulcrum. Assuming the equilibrium energies at each point are equal, one end gains more potential energy from the out of equilibrium condition, energy that it did not have when the system was at equilibrium, and the other loses potential energy.

So when this potential is actualized, force -- a vector quantity -- is realized at both ends of the lever by unequal force vectors that when added (equivalent to your saying "force times distance") sum to zero. If the potential energies were unequal to begin with, the forces sum to the original potential values by conservation of energy -- though as the lever principle demonstrates, less force at one end creates more force at the other as a function of distance from the fulcrum, i.e. potential difference in energy.

Force times distance always has to equal zero if the statement were to make any sense at all. Simple algebra: E = fd means that energy is inversely proportional to distance, which doesn't just obviate any force potential at zero distance, it requires division by zero which is an impermissible operation. If one understands relativity (and I know that you do not) one understands why the constant of E = mc^2 has to be nonzero and indeed, why it has to be a constant.

Your world, as I said, is one in which matter is continuous and change (and therefore, space and time) is an illusion. In that case, the kinetic theory of matter is false. Possible, yes, however unlikely.

At any rate, one should not assume that it requires a PhD to understand high school physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 00:43 GMT
Tom,

"At any rate, one should not assume that it requires a PhD to understand high school physics."

"Capacity to do work is one way to define energy. The potential for change is another."

Capacity is not a physics property and does not appear in physics equations. You are correct that you are giving answers on the level of high school.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 28, 2011 @ 11:16 GMT
force times distance

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on May. 30, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
No interest in your problem because you dodged my point. You are continuin g to ignore the points of my messages. Go back and read that message from which you extracted one phrase. I have no interest in playing your game. My original question was directed at physicists. The other forum fought tooth and nail to defned the statement energy is the capacity to do work. I say that is not a physics answer. That is a word answer. I expect physics answers to refer to physics properties. So, I asked about 'capacity' in sincere interest from those who are actually interested in clarifying the concept of energy and are qualified enough to not need to dance around the subject and create diversions. You are not one of those.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 16:08 GMT
F=ma fundamentally and ultimately represents the totality of space equivalently with force/distance -- as inertia is ultimately equivalent with gravity/acceleration (so 1/2 x 1/2 equals 1/4). This concurs with the fourth dimension of space (also one fourth) that unifies Maxwell's and Einsteins's equations, as force/energy is equated with distance in/of space ultimately.

Indeed, force/energy IS ultimately reflected consistent with/distance in/of space as follows below -- Half of one half (m x a) = one fourth of the totality of space as it is reflected by fundamental inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic equivalency:

Space manifests as inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic energy

in/as dream experience. Full gravity involves full mobility in

relation to, and in conjunction with, distance in/of space. Full

gravity involves full distance in/of space. The experience of space

in/as dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in

keeping with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity, inertia, and

electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space. Note that vision

begins invisibly inside the eye/body. Gravity, invisible and visible, is

key to distance in/of space. Note the experience of colors in dreams.

half distance = one fourth distance overall.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Since one fourth of the TOTALITY of space is [effectively] VISIBLE (one half of one half) in/as dream experience, here we have a union of force/energy as it is fundamentally and equivalently expressed (and manifested) as distance in/of space. A beautiful match of theoretical and actual/observed, as 1/2 x 1/2 equals one fourth = 4th dimension AND also equals F=ma as it is fundamentally expressed as force/energy consistent with distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT
F=ma and the fourth dimension of space ultimately BOTH reflect "half of a half of space" as a fundamental unification of force/energy (with inertia and gravity both equivalent at half force/strength) as this is equivalently/consistently expressed with/as distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 16:49 GMT
Half inertia and half gravity is necessarily how they are equivalent. One half multiplied times one half (m x a) equals one fourth. Here we unify equivalently with the fourth dimension of space -- space manifesting aa inertial/gravitational/elecromagnetic energy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 31, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
Here is the DEFINITIVE and FUNDAMENTAL mathematical AND physical proof of fundamentally unified physics:

F=ma fundamentally and ultimately represents the totality of space equivalently with force/distance -- as inertia is ultimately equivalent with gravity/acceleration (so 1/2 x 1/2 equals 1/4). This concurs with the fourth dimension of space (also one fourth) that unifies Maxwell's and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
As I said, conservation of energy is interesting in other settings. The case with general relativity is such a case, though not for the reasons you cite.

Conservation laws are established in general relativity if there is a Killing vector K_a, where for some values of the index a there may be zero entries, so that for a momentum vector p^a = (p_t, p) the inner product p^aK_a =constant. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 23:37 GMT
I will presume that this message was not directed as a reply to me, and, will get out of the way for others to reply. I can't tell that it was meant otherwise.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
I remember a while ago you said that conservation of energy is contradicted by the expansion of the universe. Since QM can violate conservation of energy on an event by event basis, i.e. not statistically, then I I think it's clear that conservation of energy is an equilibrium that can be disturbed either by quantum fluctuations or, more preferably, by an act of engineering. I am taking another look at gravity waves which are said to move at c. Since shift photon fields, my invention, also travel at c, they might be able to induce a gravitational potential energy bias. What I had in mind was something that looks like a moving, and rapidly damped out, gravitational oscillation of +E and -E. Dare I say something like E*sin(kx-wt)e^-at.

I'm still a long way from being able to build the experiment. Even if I could find LED's that can flicker on/off within 100nsec, I have no idea if they would reach their full brightness in that time period. I'm not convinced that I can buy off the shelf LED's to run the experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Energy conservation is strange in general relativity. It is not something which is on the sort of firm foundation we have with flat space or nonrelativistic theories. Of course even there we have something funny, for while position and momentum can exist as conjugate pairs with classical Poisson brackets and quantum commutators we do not have quite the same structure with energy and time. There is something funny going on even on this level. In general relativity energy conservation exists only if there is an isometry to the spacetime which preserved the time component of a four vector projected onto the time component of a Killing vector.

With cosmology there are no Killing vectors period! The de Sitter spacetime does permit an equation of state so that in a first law of thermodynamics setting the energy created by the expansion of space with a constant vacuum energy density is compensated for by a negative work due to the p = -ρ condition. The de Sitter vacuum is the final state of the universe in what is called the “heat death.” There is from there a “quantum death,” due to the decay of the vacuum by quantum processes, which as time goes to infinity transitions this vacuum into a flat Minkowski spacetime or void. However, prior to heat death there are matter-field present and things are perturbed away from a pure de Sitter condition. We really do not know how energy conservation works there, if it does at all.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 18:24 GMT
I remember my freshmen year in college. The professor was going to demonstrate his confidence in conservation of energy by using a pendulum system attached to the ceiling. On the bottom of the cable was a heavy metallic hook. As he's pulling the pendulum back for the swing, he tells us that he has perfect confidence in conservation of energy and he places his face right next to the hook on the end of the pendulum. So he releases it. He was talking about pendulums while we watch it swing really fast on the way down. It slows to a stop at the opposite side of its swing, then it comes back, accelerating through space as it approached his face.

As the pendulum comes back towards his face, the professor's fight or flight response breaks rank and he lunges back away from the incoming hook. The hook came to a stop right where his face was.

It was hilarious and memorable.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Requirements of a unified theory (and of quantum gravity):

Space is equally, and both, invisible and visible.

Space must be flattened/contracted and stretched/expanded.

Inertia and gravity must be at equal (at half strength) -- this provides equvalent (half/middle) distance in/of space.

See how these all fit together?

report post as inappropriate

Spoilkimi wrote on Jul. 9, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
But this isn't the reality. SlimQuick2day, the CD audio slimming sensation that is sweeping the USA is being launched in the UK today.

[url=http://tenuate.co.cc/]Best Diet for the New Year[/url]

[url=http://tenuate.co.cc/]The Best Weight Loss Diet[/url]

[url=http://lindaprinster.co.cc/]The History of the Scarsdale Diet[/url]

report post as inappropriate

Spoilkimi wrote on Jul. 14, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Regular exercise and eating healthy is the basis of a healthy body and a balanced weight. Eat whatever you want and take this pill and you will still lose all the weight you want in a week.

[url=http://hcg500.in/]HCG Diets - The Smart Way To Lose Weight[/url]

[url=http://ordercipro.in/]Order Cipro online overnight delivery no prescription.[/url]

[url=http://cheapavandia.in/]Cheap Antidiabetic Drug Avandia Online[/url]

report post as inappropriate

Spoilkimi wrote on Jul. 19, 2011 @ 10:59 GMT
the drugs that are around today are dangerous but I do not recommend even considering us. But still it is commonly noted to best stay away from it for better health.

[url=http://cheapavandia.in/]Cheap Antidiabetic Drug Avandia Online[/url]

[url=http:/lindaprinster.in/]Excellent book Linda Prinster HCG[/url]

report post as inappropriate

inferveAngeme wrote on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 23:47 GMT
Weight loss does not come easy to most people, so I set out to find programs where weight loss would come easy and the weight would actually stay off. In a close second, it's structure your eating patterns.

[url=http://500hcg.in/]HCG Diets - The Smart Way To Lose Weight[/url]

report post as inappropriate

inferveAngeme wrote on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 19:05 GMT
Atkins, you will find out your individual carbohydrate count that will help establish your carb objective for life. For those who have not had medical success inside the past, then perhaps it's time to bring some degree of accountability into the picture and make it happen.

[url=http://500hcg.in/]HCG Diets - The Smart Way To Lose Weight[/url]

report post as inappropriate

Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:09 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Michael: Do you think that just adding "only" 22 dimensions is a solution of the problem ? This is just another mathematical way of explaining a universe that in principle is constituted of 3 spatial dimensions, and time maybe not a dimension but an emergent effect of our consciousness. The main question here is math able to describe "reality" ?

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:24 GMT
KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

report post as inappropriate