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...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/28/11 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Hi Tom, A windows , and the memmory ,heuh a 524 or 1048 I think, very slow...

T H Ray: on 1/28/11 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote Steve, I suspect that your computer is too slow, and the connection "times...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/27/11 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote still the same Tom,it's bizare,I click and hop the page disappears.??? ...

Steev Dufourny: on 1/27/11 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote Thanks. In fact when I click, all disappears , my page also.I have...

T H Ray: on 1/27/11 at 14:56pm UTC, wrote What's the problem, Steve? You can't download the program, or you can't...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/27/11 at 12:08pm UTC, wrote Hi all, Dear TH, Not possible, always my computer has a problem,I am...

John Merryman: on 1/27/11 at 4:21am UTC, wrote Galaxy at 13.2 billion years! ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, Re climate change: I’m more on the side of the QBism model, but..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue

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
September 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Time & Foundations: Awardees Announced [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 22:11 GMT
On behalf of FQXi, I am pleased to announce the future grantees of our latest grant competition on "Time and Foundations". Aided by a rigorous, two-step process involving multiple, dedicated expert review panels, FQXi chose 21 proposals to share just under US$2M in funds for research on the nature of time and other foundational questions in physics and cosmology. The full list of winners appears elsewhere on our site. We intended to give special emphasis to the study of time. As stated in the official request for proposals, "Science, and particularly physics, has produced dramatic insights into the nature of time... Careful consideration of time has likewise caused revolutions in physics, and may again do so." Winning proposals will address questions like: Is the nature of time intrinsically different from the nature of space? Can we travel back in time? If not, why not? Could time run differently in different universes? If time started, when and how? Researchers will also look at other issues in foundational physics, ranging from laboratory tests of the macroscopic limits of quantum physics, to searches for signs of collisions between multiple "bubble" universes. Many thanks to everyone who devoted time to preparing a proposal, and many thanks to our reviewers, who devoted much time and effort to making the difficult decisions. report post as inappropriate John Merryman wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 03:33 GMT Wow! 1.8 mil. to explain time! Here's my 2 cents, again. The present doesn't move from past to future. The changing configuration of the present turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time is an effect of activity, not the fundamental basis for it. Because time is... view entire post report post as inappropriate Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 05:15 GMT Hi John, OK, here's my two cents as well. There exists only the present, sort of a local present. Two communicators can communicate in real time by using photons which travel at the speed of light. Photons are the carriers of causality (communication, information, et.) Once that photon arrives at its destination, it can't be taken back. If that photon was an insult or something you didn't mean to say or do, once it arrives at its destination, it can't be taken back. It's the past. As photons travel from point A to point B, if there is a time dilation between those two points, then the frequency will change (redshift or blueshift). In my opinion, space-time is made out of wave-functions, it is emergent from the quantum vacuum. The rate at which time unfolds has to do with gravitational (or gravity equivalent) energy levels. These gravitational energy levels (either gravity or transitions between inertial frames) are observable as time dilation. Time dilation changes the frequency of a photon that travels between them. Time dilation/gravity/inertial reference frames are all properties of a space-time made out of wave-functions. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT Jason, What is "time dilation?" My point above is that gravitational effects, etc., change a specific level of activity, such as the rate at which a cesium atom vibrates. Essentially its energy level/temperature. So you change its energy level, you affect the rate of change. There is no fundamental dimension of time being dilated. Consider a giant meteor striking the earth a glancing blow in the direction of its spin, such that it increased the rate of spin. Our days would be shorter, because the spin is faster, but that is just one(very large and humanly important) clock which was speeded up. As Julian pointed out, the idea is to get rid of as many axioms as possible, which is what we do, if we reduce time from a first order dimension, such as space, to a third order effect, such as temperature. The only problem is that everyone insists on seeing time as the present moving from past to future, which is akin to insisting it is the sun that is moving east to west. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT Hi John, I like the idea of getting rid of as many axioms as possible. Pursue simplicity. There is a way to do that, but it is difficult to grasp conceptually. I'll try again. Space-time: is made out of wave-functions. Wave-functions: store and transmit energy primarily as photons. Particles: can be decomposed into wave-functions and photons. Photons are carriers of causality. Gravity: The energy of the Big Bang E_BB plus the gravitational energy U_GR sum to zero. $E_{BB} + U_{GR}=0$ Wave-functions and photons CAUSE ALL PHYSICS to occur. OK, that's six axioms that explain everything. Photons are far more fundamental than just telling time by rotation or orbit of the earth. Time Dilation has to do with the quotient of time between two locations/ emitter and observer/ two inertial reference frames. The photon has frequency E=hf. Frequency is in cycles per SECOND. Time dilation changes the duration of a SECOND. That is how gravity (Equivalence Principle) snaps/clicks into place/connects with quantum mechanics and electromagnetic radiation. "Click!" report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT Jason, Space isn't made out of anything. This give it two properties. Since it isn't composed of anything, it's fundamentally flat and since it's not bounded by anything, it's infinite. The alternative, which everyone seems to be working on, is that space began as a point and has expanded from there. This creates quite a number of conceptual contradictions and patches to maintain, of which I've mentioned many. Such as how can space expand from a point, yet still have a stable speed of light. If it is "spacetime," then the "duration of a SECOND" would have to increase proportionally, by light speeding up, such that it would require the same duration for light to cross the same percentage of the universe at any time in its history. This would contradict the assumption that other galaxies would eventually disappear, since the light they radiate would speed up. Wouldn't it be simpler, ie, less axioms, to say that light travels as its own wave, which we model as a "wave function" because any attempt to measure it with any form of atomic mass object means that only the smallest measurable quantity of light that can interact with atomic mass can be measured? That way, you have a physical wave, without having to argue the geometry has physical properties. "Photons are carriers of causality" across what? Does light create space, or traverse it? This gets back to the issue of lightspeed and the fact that a stable speed of light means a stable, ie. flat dimension of space. That would be the vacuum. Obviously if the space is occupied by some property which slows the speed of light, then that property also exists in the vacuum, ie. empty space. The energy of the Big Bang and gravity were supposed to sum to zero, then they discovered that cosmological constant referred to as dark energy. A proper cosmological constant would in fact balance gravity, as proposed by Einstein. My essay touched on how to provide a balance between whatever effect causes redshift and gravity. If redshift doesn't actually push apart the universe, but expands the measure of space between galaxies, to the degree the measure of space is collapsed by gravity/galaxies, any light threading its way past many galaxies will be redshifted proportionally to how far it travels and eventually it will be redshifted off the visible spectrum. This would create a horizon line to explain why every point would appear at the center of its own view of the universe. Rather than supposing the entire universe expanded from some original point. Of course, this discussion of the nature of time evolves a discussion of the nature of space. "Frequency is in cycles per SECOND. Time dilation changes the duration of a SECOND." Which is easily done by speeding up the cycles, while defining a second as a certain number of cycles. How do you increase the speed of the cycles? Add energy, or reduce drag/gravity. report post as inappropriate James Putnam wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 17:17 GMT Congratulations to the grantees. Their education, vision, and accomplishments deserve recognition. Thank you to FQXi.org and its financial contributors for adding financial support. James report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT John, Peter, physics community, Do you know why the photon is so important? It is the only massless particle that stores its energy as frequency. All other particles have rest mass; they store additional energy as momentum/kinetic energy. Particles with mass actually store additional energy as velocity which approaches the speed of light. Photons are already at the speed of light. If photon frequency is so irrelevant, then why is it that time dilation (caused by gravity, relativistic velocity, etc...) can change that frequency so easily? Photon frequency is in cycles per SECOND. But what does time dilation do? It changes the duration of a SECOND. The Equivalence Principle says that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. But that is not a helpful fact. What is a helpful fact is that g-force can be caused by vehicular acceleration or gravity. That is the other interpretaiton of the Equivalence Principle. So why are photons important? Because it's so EASY to calculate a change in graviational potential using photon frequency. It's so EASY, even an 8th grader could do it. report post as inappropriate John Merryman wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT Jason, "Photon frequency is in cycles per SECOND. But what does time dilation do? It changes the duration of a SECOND." A second is a unit of measure. It has whatever value we assign it. If we say it's x cycles and those cycles speed up or slow down, then the duration of the second changes. It's meaningless to say that time is dilated because if it were, there would be no way to tell. It's just like saying space is bent because light doesn't follow a straight line through a gravity field. If we didn't have that concept of flat space to compare the path of light to, there would be no way to define this path as curved. It's also like saying space expands because of the redshift of the spectrum of distant sources, but the speed of light remains constant. If you have two frames of reference, the stable one is the constant. report post as inappropriate Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT Jason I've learnt that to solve problems you first address the difficult bits not the 'easy' bits. You say; "The Equivalence Principle says that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. But that is not a helpful fact." That may only be because we can't comprehend how a lump of mass can have higher gravitational potential when it goes faster through Johns 'nothing' (the elephant was here - I can't blame John as that's mainstream!). How can it be nothing when we now know the CMBR has a 'rest frame'. And that it measures at 2.7 degrees. Nobody with real intellect can still 'believe it is nothing'. Even Einstein said "space without ether is unthinkable". Unfortunately most of our scientists prefer denial to intellect. What we CAN say is that it is not 'matter' as we know it, and that it cannot be 'absolute' so must be local, i.e. represent various local inertial frames. And that means Jason, that 'photons' as individual physical entities are not conserved during atomic scattering. Compton/Ramar/Stokes/Anti-Stokes scattering is all Fresenls ubiquitous 'n' (Refraction) and all represent Doppler shifting. However - the information, the SIGNAL, the photon carries IS conserved, by E=flamba. If you're not to weeded to 'beliefs' try it. You'll find it works. The photoelectrons propagated from the field by motion through it ARE the missing gravitational and inertial mass. They are propagated to preserve E, 'c' and causality locally, i.e. to implement the 'time' transition between inertial 'frames' (or read 'fields as lines and points are only abstractions). So that's time sorted, and without £hundreds of thousands! Is there really nobody here with the intellect to understand it? Peter report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 13:53 GMT Peter, P: "I've learnt that to solve problems you first address the difficult bits not the 'easy' bits. " Just because its easy doesn't make it wrong or useless. From some very simple assumptions, I am trying to extract the basis for a gravity beam. I can see that I will be branded a crackpot and ignored. For this reason, I will have to do the experiment without help. It is a sorry sight to see a physics community that is averse to technological advancement because creativity is smothered by fear of being branded a crank. The cosmic microwave background is the burning ember of what remains after the Big Bang. It is nearly Ubiquitous with microwaves with a temperature of 2.7K. I'm not familiar with the deeper facts about the CMBR and WMAP, but if you think it can help prove the existence of a rest frame (an aether?) then more power to you. I do like the way you attack and undermine the belief that FTL phenomena is impossible. I empathize with your passion for your epiphany and your frustration with the physics community that is very well trained not to question authority. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 17:39 GMT Peter, Nothing is nothing. The cosmic background radiation is something. I suspect that as we examine it in ever greater detail, we will find the shadows of galaxies so distant their light has been shifted down to black body radiation, with frequencies so long as to be flat. I don't see "space" as having a physical effect, such as gravitational drag, aether, etc. They are all material properties, fields of such. I think I basically agree with your general hypothesis, that C is dependent on the field in question and that light travels through any such field at a maximum velocity, but different fields have different maximums and these fields can be curved, such that C is greater in the center than the periphery. It doesn't surprise me that the light radiated by me striking a match travels slower that that being propelled as a jet out the core of a galaxy. The principle is the same, though, in that they are at a maximum speed because there is no constituent energy or activity within light that could be converted to greater velocity. The point I make about space is strictly geometric. Is zero in geometry the center point to the three dimensional coordinate system, or is it the blank space in which the entire coordinate system exists, with any number of other coordinate systems potentially occupying the same space? Essentially modern math is build around the idea that zero is a dimensionless point. Which is a contradiction. anything multiplied by zero is zero. It doesn't exist. So if you can't have zero as a dimensionless point, then the alternative is that zero is blank space, which means that geometry doesn't create space, but only defines it. Eventually you have a different mathematical and cosmological model. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 17:36 GMT Peter, You and others are free to pursue what you believe to be most important. More power to you. However, the fact that photons are the only particles that store their energy as frequency; AND time dilation can change the frequency by changing the duration of a second, leads to this. This subtle fact will have enormous consequences in the physics community. This little fact will redirect the flow of research grant money for decades. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 17:55 GMT Jason, "changing the duration of a second" Doesn't this seem at all problematic to you? You have two concepts of time, the duration and the unit, ie, second. If they change relative to one another, which is the constant and which is the variable? It is as though I have a ruler made of rubber and I stretch it out and say that space expands because the foot is longer. If time actually varied, you wouldn't be able to tell, because all the references would have to change accordingly. Having one clock go faster than another simply means, for whatever reason, one runs faster. That the cycles of cesium atoms are slower in a gravity field than out of it simply means those cycles are slower due to the effects of gravity. Does gravity cause "time to dilate," or does it drag on atomic structure? I suspect we will eventually discover the mechanism by which it exerts drag. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT John, Your getting the idea, well done. Now this is what's interesting. Call it conjecture, but what if I build an electronic device that can reproduce the frequency profile of a photon falling into a gravity well. Can I get back a gravity field? I'm trying to figure out how to write an equation that describes the momentum that the electronic emitter (or lasers) will impart. If the gravity beam idea works, it would be difficult to ignore. A changing E&M frequency could result in a gravity field. Do you think the experiment is worth trying? report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT John, It comes down to you. You have both common sense AND an understanding of cosmology, redshift, time dilation etc. You get to decide whether or not this idea I have of electronically generated frequency shifting is worth investigating. Orange and Yellow lasers cost$4000 each. To buy all of the test equipment, electronics and lasers would probably cost about \$35,000. I hope to finish my essay this weekend; I will describe the physical principles behind the idea of a gravity beam.

From what I've told you so far, do you think the idea is:

a. crack-pottery, recommend taking up a new different hobby;

b. yeah, there might be something worth testing;

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 18:42 GMT
John.

J; "I think I basically agree with your general hypothesis, that C is dependent on the field in question and that light travels through any such field at a maximum velocity," .Thanks, excellent to that point, but now consider;

What if the light then came across a thick plasma cloud, say part of a giant 'bubble' around a body, the whole lot moving though space (wrt the CMB rest frame), at say 0.2c. (Lets say towards the light source).

We know the refractive index of plasma at that density is say n = 1.1., ;Q1. what do you think happens to the light as it enters the moving plasma? and (Q2); .continues on inside the bubble? ..Think reeally carefully!

Now also consider some light going the same way but just catching the edge of the cloud, going through say 100k of the moving plasma? Q3. Do you think that bit of lights 'space/time might not be curved a little?

And Q4, what would we find relatively when they both escape and get on their way again?

Now consider the answers separately viewed from the rest frame of the bubble as well as the CMB. ..Now you're doing real physics, with real inertial fields, not just abstract numbers, 'points' and 'lines'.

Jason

I've offered an interesting suggestion to your posts on the essay string. -And I shouldn't believe all the standard stuff about big bang echo either. It hasn't bounced off anything unless there's a wall.... Look up 'ame' anomalous microwave emissions, which are the same, emissions from actual activity SINCE 13.7 o'clock. Does anyone reeeally believe otherwise!?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 21:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

You basically asking if the bubble, with n=1.0 and velocity v=0.2c can cause light to reach its destination faster than the light outside the bubble (that has to walk). I grasp what you're looking at. The light inside of the bubble would travel at 1.2c while inside of the bubble; however, from the point of view inside the bubble, only 1.0c. Along the plasma edges where n=1.1, the light would travel through that at c+v/n = 1.2c/1.1 = 1.091c.

I grasp what your saying. You've offered experimental evidence to support your view; I admit I haven't looked at it carefully enough. Yes, it makes me nervous that you seem to be contradicting a long held dictum that nothing moves faster than c. I thought that time dilation inside of the bubble prevented anything from traveling faster than c. The whole inertial reference frame of the bubble should be time dilated as \frac{t'}{t}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}=1.02

$\frac{t$

How does your idea negate length contraction and time dilation?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 21:28 GMT
Peter,

If superluminal drives were possible, then the light would certainly reach its destination long before the light traveling through regular empty space. However, in order to build a superluminal drive, you have to cut the connection between the spaceship and the rest of space-time. Time dilation has to be blocked from occurring.

I think you should continue to pursue your ideas. Stick with it. I think your major obstacle now is the need to show that time dilation and length contraction between the plasma bubble and the rest of space-time (or the M87 phenomena) is somehow prevented from occurring. LC and TD are the anchor that holds you back.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT
I looked up anomalous microwave emissions and got something about spinning dust.

P:"-And I shouldn't believe all the standard stuff about big bang echo either. "

I'm not that well versed in CMB stuff. Sure, their are no sides to the universe. John has suggested that the universe was here before the Big Bang. I could go along with that.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 03:03 GMT
Peter,

If it's moving toward the source, wouldn't it just slow the light that much more?

To the extent the path of the light is curved, I don't see that as bending space, but simply reacting to the physical attributes of the plasma field.

I've wondered whether we might eventually find that gravity is electrostatic in nature. I realize this has obviously been examined, but "curvature of spacetime" is too much a calibration of the effect, than a cause. It's a map of gravity, rather than the actual territory.

There was something recent about "anti-matter" forming at the top of storm clouds. Is it potentially "anti-gravity" as well. As in the opposite polarity.

I've been thinking recently that we have the idea of anti-matter wrong. It doesn't cancel matter, because it in fact enables matter. In the sense that you can't have one without the other. So in a sense they are polarized. An electron is the outer part of the atom and it is negative, while the proton is the center and its positive. Now light expands out, while gravity pulls in. Could mass be the ultimate proton and light the ultimate electron.....

I'd better get some sleep, before i dig this hole any deeper.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 10:28 GMT
Jason/John

Jason; You've seen the elephant in the room again. Don't look away this time! Length contraction and time dilation are a simple step away, and what the short video was about, - watch it again. It's all simply Doppler shift due to refraction and co-motion. Once our brains get used to dealing with those TWO moving variables at once science will advance 100 years and we'll see it's simplicity. (once we've swept away all the droppings).

_Dilation.htm

John

You're so nearly there, but afraid of it. Mathematical physics has got so complex they've forgotten that the question was only;. what does 2 plus 2 make?

Can I put it like this; We have 2 problems;

1. We have this strange force we can't understand that slows light (so 'time'?!) and also seems to bend it (or bend 'space'?!), but there is no 'space' to bend, just a void. How on earth could it work.?? And the answer needs to be a 'real' quantum process for the holy grail of unifying physics!! No wonder we're a bit lost!

2. We have this known fact that refraction slows down light, (so travel time) and curves it's path in a gas or plasma, (which we know there is of lot of in space) to a degree subject to density (mass), by a known quantum mechanism. Why on earth can't we find it's effects anywhere?? All we can find is this theoretical time dilation and curved space stuff everywhere!

So do you think there might just be some kind of link. What answer did you get for that complex equation 2 plus 2 = .....?.

I don't believe in belief based 'quasiscience', but I suggest you can safely believe the answer you get! If our top scientists can't, perhaps they need different glasses, or replacing?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 18:29 GMT
Peter,

Good question. If I may paraphrase, using my own understanding: What balances light? It seems much is covered by this mystery called "gravity." Where light is expending energy in all directions, it is collecting it from all directions.

Where light is a presence that is immaterial, it is an absence that is material. Maybe they will find the Higgs and all will be solved.

I still think there is an element to space we are missing. To quote Nietszche, "I was staring into the abyss when I realized in was staring back."

A holograph of infinity....

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 21:04 GMT
John

"I still think there is an element to space we are missing". Precisely. ..That's the giant 'elephant in the room' I mentioned.

We may call it the interstellar medium, the interplanetary medium (same stuff but at rest wrt the sun), the dark energy condensate, (which condensed matter comes from), the Higgs Field, the Ether, whatever we wish, but it gives us the local 'CMB rest frame' which is now mainstream physics.. The only reason to ban 'the ether' can now go (space without it is 'unthinkable' anyway AE) with local fields.

But those 'inside' the box (who still think they're outside) have got too used to living without it, so will fight tooth and nail for their beliefs whatever logic says. The search for intelligent life in the mainstream physics universe continues! I feel like writing a modern 'Alice in Wonderland'.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Peter,

I think there is a mathematical aspect that should be considered and would cause even more distress to the control oriented and that's the idea that zero is not a dimensionless point. The whole notion of space as three dimensional emerges from it, since the zero point is the anchor of the three dimensional coordinate system and it is this mathematical construct which is what three dimensions boil down to. I have a strong suspicion that if all the conceptual framework out of which Big Bang emerged was dissected, it would reveal that this assumption is the seed.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 05:07 GMT
FQX is an old boys network and nothing like what it purports to be.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 07:02 GMT
It's a network of people who are well versed in physics and know what they're talking about.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT
Uh, welcome to the real world. Similar politics applies in any such situation. If you want to climb the ladder, you have to follow the rules of that ladder. We just have a little garden here, that while it has no serious access to the castle, provides a nice space to converse for like minded people. Here, we can take out our little hammers and chip little scratches in the castle walls and no one cares. If the big names actually joined the public conversation, it would draw much more attention and the debate would likely cohere around established schools of thought. So that those of us who think the establishment is somewhat off the tracks would be marginalized, if not outright banned. Been there, been banned. Yea for FQXi!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
There's no castle. Professional scientists are remarkably accessible to people who have studied their subject or who wish to learn it -- just survey the 'net, and all the information so freely available on the Web. Science is, after all, the most collaborative enterprise on Earth. It's a bit much to expect of anyone, however, to listen very long to propositions that violate the most basic known principles and proven results, and then be abused for defending some nonexistent "establishment." What benefit does one derive from that?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 02:34 GMT
The rubber is getting closer to hitting the road:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44805

Realit
y check at the LHC

Lots of comments from Robert Oldershaw

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT
Does anyone here know how to perform a transformation of a gravitational potential energy from an accelerated coordinates into an inertial reference frame?

report post as inappropriate

Bubba wrote on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
IMO, University physics departments need to put the physics back in physics education.

It is not uncommon today to see newly minted post-docs and PhD's who lack any sense of physical intuition or imagination.Students have been indoctrinated too heavily in mathematical rigor and formalisms.

Modern physics has become boring, unimaginitive, and conformist.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 01:14 GMT
Dear Ray, other thoughtful people,

Do you think that athiests and others would be less afraid of God if we as human beings were permitted, by God, to take personal responsibility for our own moral and ethical conduct? In doing so, this would eliminate needless worry that we are attending the wrong church or religion.

I think the root cause of a lot of human misery is the dilemma of not knowing if we are going to suffer eternal damnation for not worshipping God at all, or doing so in a way that someone tells us is improper.

There are many different kinds of people in the world. Some people do not feel a connection to the Creator.

I'm trying to make the argument that freedom of religion and religious harmony are positive things. We have it in the United Stats. Maybe we should ask this Higher Power to honor our choice to believe, not to believe, or worship in a way that we are in attunement with.

Isn't that what religious freedom means?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 03:41 GMT
Jason,

I talk to God all the time, but he just says the same thing, "Keep moving until I tell you to stop." Of course, it might be his answering machine.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 06:33 GMT
LOL. That's pretty funny!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Jason,

I came downloaded with the religion 1.2 program. It has "Zeus is sick of your whining. Shut up and reload." printed on the cover of the installation floppy, with the price listed as blood of a ram.

It's got one of those early updates though. There is a "Je" scribbled in front of the Zeus, the "is sick of" is scratched out and "listens to" is written in above it. The "shut up and" is scratched out and "and pray." is written after "reload." Blood of a ram is scratched out too and "10%" is written over it, but I think it's a pirated copy, because the most anyone seems to ever pay is a few coins.

It really doesn't work as advertised though. Mostly it's the old program with a few of the more obnoxious bugs patched over, but you know how those programers are. Every little patch is branded and copyrighted as the best thing since sliced bread. As Tom said, it's all about positioning and perception.

Fact is, they are all pretty similar. Some lean toward the being and some toward the doing. The whole noun/verb, factor/function thing, but the reality is they all blur position and momentum together.

As Frank Sinatra so eloquently put it, "Dobedobedobedo."

Of course, he also said, "I did it my way," but that likely involved controlled substances.

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