QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 6 2006, 11:21 PM)
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM]... It doesn't show that photons exist as particles. it just states that the effects of the radiations on matter are localized within a very large area, the size of the spark or bubble....[/QUOTE]
Well, what they show it depends on interpretation again....
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM]... The reveal nothing about the size or dimensions of matter or photons....[/QUOTE]
Well, it reveals upper limit of photon size - about 1 millimeter, or so... Does it necessarily mean, the photon has really 1 millimeter in size? I don't think so..
But it definitely means, the photon size doesn't exceed 1 mm in size and it doesn't spread as some spherical wave through space. Do you have some better explanation of this phenomena, then my interpretation supplies?
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM]...your equations don't give a sense of dimension or shape to a photon. They simply describe the region of space where it might be detectable....[/QUOTE]
Well, this is exactly, what the dimension concept is about....
I'm not discussing the shape here.[/quote]If you are discussing particles you are. Simply describing the region of space where a part of a wave of electromagnetic energy could be detected does not suggest a particle exists.
[quote]
What I can see by now in spark chamber is the particle spreading. The photon itself can be even much more subtle, than the spark or cloud diameter. In human sense, it's typical particle, despite of its delocalization, which is normal in quantum world.[/quote]
I don't understand this claim of a human sense and then also "normal" in the quantum world. The human sense is not scientific. We know that human phenomenal conceptions of space and time, matter and energy are wrong. That is why the physical interpretation of photons or even atoms as particles in the sense of macroscopic particles we can "see" is simply wrong.
[quote]
[QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:01 AM]... These make no metaphysical claims about the structure of matter or energy! ....[/QUOTE]
Of course not, my claims about structure of matter are explicitly based on real physic analogies... [/quote]
My point is physical analogies between the quantum perspective and the human sensible ones are not possible. They only serve to confuse and mislead.
So in the end, I am wondering what your overall thesis is. Are you saying quantum theory is incomplete, or general relativity is or what? And is you Aether theory an attempt at a quantum gravity theory?
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:29 AM)
..Simply describing the region of space where a part of a wave of electromagnetic energy could be detected does not suggest a particle exists...
You mean, if something appears like particle and spreads like particle, it doesn't necessarily means, it's particle...? Please consider, the contemporary physic distinguishes a two types of particles: fermion and bosons. As the photon isn't fermion, obviously, does it means, it's not a particle at all? You decide...
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a ....
...helicopter.
You mean, if something appears like particle and spreads like particle, it doesn't necessarily means, it's particle...? Please consider, the contemporary physic distinguishes a two types of particles: fermion and bosons. As the photon isn't fermion, obviously, does it means, it's not a particle at all? You decide...
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a ....
...helicopter.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:29 AM)
..We know that human phenomenal conceptions of space and time, matter and energy are wrong....
What's such conceptions, after than? I cannot express myself, until I don't know, what u mean exactly.
What's such conceptions, after than? I cannot express myself, until I don't know, what u mean exactly.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:29 AM)
..The human sense is not scientific. ...
Do you mean, the scientists are E.T.s? Please, explain....
Do you mean, the scientists are E.T.s? Please, explain....
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 6 2006, 11:38 PM)
[
[quote]QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:29 AM]..Simply describing the region of space where a part of a wave of electromagnetic energy could be detected does not suggest a particle exists...[/QUOTE]
You mean, if something appears like particle and spreads like particle, it doesn't necessarily means, it's particle...? Please consider, the contemporary physic distinguishes a two types of particles: fermion and bosons. As the photon isn't fermion, obviously, does it means, it's not a particle at all? You decide...
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a ....
...helicopter.[/quote]
That is simply a misrepresentation of quantum physics. Particles are waves in quantum physics (DeBroglie equation)and in quantum field theory fermions and bosons are described as fields or matter fields.
And photons are idealized descriptions of the electromagnetic field. The fact the matter and energy are quantized doesn't mean they are particles.
And the bubble chamber experiments do not prove there are particles at all. In science we use mathematical deduction, not sensory inductive perception to define things. Clearly the bubble chamber describes the reactions of the other elements, not the nature of the matter or energy.
Are you familar with wave/particle duality by the way? How do you account for that?
[quote]QUOTE=gshenkers,Jun 7 2006, 02:29 AM]..Simply describing the region of space where a part of a wave of electromagnetic energy could be detected does not suggest a particle exists...[/QUOTE]
You mean, if something appears like particle and spreads like particle, it doesn't necessarily means, it's particle...? Please consider, the contemporary physic distinguishes a two types of particles: fermion and bosons. As the photon isn't fermion, obviously, does it means, it's not a particle at all? You decide...
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a ....
...helicopter.[/quote]
That is simply a misrepresentation of quantum physics. Particles are waves in quantum physics (DeBroglie equation)and in quantum field theory fermions and bosons are described as fields or matter fields.
And photons are idealized descriptions of the electromagnetic field. The fact the matter and energy are quantized doesn't mean they are particles.
And the bubble chamber experiments do not prove there are particles at all. In science we use mathematical deduction, not sensory inductive perception to define things. Clearly the bubble chamber describes the reactions of the other elements, not the nature of the matter or energy.
Are you familar with wave/particle duality by the way? How do you account for that?
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:46 AM)
Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way? How do you account for that?
You've supplying a lot of questions, but no answers, Try to have look here at first, the owner of this topic isn't usually very happy from foreign theories right here...
You can put the other questions concerning the Aether Wave theory right here, after than.
You've supplying a lot of questions, but no answers, Try to have look here at first, the owner of this topic isn't usually very happy from foreign theories right here...
You can put the other questions concerning the Aether Wave theory right here, after than.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 7 2006, 12:21 AM)
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 02:46 AM)
Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way? How do you account for that?
You've supplying a lot of questions, but no answers, Try to have look here at first, the owner of this topic isn't usually very happy from foreign theories right here...
You can put the other questions concerning the Aether Wave theory right here, after than.
I offered two questions and the rest was analysis. I have read some of your works, but I am asking specific questions in order to resolve a specific issue. Why would I refer to the literature if I have the author himself? If I was asking einstein a question on relativity he wouldn't refer me to his original papers.
You've supplying a lot of questions, but no answers, Try to have look here at first, the owner of this topic isn't usually very happy from foreign theories right here...
You can put the other questions concerning the Aether Wave theory right here, after than.
I offered two questions and the rest was analysis. I have read some of your works, but I am asking specific questions in order to resolve a specific issue. Why would I refer to the literature if I have the author himself? If I was asking einstein a question on relativity he wouldn't refer me to his original papers.
Zephir 
gshenkers
You are using circular arguments. Yes, you are avoiding discussing anything but the "standard approach".
Open your mind....let in the other possibilities. I proposed one that is very simple.... and it can be improved too.
The standard approach is the one being used.... it's not going to go away just because you try to find another approach that eliminates the "magic".
I'll add another problem that is not discussed in the standard approach ( that will make #7)
You defied conservation of energy and have new energy entering our universe and you cannot say where it comes from. You want the Big Bang and you invoke Hoyle steady state mechanism of having energy being created out of vaccum.
Using GR as you did is not an explanation.
Creating a second "time frame" without giving more explanation ....???
You are way way WORST THAN ME.... you are using dragons and magic
Do you have anything to say about a simple structured symmetrical spacetime?
jal
gshenkers
You are using circular arguments. Yes, you are avoiding discussing anything but the "standard approach".
Open your mind....let in the other possibilities. I proposed one that is very simple.... and it can be improved too.
The standard approach is the one being used.... it's not going to go away just because you try to find another approach that eliminates the "magic".
I'll add another problem that is not discussed in the standard approach ( that will make #7)
You defied conservation of energy and have new energy entering our universe and you cannot say where it comes from. You want the Big Bang and you invoke Hoyle steady state mechanism of having energy being created out of vaccum.
Using GR as you did is not an explanation.
Creating a second "time frame" without giving more explanation ....???
You are way way WORST THAN ME....
you are using dragons and magic Do you have anything to say about a simple structured symmetrical spacetime?
jal
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 03:27 AM)
...Why would I refer to the literature if I have the author himself? If I was asking Einstein a question on relativity he wouldn't refer me to his original papers...
Thanks, but I'm not any - ...well, how did you call him ? ..Einstein....?? And I'm awfully repetitive here.
The yin-yang particle wave duality concept is even contained in oficiall Aether Wave theory logo. It's derived from the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the simplest and most illustrative model of particle-wave duality by my knowledge.
Thanks, but I'm not any - ...well, how did you call him ? ..Einstein....??
And I'm awfully repetitive here. The yin-yang particle wave duality concept is even contained in oficiall Aether Wave theory logo. It's derived from the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the simplest and most illustrative model of particle-wave duality by my knowledge.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 7 2006, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 03:27 AM)
...Why would I refer to the literature if I have the author himself? If I was asking Einstein a question on relativity he wouldn't refer me to his original papers...
Thanks, but I'm not any - ...well, how did you call him ? ..Einstein....?? And I'm awfully repetitive here.
The yin-yang particle wave duality concept is even contained in oficiall Aether Wave theory logo. It's derived from the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the simplest and most illustrative model of particle-wave duality by my knowledge.
No offense but this doesn't explain anything. You seem to claim it was your theory so how do you account for the "perceived" duality?
And do you acknowledge that all quantum theories treat matter and energy as fielkds and not spatiotemporal independent particles.?
Thanks, but I'm not any - ...well, how did you call him ? ..Einstein....??
And I'm awfully repetitive here. The yin-yang particle wave duality concept is even contained in oficiall Aether Wave theory logo. It's derived from the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the simplest and most illustrative model of particle-wave duality by my knowledge.
No offense but this doesn't explain anything. You seem to claim it was your theory so how do you account for the "perceived" duality?
And do you acknowledge that all quantum theories treat matter and energy as fielkds and not spatiotemporal independent particles.?
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
No offense but this doesn't explain anything.
You didn't asked me for some explanation. You just asked me "Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way?". My answer was: "Yes, of course".
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
You didn't asked me for some explanation. You just asked me "Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way?". My answer was: "Yes, of course".
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
...how do you account for the "perceived" duality
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
..and do you acknowledge that all quantum theories treat matter and energy as fields and not spatiotemporal independent particles.?
I don't know all the quantum theories and "spatiotemporal independent particles", so I cannot answer. But I don't think, the matter, energy and field concepts are equivalent. By my understanding, the "field" cannot exist without presence of some matter, so it's existence is dependent to existence of matter, with compare to Aether, which is able to exist by itself.
I don't know all the quantum theories and "spatiotemporal independent particles", so I cannot answer. But I don't think, the matter, energy and field concepts are equivalent. By my understanding, the "field" cannot exist without presence of some matter, so it's existence is dependent to existence of matter, with compare to Aether, which is able to exist by itself.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jun 7 2006, 02:38 PM)
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
No offense but this doesn't explain anything.
You didn't asked me for some explanation. You just asked me "Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way?". My answer was: "Yes, of course".
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
You didn't asked me for some explanation. You just asked me "Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way?". My answer was: "Yes, of course".
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
...how do you account for the "perceived" duality
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
..and do you acknowledge that all quantum theories treat matter and energy as fields and not spatiotemporal independent particles.?
I don't know all the quantum theories and "spatiotemporal independent particles", so I cannot answer. But I don't think, the matter, energy and field concepts are equivalent. By my understanding, the "field" cannot exist without presence of some matter, so it's existence is dependent to existence of matter, with compare to Aether, which is able to exist by itself.
Isn't that a little disingenuous?
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
I am not interested in your post history. I challenged your concept of "photon formation" as nonsensical. You are confusing virtual particles with the definition of a quantum of electromagnetic energy. You still haven't explained how you define wave/particle duality and how your model addresses it.
I am not interested in your post history. I challenged your concept of "photon formation" as nonsensical. You are confusing virtual particles with the definition of a quantum of electromagnetic energy. You still haven't explained how you define wave/particle duality and how your model addresses it.
I don't know all the quantum theories and "spatiotemporal independent particles", so I cannot answer. But I don't think, the matter, energy and field concepts are equivalent. By my understanding, the "field" cannot exist without presence of some matter, so it's existence is dependent to existence of matter, with compare to Aether, which is able to exist by itself.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No offense but this doesn't explain anything. You didn't asked me for some explanation. You just asked me "Are you familiar with wave/particle duality by the way?". My answer was: "Yes, of course". |
Isn't that a little disingenuous?
QUOTE
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history.
I am not interested in your post history. I challenged your concept of "photon formation" as nonsensical. You are confusing virtual particles with the definition of a quantum of electromagnetic energy. You still haven't explained how you define wave/particle duality and how your model addresses it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Concerning the explanation of something, I've explained you the mechanism of photon formation just before, for example. You've got an Java applet and animation, which you cannot found anywhere else. I can explain you the uncertainty principle, the quantum entanglement, the deBroglie wave and all these weird quantum theory effects and phenomena by rather simple, consistent and intuitive way, based on common life experience. All this you can found in my post history. |
I am not interested in your post history. I challenged your concept of "photon formation" as nonsensical. You are confusing virtual particles with the definition of a quantum of electromagnetic energy. You still haven't explained how you define wave/particle duality and how your model addresses it.
QUOTE (gshenkers+Jun 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
...how do you account for the "perceived" duality
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
That is nonsense. it doen't say anything. You are describing the wave particle duality as a phase transition?
Are you suggesting matter must consist of "particles". According to Quantum Field Theory all matter is simply excitations of different fields, that is waves in those fields. The fields are the matter. And there are also energy fields. Matter isn't even a technical term, it is mass. Anything with mass is considered matter, and mass is the measure of energy as well as the entities resistance to acceleration. Particles do not exist.
You've simply didn't understood obviously, such reality is immanent part of recursive wave equation solution as the fundamental model of Aether Wave Theory. Such solution makes itself more dense by avalanche-like process, until it's density isn't so high, then total reflection occurs followed by phase transition. After then the wave pocket of boson oscillates in its own density lens like bunny in hole. Such wave prefers the places with increased energy density, making it by even more dense, until the density becomes so high, it will freeze the wave motion at place.
Technically, it's just a matter of optics for energy wave spreading, so it's quite simple and easily understandable process in terms of classical wave mechanic and mass-energy equivalence principle.
That is nonsense. it doen't say anything. You are describing the wave particle duality as a phase transition?
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
..and do you acknowledge that all quantum theories treat matter and energy as fields and not spatiotemporal independent particles.? I don't know all the quantum theories and "spatiotemporal independent particles", so I cannot answer. But I don't think, the matter, energy and field concepts are equivalent. By my understanding, the "field" cannot exist without presence of some matter, so it's existence is dependent to existence of matter, with compare to Aether, which is able to exist by itself. |
Are you suggesting matter must consist of "particles". According to Quantum Field Theory all matter is simply excitations of different fields, that is waves in those fields. The fields are the matter. And there are also energy fields. Matter isn't even a technical term, it is mass. Anything with mass is considered matter, and mass is the measure of energy as well as the entities resistance to acceleration. Particles do not exist.
QUOTE (jal+Jan 7 2006, 02:41 AM)
ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY---SHAPE OF SPACE
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs.
jal
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
I think you may have misstated this. First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage. Secondly low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order and thus many many degrees of freedom.
Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
When Entropy in a spacetime system is at its maximum, it is a black hole. They are the maximum entropy objects in the universe, and reflect gravitational and thermodynamic entropy. When entropy is high the degrees of freedom are limited since all of them are occupied.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
I think you may have misstated this. First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage. Secondly low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order and thus many many degrees of freedom.
Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
When Entropy in a spacetime system is at its maximum, it is a black hole. They are the maximum entropy objects in the universe, and reflect gravitational and thermodynamic entropy. When entropy is high the degrees of freedom are limited since all of them are occupied.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs.
jal
WHat do you mean by dimensions? Interestingly in 4dimensional spacetime, the maximum entropy of a region of space is a function of the area of the region, not the volume. In terms of symmetry and entropy though, they are not related. One can define entropy in any dimensional spacetime, one needs to choose the metric first and then calculate the entropy levels. Does that make sense?
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs.
jal
QUOTE
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY.
With entropy at 0.0%,
It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen.
Also,
Potential energy would be at 100.0%.
What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen.
All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle.
I think you may have misstated this. First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage. Secondly low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order and thus many many degrees of freedom.
Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
When Entropy in a spacetime system is at its maximum, it is a black hole. They are the maximum entropy objects in the universe, and reflect gravitational and thermodynamic entropy. When entropy is high the degrees of freedom are limited since all of them are occupied.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I want to approach this subject from a different angle. In relationship to spacetime NOT PARTICLES. By-the-way, all proposed theories must be able to explain the ENTROPY---POTENTIAL ENERGY. With entropy at 0.0%, It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen. Also, Potential energy would be at 100.0%. What I want to do is to see if there are logical step to get us to the opposite end of the scale where entropy at 100% and potential energy at 0.0%. This would be where all dimensions are empty and reachable. Therefore, nothing could happen. All symmetry would be gone. This would be a full circle. |
I think you may have misstated this. First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage. Secondly low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order and thus many many degrees of freedom.
Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
When Entropy in a spacetime system is at its maximum, it is a black hole. They are the maximum entropy objects in the universe, and reflect gravitational and thermodynamic entropy. When entropy is high the degrees of freedom are limited since all of them are occupied.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
For something to happen there has to be a "broken symmetry".
THEREFORE, THE FIRST BROKEN SYMMETRY WOULD BE...??? movement in the first dimension??
Yes!,... this is where I need your inputs.
jal
WHat do you mean by dimensions? Interestingly in 4dimensional spacetime, the maximum entropy of a region of space is a function of the area of the region, not the volume. In terms of symmetry and entropy though, they are not related. One can define entropy in any dimensional spacetime, one needs to choose the metric first and then calculate the entropy levels. Does that make sense?
gshenkers
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
.... many many degrees of freedom.
The potential is many degrees of freedom.
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.
I'll accept improvements.
jal
QUOTE
...low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order .... Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order .... Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy. |
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
.... many many degrees of freedom.
The potential is many degrees of freedom.
QUOTE
First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage |
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.
I'll accept improvements.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Jun 8 2006, 04:10 AM)
gshenkers
[QUOTE] ...low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order .... Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
[QUOTE].... many many degrees of freedom.[/QUOTE]
The potential is many degrees of freedom.
[QUOTE]First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage[/QUOTE]
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
[QUOTE]It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
[/QUOTE]
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.
I'll accept improvements.
jal
[QUOTE]
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input. [/quote]
That makes no sense. You are aware of what a natural logarithm is and how entropy is calculated right? The number of dimensions is explicitly included in the entropy formula. It is a dimensionless quantity. By calculatiiong the possible configurations of the entire system the spatial dimensions are accounted for. You are identifying a non-problem.
[quote]
[/QUOTE]
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.[/quote]
You have it backwards. As the degrees of freedom INCREASES ENTROPY DECREASES and POTENTIAL ENERGY IS INCREASED!
I think you are making a problem out of nothing.
[QUOTE] ...low entropy or 0 entropy means maximum order .... Low Entropy is associated with HIGH potential energy.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what I was saying. Everything has a place and everything is in its place. There is no place to move to. No movement ... no entropy.
[QUOTE].... many many degrees of freedom.[/QUOTE]
The potential is many degrees of freedom.
[QUOTE]First Entropy isn't expressed as a percentage[/QUOTE]
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input.
[QUOTE]It seems to me your scheme is a little awkward.
[/QUOTE]
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.
I'll accept improvements.
jal
[QUOTE]
It is now. How else could you do it when going from maximum to a 2d structure.
Give me an input. [/quote]
That makes no sense. You are aware of what a natural logarithm is and how entropy is calculated right? The number of dimensions is explicitly included in the entropy formula. It is a dimensionless quantity. By calculatiiong the possible configurations of the entire system the spatial dimensions are accounted for. You are identifying a non-problem.
[quote]
[/QUOTE]
How would you express potential energy and entropy when you want to go from one dimension to two to three?
As the degrees of freedom increases the potential energy is lowered and the entropy is increased.[/quote]
You have it backwards. As the degrees of freedom INCREASES ENTROPY DECREASES and POTENTIAL ENERGY IS INCREASED!
I think you are making a problem out of nothing.
gshenkers
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
See Potential_energy
Entropy
EntropyAn important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
See Potential_energy
QUOTE
All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy.
Entropy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy. |
EntropyAn important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
QUOTE
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
QUOTE (jal+Jun 8 2006, 03:37 PM)
gshenkers
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
See Potential_energy
Entropy
EntropyAn important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
First, it is not an issue of belief, but what is. Now you completely butchered the notion of Entropy. The issue is what is energy. The energy content of the universe never changes, or the mass-energy content never does. Mass and energy are different manifestations of the same “thing.” And mass is derived from spacetime or the gravitational field energy. The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
See Potential_energy
QUOTE
All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy.
Entropy
QUOTE
An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
What are you talking about? I never said energy “disappears” into a black hole. And having energy go into a black hole is not the same as having entropy increase. The fact is the entropic system must have a beginning an end. A black hole is the maximum entropy state in the universe. However, the black hole is quite different from the singularity that bgean the universe since that needed to be Low entropy. Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
So what is it you have a problem with?
What are you talking about? I never said energy “disappears” into a black hole. And having energy go into a black hole is not the same as having entropy increase. The fact is the entropic system must have a beginning an end. A black hole is the maximum entropy state in the universe. However, the black hole is quite different from the singularity that bgean the universe since that needed to be Low entropy. Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
So what is it you have a problem with?
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
There is no "quantity of energy" or resevoir in the universe. Energy isn't a "thing" it is a measure. Entropy was low at the beginning of the universe. I already stated that. And so has all of mainstream physics. Entropy doesn't move.
The issue is how did the universe begin in a low entropy state or with "energy available for work!"
QUOTE
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
You haven't included a source. You simply postulated a low entropy beginning. So does everyone else. You misstate the relationship between energy and entropy however. Entropy is esentially a measurement of Usable energy or energy available for Work. The quanity of energy is the same along with mass. Energy is simply the arrangement of mass or spacetime in a manner where Work can be extracted. The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
See Potential_energy
QUOTE
All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy.
Entropy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy. |
EntropyAn important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
QUOTE
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. |
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
We are not going to get very far if we cannot agree on some basic definition of how our universe works.
For example if you believe that energy can come from out of nothing and I believe that energy comes from a reservoir then we will be at impass.
Let's agree and see where we end up.
First, it is not an issue of belief, but what is. Now you completely butchered the notion of Entropy. The issue is what is energy. The energy content of the universe never changes, or the mass-energy content never does. Mass and energy are different manifestations of the same “thing.” And mass is derived from spacetime or the gravitational field energy. The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
QUOTE
See Potential_energy
QUOTE
All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy.
Entropy
QUOTE
An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase.
You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing)
You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system.
What are you talking about? I never said energy “disappears” into a black hole. And having energy go into a black hole is not the same as having entropy increase. The fact is the entropic system must have a beginning an end. A black hole is the maximum entropy state in the universe. However, the black hole is quite different from the singularity that bgean the universe since that needed to be Low entropy. Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
So what is it you have a problem with?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
See Potential_energy QUOTE All the examples above are actually force field stored energy (sometimes in disguise). For example in elastic potential energy, stretching an elastic material forces the atoms very slightly further apart. Powerful electromagnetic forces try to keep the atoms at their optimal distance and so elastic potential is actually electromagnetic potential. Having said that, scientists rarely talk about forces on an atomic scale. Everything is phrased in terms of energy rather than force. You can think of potential energy as being derived from force or you can think of force as being derived from potential energy. Entropy QUOTE An important law of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe as a whole (i.e. the system and its surroundings) tends to increase. You accept the Big Bang as having all of the energy of the universe coming out of a point ( NTHING) and expanding into a 3d + time environment. You do the same thing for virtual particles. You then do the reverse by having energy dissapear into a "Black hole". (into a point = into nothing) You are cutting off the thermodynamic system at the start and at the end. You do not have a system. |
What are you talking about? I never said energy “disappears” into a black hole. And having energy go into a black hole is not the same as having entropy increase. The fact is the entropic system must have a beginning an end. A black hole is the maximum entropy state in the universe. However, the black hole is quite different from the singularity that bgean the universe since that needed to be Low entropy. Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
So what is it you have a problem with?
On the other hand, I'm saying that energy came from a reservoir. I'm doing better then you.... I'm equating that energy to Potential energy and to Entropy. I'm assigning a starting number.
Potential Energy (that can be used in our universe) 100%
Entropy ( It has not done any moving yet) 0%.
There is no "quantity of energy" or resevoir in the universe. Energy isn't a "thing" it is a measure. Entropy was low at the beginning of the universe. I already stated that. And so has all of mainstream physics. Entropy doesn't move.
The issue is how did the universe begin in a low entropy state or with "energy available for work!"
QUOTE
QUOTE
the second law of thermodynamics, states that the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
You have not included the source of the energy in your system of the universe.
I HAVE INCLUDED THE ENERGY SOURCE AND I HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM (A CYCLING SYSTEM.)
WHY DONT YOU LIKE MY COMPLETE CYCLING SYSTEM?
JAL
You haven't included a source. You simply postulated a low entropy beginning. So does everyone else. You misstate the relationship between energy and entropy however. Entropy is esentially a measurement of Usable energy or energy available for Work. The quanity of energy is the same along with mass. Energy is simply the arrangement of mass or spacetime in a manner where Work can be extracted. The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
gshenkers
The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
Okay!!! give the answer. What is the theory that you support?
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
QUOTE
isolated thermodynamic system
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| isolated thermodynamic system |
The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system
QUOTE
Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate. |
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
Okay!!! give the answer. What is the theory that you support?
QUOTE
Yes spacetime has that structure. However, you fail to define Information and the mechanism by which it is transferred.
It does matter what we call it and how it is transferred. The Higgs field is only posited as transmitting mass, which cannot be all the information.
You are not thinking ahead of anyone knowledgeable in physics. Have you ever heard of Claude Shannon, Boltzmann, or even Gregory Chaitin? They describe and efine information in a physical manner, and also address its mode of transport and relationship to the universe.
You don’t do any of that.
It does matter what we call it and how it is transferred. The Higgs field is only posited as transmitting mass, which cannot be all the information.
You are not thinking ahead of anyone knowledgeable in physics. Have you ever heard of Claude Shannon, Boltzmann, or even Gregory Chaitin? They describe and efine information in a physical manner, and also address its mode of transport and relationship to the universe.
You don’t do any of that.
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Jun 8 2006, 11:20 PM)
gshenkers
The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
Okay!!! give the answer. What is the theory that you support?
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
b]I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system[/b]
Yes we do. The universe is an isolated system, both thermodynamically and gravitationally. Nothing goes in and nothing goes out.
Quantum Cosmology. The question isn't how the mas and spacetime came into existence, it is how it came into existence in such a precise low entropy configuration. MAss and spacetime can come into existence from no prior material cause. it is a basic premise of quantum mechanics. The question is how the uniuverse at the moment of its creation was arranged in a maximum thermodynamic entropy state but a minimum or low entropy state all over. This is known as the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis and must be satisfied for an successful quantum gravity theory.
I didn't say you knew nothing. I am saying you aren't putting much "meat on the bones" so to speak when you decribe your theory.
How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?
And do you understand the notion of gravitational entropy?
QUOTE
isolated thermodynamic system
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| isolated thermodynamic system |
The point is the universe according to QM could have emerged from nothing, that is no prior material cause.
I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system
QUOTE
Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate.
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, we know now due to Hawking radiation that the black hole's mass or energy is not lost forever but that the hole radiates and will ultimately dissipate. |
We can get into that later... if we can agree on the basics
The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration.
Okay!!! give the answer. What is the theory that you support?
QUOTE
Yes spacetime has that structure. However, you fail to define Information and the mechanism by which it is transferred.
It does matter what we call it and how it is transferred. The Higgs field is only posited as transmitting mass, which cannot be all the information.
You are not thinking ahead of anyone knowledgeable in physics. Have you ever heard of Claude Shannon, Boltzmann, or even Gregory Chaitin? They describe and efine information in a physical manner, and also address its mode of transport and relationship to the universe.
You don’t do any of that.
It does matter what we call it and how it is transferred. The Higgs field is only posited as transmitting mass, which cannot be all the information.
You are not thinking ahead of anyone knowledgeable in physics. Have you ever heard of Claude Shannon, Boltzmann, or even Gregory Chaitin? They describe and efine information in a physical manner, and also address its mode of transport and relationship to the universe.
You don’t do any of that.
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes spacetime has that structure. However, you fail to define Information and the mechanism by which it is transferred. It does matter what we call it and how it is transferred. The Higgs field is only posited as transmitting mass, which cannot be all the information. You are not thinking ahead of anyone knowledgeable in physics. Have you ever heard of Claude Shannon, Boltzmann, or even Gregory Chaitin? They describe and efine information in a physical manner, and also address its mode of transport and relationship to the universe. You don’t do any of that. |
Since I don't know anything. I'll shut up and listen to my teacher.
Teach me.
jal
b]I repeat....you do not have an isolated thermodynamic system[/b]
Yes we do. The universe is an isolated system, both thermodynamically and gravitationally. Nothing goes in and nothing goes out.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The question is where did the mass and spacetime come from originally and how did it begin in such a low entropy configuration. Okay!!! give the answer. What is the theory that you support? |
Quantum Cosmology. The question isn't how the mas and spacetime came into existence, it is how it came into existence in such a precise low entropy configuration. MAss and spacetime can come into existence from no prior material cause. it is a basic premise of quantum mechanics. The question is how the uniuverse at the moment of its creation was arranged in a maximum thermodynamic entropy state but a minimum or low entropy state all over. This is known as the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis and must be satisfied for an successful quantum gravity theory.
I didn't say you knew nothing. I am saying you aren't putting much "meat on the bones" so to speak when you decribe your theory.
How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?
And do you understand the notion of gravitational entropy?
gshenkers
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.
I get it you want me to believe in magic.
jal
QUOTE
How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.
I get it you want me to believe in magic.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Jun 9 2006, 12:03 AM)
gshenkers
[QUOTE]How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?[/QUOTE]
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.
I get it you want me to believe in magic.
jal
[quote]
QUOTE]How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?[/QUOTE]
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
[/quote]
Spacetime is not 3d and time. It is a 4 dimensional spacetime field. It is a gravitational field.
Secondly you didn't answer the question about the universe being an isolated system.
In terms of quantum mechanics, the fact is spacetime can emerge from no material cause. The arrangement of this spacetime is the critical issue and that as I said is what needs to beanswered with a quantum gravity theory.
The only reason that the concept of a spacetime singularity emerging from no prior cause is your bias of classical logic. Look at how the universe is expanding, no one has found the source of energy for that and that is how mass and energy first came about.
[quote]
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.[/quote]
What are you talking about. The existence of information is not predicated on spacetime. It is predicated on the degrees of freedomnof the system. Your question is nonsensical. And I never said quantum cosmology was my answer regarding this issue.
You never seem to say anything of substance. Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information. I think you need to explain how you define information. Then we can have a fruitful discussion.
And by the way quantum theory isn't magic. I don't want you to believe anything. I want you to actually state what you do believe clearly and succinctly.
[QUOTE]How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?[/QUOTE]
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.
I get it you want me to believe in magic.
jal
[quote]
QUOTE]How can you say the universe is not an isolated system?[/QUOTE]
How can you say something got made from nothing and came into being into the nothing? You should at least be able to tell me how the nothing became 3d + time.
[/quote]
Spacetime is not 3d and time. It is a 4 dimensional spacetime field. It is a gravitational field.
Secondly you didn't answer the question about the universe being an isolated system.
In terms of quantum mechanics, the fact is spacetime can emerge from no material cause. The arrangement of this spacetime is the critical issue and that as I said is what needs to beanswered with a quantum gravity theory.
The only reason that the concept of a spacetime singularity emerging from no prior cause is your bias of classical logic. Look at how the universe is expanding, no one has found the source of energy for that and that is how mass and energy first came about.
[quote]
You should be able to give the description of the structure of spacetime so that it will permit the flow of information.
What is your theory? Quantum Cosmology is too encompasing.[/quote]
What are you talking about. The existence of information is not predicated on spacetime. It is predicated on the degrees of freedomnof the system. Your question is nonsensical. And I never said quantum cosmology was my answer regarding this issue.
You never seem to say anything of substance. Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information. I think you need to explain how you define information. Then we can have a fruitful discussion.
And by the way quantum theory isn't magic. I don't want you to believe anything. I want you to actually state what you do believe clearly and succinctly.
gshenkers
Look up Seth Lloyd, "Programming the Universe". It should be available at your library. That's the latest in pop literature. (Quantum computers)
I do not want to try to change your mind. As you get more information, you'll do that by yourself.
We cannot have a discussion. I'm not smart enough for you.
Bye
jal
Look up Seth Lloyd, "Programming the Universe". It should be available at your library. That's the latest in pop literature. (Quantum computers)
I do not want to try to change your mind. As you get more information, you'll do that by yourself.
We cannot have a discussion. I'm not smart enough for you.
Bye
jal
QUOTE (jal+Jun 9 2006, 01:46 AM)
ote
gshenkers
Look up Seth Lloyd, "Programming the Universe". It should be available at your library. That's the latest in pop literature. (Quantum computers)
I do not want to try to change your mind. As you get more information, you'll do that by yourself.
We cannot have a discussion. I'm not smart enough for you.
Bye
jal
WHat is your problem? I just asked you for your definition of information. I completely accept the premise of information as a fundamental quantity in the universe like mass etc.
We can't have a discussion because you simply don't respond with anything substantive. If I explain why the universe is a closed system, you simply reply it isn't and offer no explanation or argument.
Or if speak of the universe existing from nothing in the material sense, you simply call it magic.
I am not attacking you I am simply trying to have an interesting discussion.
You are more defensive than my wife.
QUOTE
gshenkers
Look up Seth Lloyd, "Programming the Universe". It should be available at your library. That's the latest in pop literature. (Quantum computers)
I do not want to try to change your mind. As you get more information, you'll do that by yourself.
We cannot have a discussion. I'm not smart enough for you.
Bye
jal
WHat is your problem? I just asked you for your definition of information. I completely accept the premise of information as a fundamental quantity in the universe like mass etc.
We can't have a discussion because you simply don't respond with anything substantive. If I explain why the universe is a closed system, you simply reply it isn't and offer no explanation or argument.
Or if speak of the universe existing from nothing in the material sense, you simply call it magic.
I am not attacking you I am simply trying to have an interesting discussion.
You are more defensive than my wife.
qsheknkers, Jal,
I hope it's OK for me to post here (on topic) while Jal recovers.
Advance notice.. the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen .. please bear in mind that my rate of expansion of knowledge is slow -> 0. That said..
Any 'point' of discussion should (I think) link up to any other point .. though the path may be tortuous..
Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information.
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
-C2.
I hope it's OK for me to post here (on topic) while Jal recovers.
Advance notice.. the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen .. please bear in mind that my rate of expansion of knowledge is slow -> 0. That said..
Any 'point' of discussion should (I think) link up to any other point .. though the path may be tortuous..
QUOTE (qshenkers+)
Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information.
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
-C2.
Hi Confused2
I've recovered. (peacemaker)
The book by Seth Lloyd has a definition of entropy that is different.
"Entropy is information contained in a physical system that is invisible to us."
Because this is different, should we reject it? If it clashes with your understanding of the universe, then you would. That still does not mean that this definition is wrong. (Entropy: The second Law of Thermodynamics)
Most information is invisible to us. "The number of bits of information required to characterize the dance of atoms vastly outweighs the number of bits that we can see or know."
I agree.
However, the way our present universe is defined as a closed system is wrong.
In order to keep that wrong definition all kinds of weird things have to be postulated to explain what is observed to be happening.
You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe.
If you postulate 4, 5, .... or 12 dimensions. Have you not increased the size of the system?
If I postulate that our 3d structure is a spinning 2d structure then I must change the definition.
If you postulate that there is another structural dimension (Branes) then you must change the definition.
All of those changes that you want to postulate will affect Potential Energy and Entropy.
Confused2... I have been supplying as many links as I can to support what I have been saying. I have also been very clear about needing help for the very reason that you said.
I agree.
However, the way our present universe is defined as a closed system is wrong.
In order to keep that wrong definition all kinds of weird things have to be postulated to explain what is observed to be happening.
You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe.
If you postulate 4, 5, .... or 12 dimensions. Have you not increased the size of the system?
If I postulate that our 3d structure is a spinning 2d structure then I must change the definition.
If you postulate that there is another structural dimension (Branes) then you must change the definition.
All of those changes that you want to postulate will affect Potential Energy and Entropy.
Confused2... I have been supplying as many links as I can to support what I have been saying. I have also been very clear about needing help for the very reason that you said....the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen ...
Jal
ps I don't work with QM. I have an understanding of it. That does not mean that I support all of it.
I've recovered. (peacemaker)
The book by Seth Lloyd has a definition of entropy that is different.
"Entropy is information contained in a physical system that is invisible to us."
Because this is different, should we reject it? If it clashes with your understanding of the universe, then you would. That still does not mean that this definition is wrong. (Entropy: The second Law of Thermodynamics)
Most information is invisible to us. "The number of bits of information required to characterize the dance of atoms vastly outweighs the number of bits that we can see or know."
QUOTE
My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant..
I agree.
However, the way our present universe is defined as a closed system is wrong.
In order to keep that wrong definition all kinds of weird things have to be postulated to explain what is observed to be happening.
You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe.
If you postulate 4, 5, .... or 12 dimensions. Have you not increased the size of the system?
If I postulate that our 3d structure is a spinning 2d structure then I must change the definition.
If you postulate that there is another structural dimension (Branes) then you must change the definition.
All of those changes that you want to postulate will affect Potential Energy and Entropy.
Confused2... I have been supplying as many links as I can to support what I have been saying. I have also been very clear about needing help for the very reason that you said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. |
I agree.
However, the way our present universe is defined as a closed system is wrong.
In order to keep that wrong definition all kinds of weird things have to be postulated to explain what is observed to be happening.
You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe.
If you postulate 4, 5, .... or 12 dimensions. Have you not increased the size of the system?
If I postulate that our 3d structure is a spinning 2d structure then I must change the definition.
If you postulate that there is another structural dimension (Branes) then you must change the definition.
All of those changes that you want to postulate will affect Potential Energy and Entropy.
Confused2... I have been supplying as many links as I can to support what I have been saying. I have also been very clear about needing help for the very reason that you said....the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen ...
Jal
ps I don't work with QM. I have an understanding of it. That does not mean that I support all of it.
Hi Jal,qshenkers,
I can only handle what I can handle .. comments always welcome.
"Entropy is information contained in a physical system that is invisible to us."
My proposal would be to extend the concept of information to cover 'everything' whether visible or invisible.. it's a cheat because it enables us to talk about stuff without actually knowing anything about its structure .. but once you know where the information is there is a remote possibility that the structure might fall into place .. at the least you can eliminate a whole lot of ideas that cannot contain the required information or which have redundant degrees of freedom to keep 'stuff' in. Early days .. I don't know whether it's useful or not... ideas please!
Closed and open universes .. I haven't yet had a discussion that wasn't belief based.. let's see..
1/ The spacetime of the Universe is folded back on itself (possibly expanding seen from the inside) so nothing can leave it. Negotiable as whether to anything can enter it.
2/ The Universe is bounded by 'flat' spacetime with null properties and no information content.. I would expect our curve to be propagating (and diluting) into this flatness at 'c'. By defining 'our universe' to be always within the expanding zone then no information is being lost or gained. If we bumped into a neighbouring universe.. interesting.. but not a problem.
3/ Your turn.
--------
You say..
"You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe."
Can you try to explain with reference to my suggestion 2/ ? Any information that tries to leave our universe will curve space and we will adopt the new territory as 'our universe'. If we have neighbours then, subject very much to how successful a definition of information we end up with .. it should still be possible to sort out 'theirs' and 'ours' OR redraw the boundary to include them. If we find an infinite series of neighbours then just take a large enough sample of space and say that on average the information flow will be zero... not quite the same saying no information enters or leaves I know ..
I'm afraid I don't really 'do' extra dimensions.. they may be thrust upon me but I have enough difficulty dealing with 3d + t at present. My feeling is that gshenkers has already dealt with it .. choose your metric and go from there. If you add extra dimensions later..
I can't really predict the consequences. Presumably you would start off with them empty .. dunno .. I give in.
Accept/reject proposed extended definition of 'information'?
-C2.
I can only handle what I can handle .. comments always welcome.
"Entropy is information contained in a physical system that is invisible to us."
My proposal would be to extend the concept of information to cover 'everything' whether visible or invisible.. it's a cheat because it enables us to talk about stuff without actually knowing anything about its structure .. but once you know where the information is there is a remote possibility that the structure might fall into place .. at the least you can eliminate a whole lot of ideas that cannot contain the required information or which have redundant degrees of freedom to keep 'stuff' in. Early days .. I don't know whether it's useful or not... ideas please!
Closed and open universes .. I haven't yet had a discussion that wasn't belief based.. let's see..
1/ The spacetime of the Universe is folded back on itself (possibly expanding seen from the inside) so nothing can leave it. Negotiable as whether to anything can enter it.
2/ The Universe is bounded by 'flat' spacetime with null properties and no information content.. I would expect our curve to be propagating (and diluting) into this flatness at 'c'. By defining 'our universe' to be always within the expanding zone then no information is being lost or gained. If we bumped into a neighbouring universe.. interesting.. but not a problem.
3/ Your turn.
--------
You say..
"You have energy/information entering and leaving the presently defined boundaries of the universe."
Can you try to explain with reference to my suggestion 2/ ? Any information that tries to leave our universe will curve space and we will adopt the new territory as 'our universe'. If we have neighbours then, subject very much to how successful a definition of information we end up with .. it should still be possible to sort out 'theirs' and 'ours' OR redraw the boundary to include them. If we find an infinite series of neighbours then just take a large enough sample of space and say that on average the information flow will be zero... not quite the same saying no information enters or leaves I know ..
I'm afraid I don't really 'do' extra dimensions.. they may be thrust upon me but I have enough difficulty dealing with 3d + t at present. My feeling is that gshenkers has already dealt with it .. choose your metric and go from there. If you add extra dimensions later..
I can't really predict the consequences. Presumably you would start off with them empty .. dunno .. I give in.Accept/reject proposed extended definition of 'information'?
-C2.
Confused2
I support that statement.
Just keep in mind that we do not have the equipment to "see" what is happening at the very small scale. Therefore, we must generalize. Therefore, we must say that the macro that we "see" is reflecting the "inner" activities which we cannot "see". If we are wrong then our calculations don't work out and we have to put in number by hand. (about 20 of them).
I was glad to hear the statement from yq because I can say that my presentation is as you say;
I support that statement.
Just keep in mind that we do not have the equipment to "see" what is happening at the very small scale. Therefore, we must generalize. Therefore, we must say that the macro that we "see" is reflecting the "inner" activities which we cannot "see". If we are wrong then our calculations don't work out and we have to put in number by hand. (about 20 of them).
I was glad to hear the statement from yq because I can say that my presentation is as you say;at the least you can eliminate a whole lot of ideas that cannot contain the required information
All of the possible kinds/descriptions of universes affect potential energy and entropy.
I'll add one more to the mix. This way it will become obvious that our present "boundaries" have not taken into consideration Potential energy and Entropy.
#3. Parallel or other universes, Time Travel to an existing universe, or more structured dimensions.
Our universe contains 10^80 particles (I don't want to argue on the numbers ) If at every decission the universe would create both path then the energy would double. The entropy would be double. 10^500 existing universes are unaccounted for. 10^500 universes seems like a very small number.
Seth Lloyd did a calculation.
Therefore, whenever you advocate time travel, parallel universes you got to remember that it is still part of "our" universe if you are accessing it for any of your scenarios. That a whole lot of unaccounted energy/particles etc., {(10^122)^???}
I put all of those ideas into the s.f./magic category.
Therefore, whenever you advocate time travel, parallel universes you got to remember that it is still part of "our" universe if you are accessing it for any of your scenarios. That a whole lot of unaccounted energy/particles etc., {(10^122)^???}
I put all of those ideas into the s.f./magic category.
Closed and open universes .. I haven't yet had a discussion that wasn't belief based.. let's see..
That is the macro.... I'm thinking of the micro.
However, some researcher are making calculations that go along the line of thought that if you "see" the macro then you "see" the micro.
They have not see my micro yet.
I'm sure that I have not answered you questions adequately.
If you follow the energy/information it will become easier. AND, yes, there are places that energy cannot go into.
jal
QUOTE
... but once you know where the information is there is a remote possibility that the structure might fall into place...
I support that statement.
Just keep in mind that we do not have the equipment to "see" what is happening at the very small scale. Therefore, we must generalize. Therefore, we must say that the macro that we "see" is reflecting the "inner" activities which we cannot "see". If we are wrong then our calculations don't work out and we have to put in number by hand. (about 20 of them).
I was glad to hear the statement from yq because I can say that my presentation is as you say;
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... but once you know where the information is there is a remote possibility that the structure might fall into place... |
I support that statement.
Just keep in mind that we do not have the equipment to "see" what is happening at the very small scale. Therefore, we must generalize. Therefore, we must say that the macro that we "see" is reflecting the "inner" activities which we cannot "see". If we are wrong then our calculations don't work out and we have to put in number by hand. (about 20 of them).
I was glad to hear the statement from yq because I can say that my presentation is as you say;at the least you can eliminate a whole lot of ideas that cannot contain the required information
All of the possible kinds/descriptions of universes affect potential energy and entropy.
I'll add one more to the mix. This way it will become obvious that our present "boundaries" have not taken into consideration Potential energy and Entropy.
#3.
Parallel or other universes, Time Travel to an existing universe, or more structured dimensions.Our universe contains 10^80 particles (I don't want to argue on the numbers
) If at every decission the universe would create both path then the energy would double. The entropy would be double. 10^500 existing universes are unaccounted for. 10^500 universes seems like a very small number.Seth Lloyd did a calculation.
QUOTE
To get the maximum rate at which the universe can process information, then apply the Margolus-Levitin theorem: take the amount of energy, within the horizon, multiply by 4, divide by Planck's constant. The result is that every second, a computer made up of all the energy in the universe could perform 10^105 operations. Over the last 14 billion years the universe has been around, this cosmological computer could have performed 10^122 ops.
Therefore, whenever you advocate time travel, parallel universes you got to remember that it is still part of "our" universe if you are accessing it for any of your scenarios. That a whole lot of unaccounted energy/particles etc., {(10^122)^???}
I put all of those ideas into the s.f./magic category.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To get the maximum rate at which the universe can process information, then apply the Margolus-Levitin theorem: take the amount of energy, within the horizon, multiply by 4, divide by Planck's constant. The result is that every second, a computer made up of all the energy in the universe could perform 10^105 operations. Over the last 14 billion years the universe has been around, this cosmological computer could have performed 10^122 ops. |
Therefore, whenever you advocate time travel, parallel universes you got to remember that it is still part of "our" universe if you are accessing it for any of your scenarios. That a whole lot of unaccounted energy/particles etc., {(10^122)^???}
I put all of those ideas into the s.f./magic category.
Closed and open universes .. I haven't yet had a discussion that wasn't belief based.. let's see..
That is the macro.... I'm thinking of the micro.
However, some researcher are making calculations that go along the line of thought that if you "see" the macro then you "see" the micro.
They have not see my micro
yet.I'm sure that I have not answered you questions adequately.
If you follow the energy/information it will become easier. AND, yes, there are places that energy cannot go into.
jal
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 9 2006, 10:51 AM)
qsheknkers, Jal,
I hope it's OK for me to post here (on topic) while Jal recovers.
Advance notice.. the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen .. please bear in mind that my rate of expansion of knowledge is slow -> 0. That said..
Any 'point' of discussion should (I think) link up to any other point .. though the path may be tortuous..
Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information.
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
-C2.
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
Information is specifically defined by Claude Shannon equation derived from the thermodynamic entropy equation. Instead of using the natural logarithm he uses the logarithm with base 2, hence information is defined in terms of bits. With Quantum mechanics it is now quibits but that is another issue.
So information can be though of in a physical sense as the smallest arrnagment of a system needed to convey meaning or a meesager. This could be the "charge or spin of an electron" the mass of an atom etc. The mass term can reveal a lot of information regarding the atom due to the nature of 'calculating mass' in relationship to energy etc.
When I say spacetime can be thought of as information, I mean that by sectioning it into Planck Units for example, we now create units of measure. What is interesting is that the amount of information capable of being stored in a plack region of spacetime, for example, is proprotional to the Planck area of the region, not the Volume. What that means is that the information content in any region of the universe is proportional to the are of the region not the volume.
While it is true that to really understand the physical quantity of information, it must be in the context of communication, or more appropriately, in terms of algorithms or messages. And an algorithm is simply a collection of information or a message which conveys more information that it contains itself. This is the bases of information theory which was data compression along communication circuits. Same with DNA. It is a very small number of actual bits, but the different arrangements of those chemical bases actually conveys the all the information and instructions on building a human, quite amazing.
This has lead to the perspective that the universe is simply an information processing device or computer. In a sense it is, but then we get into the limitations of computation itself and how that relates to human consciousness and intelligence. Thus the issue isn't how the universe transmits information, but rather how it processes it and what "messages" are contained in all these bits or quibits of elementary particles and wavefunctions.
Now, the fact is despite what others say, we are in a closed thermodynamic system. Now information content is finite but not constant just like entropy isn't. Information can be created and destroyed based on the physical configuration of the universe. Now when I say destroyed, I mean in a transmittable form. The key of science is to discover the 'algorithms' and laws which govern the behaviors of the universe. This can be done by interpreting the information or computational behavior of the universe. Kind of like the opposite of programming a computer.
I hope it's OK for me to post here (on topic) while Jal recovers.
Advance notice.. the amount of knowledge required to maintain a meaningful discussion seems to expand exponentially from whatever starting point is chosen .. please bear in mind that my rate of expansion of knowledge is slow -> 0. That said..
Any 'point' of discussion should (I think) link up to any other point .. though the path may be tortuous..
QUOTE (qshenkers+)
Spacetime doesn't "permit" the flow of information. Spacetime is information.
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
-C2.
QUOTE
Please could I/we have your definition of 'information' as a starting point. At the same time some discussion (or links) about sources and sinks (if applicable) would be most appreciated. My own 'feeling' is that the amount of information in a closed system should be constant.. comments most welcome. I feel some shared concept would be helpful all round.
Information is specifically defined by Claude Shannon equation derived from the thermodynamic entropy equation. Instead of using the natural logarithm he uses the logarithm with base 2, hence information is defined in terms of bits. With Quantum mechanics it is now quibits but that is another issue.
So information can be though of in a physical sense as the smallest arrnagment of a system needed to convey meaning or a meesager. This could be the "charge or spin of an electron" the mass of an atom etc. The mass term can reveal a lot of information regarding the atom due to the nature of 'calculating mass' in relationship to energy etc.
When I say spacetime can be thought of as information, I mean that by sectioning it into Planck Units for example, we now create units of measure. What is interesting is that the amount of information capable of being stored in a plack region of spacetime, for example, is proprotional to the Planck area of the region, not the Volume. What that means is that the information content in any region of the universe is proportional to the are of the region not the volume.
While it is true that to really understand the physical quantity of information, it must be in the context of communication, or more appropriately, in terms of algorithms or messages. And an algorithm is simply a collection of information or a message which conveys more information that it contains itself. This is the bases of information theory which was data compression along communication circuits. Same with DNA. It is a very small number of actual bits, but the different arrangements of those chemical bases actually conveys the all the information and instructions on building a human, quite amazing.
This has lead to the perspective that the universe is simply an information processing device or computer. In a sense it is, but then we get into the limitations of computation itself and how that relates to human consciousness and intelligence. Thus the issue isn't how the universe transmits information, but rather how it processes it and what "messages" are contained in all these bits or quibits of elementary particles and wavefunctions.
Now, the fact is despite what others say, we are in a closed thermodynamic system. Now information content is finite but not constant just like entropy isn't. Information can be created and destroyed based on the physical configuration of the universe. Now when I say destroyed, I mean in a transmittable form. The key of science is to discover the 'algorithms' and laws which govern the behaviors of the universe. This can be done by interpreting the information or computational behavior of the universe. Kind of like the opposite of programming a computer.
Hi all!
We are all familiar with the present explanation of the start of the universe (Big Bang).... Matter (10^80 hydrogen particles) started from a small point 10^-33 cm and expanded.
Because of Einstein, we now have a structured spacetime. So we should expand the explanation to include what happened to spacetime. Since spacetime is also made of particles the explanation should be more specific.
Does this change the universe that we see or the universe that we have?
jal
We are all familiar with the present explanation of the start of the universe (Big Bang).... Matter (10^80 hydrogen particles) started from a small point 10^-33 cm and expanded.
Because of Einstein, we now have a structured spacetime. So we should expand the explanation to include what happened to spacetime. Since spacetime is also made of particles the explanation should be more specific.
QUOTE
Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and spacetime particles expanded to approx. 10^-18.
Does this change the universe that we see or the universe that we have?
jal
QUOTE (jal+Jun 17 2006, 07:25 AM)
Hi all!
We are all familiar with the present explanation of the start of the universe (Big Bang).... Matter (10^80 hydrogen particles) started from a small point 10^-33 cm and expanded.
Because of Einstein, we now have a structured spacetime. So we should expand the explanation to include what happened to spacetime. Since spacetime is also made of particles the explanation should be more specific.
Does this change the universe that we see or the universe that we have?
jal
JAL:
Your description of the Big bang is a little off. The universe began as a singularity where all the energy was in a thermodynamic equilibrium, high or maximum entropy. The Microwave background radiation illustrates that. Thus as you mention spacetime itself, or the gravitational field had to have been endowed with low entropy to allow "hydrogen atoms and matter" to actually form. This is known as the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis and illustrates the amazing uniqueness of the low entropy gravitational configuration. Indeed it has been calculated that this arrangment arising naturally is statistically impossible and thus implies some external force or creator.
Spacetime is not formed as particles although i agree it must have a preferred frame. Are you familar with the frame dragging effects of general relativity?
We are all familiar with the present explanation of the start of the universe (Big Bang).... Matter (10^80 hydrogen particles) started from a small point 10^-33 cm and expanded.
Because of Einstein, we now have a structured spacetime. So we should expand the explanation to include what happened to spacetime. Since spacetime is also made of particles the explanation should be more specific.
QUOTE
Particles expanded to approx. 10^-20 and spacetime particles expanded to approx. 10^-18.
Does this change the universe that we see or the universe that we have?
jal
JAL:
Your description of the Big bang is a little off. The universe began as a singularity where all the energy was in a thermodynamic equilibrium, high or maximum entropy. The Microwave background radiation illustrates that. Thus as you mention spacetime itself, or the gravitational field had to have been endowed with low entropy to allow "hydrogen atoms and matter" to actually form. This is known as the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis and illustrates the amazing uniqueness of the low entropy gravitational configuration. Indeed it has been calculated that this arrangment arising naturally is statistically impossible and thus implies some external force or creator.
Spacetime is not formed as particles although i agree it must have a preferred frame. Are you familar with the frame dragging effects of general relativity?
Hi! gshenkers!
Sombody's description is a little off.
Check out the latest thinking.
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
Spacetime is not formed as particles
I was being descriptive. I don't care what it's called. What I care about is what it does.
So back to my point, if you think about spacetime expanding, you either got to assume that it is discreet or not. You got to look for the properties that it has. You already agree on one property... it expanded....and I'm sure you will agree on another property .... that it can be made to curve by gravity.
Do you think it is discreet? I proposed a size. Do you?
jal
Sombody's description is a little off.
Check out the latest thinking.
QUOTE
Your description of the Big bang is a little off
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your description of the Big bang is a little off |
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
Spacetime is not formed as particles
I was being descriptive. I don't care what it's called. What I care about is what it does.
So back to my point, if you think about spacetime expanding, you either got to assume that it is discreet or not. You got to look for the properties that it has. You already agree on one property... it expanded....and I'm sure you will agree on another property .... that it can be made to curve by gravity.
Do you think it is discreet? I proposed a size. Do you?
jal
Hi JAL:
Hi! gshenkers!
Sombody's description is a little off.
Check out the latest thinking.
QUOTE
Your description of the Big bang is a little off
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
None of this contradicts my point about the thermodynamic state of the universe at the beginning. Additionally, your description of the formation of hydrogen was incorrect, in that the appearance of matter was sometime after the big bang, approximately 300,000 years.
None of this contradicts my point about the thermodynamic state of the universe at the beginning. Additionally, your description of the formation of hydrogen was incorrect, in that the appearance of matter was sometime after the big bang, approximately 300,000 years.
QUOTE
Spacetime is not formed as particles
I was being descriptive. I don't care what it's called. What I care about is what it does.
So back to my point, if you think about spacetime expanding, you either got to assume that it is discreet or not. You got to look for the properties that it has. You already agree on one property... it expanded....and I'm sure you will agree on another property .... that it can be made to curve by gravity.
Do you think it is discreet? I proposed a size. Do you?
jal
I said I agree that the sapcetime field or gravity must have a preferred frame. Your size sounds like the Planck area and the physical significance of that limit is debatable.
I prefer the quantum superfluid model of spacetime and matter which can explain the unification of mass, energy and spacetime as it appeared at the beginning.
My main issue was with your reference to the entropic beginnings of the universe. Indeed that mass and nergy were in thermodynamic equilibrium is not disputable, and that leaves the only other low entropy source as gravity. The weyl curvature hypothesis is recognized as a fundamental constituent of any consistent quantum gravity theory. And it opens the issue of its source of low entropy which has been calculated as statistically or infinitely impossible given the known parameters of the universe!
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle
EMF .. I think you mean electromagnetic waves like light and radio waves, yes? (EMF is something else http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/science/Elec/basic4.html ). I've never heard this right-angle bit before .. can you explain it a little please.
-C2.
QUOTE
Hi! gshenkers!
Sombody's description is a little off.
Check out the latest thinking.
QUOTE
Your description of the Big bang is a little off
Instanton
Brane-world instanton
None of this contradicts my point about the thermodynamic state of the universe at the beginning. Additionally, your description of the formation of hydrogen was incorrect, in that the appearance of matter was sometime after the big bang, approximately 300,000 years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Hi! gshenkers! Sombody's description is a little off. Check out the latest thinking. QUOTE Your description of the Big bang is a little off Instanton Brane-world instanton |
None of this contradicts my point about the thermodynamic state of the universe at the beginning. Additionally, your description of the formation of hydrogen was incorrect, in that the appearance of matter was sometime after the big bang, approximately 300,000 years.
QUOTE
Spacetime is not formed as particles
I was being descriptive. I don't care what it's called. What I care about is what it does.
So back to my point, if you think about spacetime expanding, you either got to assume that it is discreet or not. You got to look for the properties that it has. You already agree on one property... it expanded....and I'm sure you will agree on another property .... that it can be made to curve by gravity.
Do you think it is discreet? I proposed a size. Do you?
jal
I said I agree that the sapcetime field or gravity must have a preferred frame. Your size sounds like the Planck area and the physical significance of that limit is debatable.
I prefer the quantum superfluid model of spacetime and matter which can explain the unification of mass, energy and spacetime as it appeared at the beginning.
My main issue was with your reference to the entropic beginnings of the universe. Indeed that mass and nergy were in thermodynamic equilibrium is not disputable, and that leaves the only other low entropy source as gravity. The weyl curvature hypothesis is recognized as a fundamental constituent of any consistent quantum gravity theory. And it opens the issue of its source of low entropy which has been calculated as statistically or infinitely impossible given the known parameters of the universe!
Hi gshenkers!
So you want to tak about that or my points?
jal
edit: I did a search of field wave theory.....I did not read it all.... I agree, "the conceptual idea sounds good"
QUOTE
I prefer the quantum superfluid model of spacetime and matter which can explain the unification of mass, energy and spacetime as it appeared at the beginning.
So you want to tak about that or my points?
jal
edit: I did a search of field wave theory.....I did not read it all.... I agree, "the conceptual idea sounds good"
QUOTE (jal+Jun 17 2006, 06:59 PM)
Hi gshenkers!
So you want to tak about that or my points?
jal
edit: I did a search of field wave theory.....I did not read it all.... I agree, "the conceptual idea sounds good"
I did talk about your points. In fact I answered the question you posed to me. What is that you would like me to address?
QUOTE
I prefer the quantum superfluid model of spacetime and matter which can explain the unification of mass, energy and spacetime as it appeared at the beginning.
So you want to tak about that or my points?
jal
edit: I did a search of field wave theory.....I did not read it all.... I agree, "the conceptual idea sounds good"
I did talk about your points. In fact I answered the question you posed to me. What is that you would like me to address?
Hi!
Some of the necessary math for packing has already been done at Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
As I proceed in my search, I'll learn more. I'll reject some of my previous details and I'll add new ones.
So far ..... packing is needed to describe how our universe is made and it needs to be included in any theory.
I cannot find any theory that has considered it.
The details will change but so far I have not found that packing is not needed.
jal
ps I should really be saying "models" instead of theory because models have the math that tries to reflect our universe.
Some of the necessary math for packing has already been done at Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic
As I proceed in my search, I'll learn more. I'll reject some of my previous details and I'll add new ones.
So far ..... packing is needed to describe how our universe is made and it needs to be included in any theory.
I cannot find any theory that has considered it.
The details will change but so far I have not found that packing is not needed.
jal
ps I should really be saying "models" instead of theory because models have the math that tries to reflect our universe.
Hello!
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle. By rotating, we can deduct that the signals are arriving from a packed configuration.
See the simple image. THE WAVE IS IN THE CENTER.
To decode the EMF signal we need to use
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
jal
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle. By rotating, we can deduct that the signals are arriving from a packed configuration.
See the simple image. THE WAVE IS IN THE CENTER.
To decode the EMF signal we need to use
QUOTE
Degeneracy
We may use an extension of our simple system to illustrate another important quantum mechanical result regarding energy levels. Suppose we allow the electron to move on the x-y plane rather than just along the x-axis. The motions along the x and y directions will be independent of one another and the total energy of the system will be given by the sum of the energy quantum for the motion along the x-axis plus the energy quantum for motion along the y-axis. Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate.
The degeneracy of an energy level is equal to the number of distinct probability distribution for the system, all of which belong to this same energy level.
However, it must be stressed that a wave function itself has no physical reality. All physical properties are determined by the product of the wave function with itself.
When two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. For example the wavefunction with nx = 2, ny = 1 has the same energy as the wavefunction with nx = 1, ny = 2. This situation is called degeneracy and for the case where exactly two degenerate wavefunctions have the same energy that energy level is said to be doubly degenerate. Degeneracy results from symmetry in the system. For the above case two of the lengths are equal so the system is symmetric with respect to a 90° rotation.
We may use an extension of our simple system to illustrate another important quantum mechanical result regarding energy levels. Suppose we allow the electron to move on the x-y plane rather than just along the x-axis. The motions along the x and y directions will be independent of one another and the total energy of the system will be given by the sum of the energy quantum for the motion along the x-axis plus the energy quantum for motion along the y-axis. Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate.
The degeneracy of an energy level is equal to the number of distinct probability distribution for the system, all of which belong to this same energy level.
However, it must be stressed that a wave function itself has no physical reality. All physical properties are determined by the product of the wave function with itself.
When two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. For example the wavefunction with nx = 2, ny = 1 has the same energy as the wavefunction with nx = 1, ny = 2. This situation is called degeneracy and for the case where exactly two degenerate wavefunctions have the same energy that energy level is said to be doubly degenerate. Degeneracy results from symmetry in the system. For the above case two of the lengths are equal so the system is symmetric with respect to a 90° rotation.
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
We are left with the problem of trying to understand how can we "see" gravity.
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
jal
QUOTE (jal+)
We can "see" because EMF signals are received ONLY at right angle
EMF .. I think you mean electromagnetic waves like light and radio waves, yes? (EMF is something else http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/science/Elec/basic4.html ). I've never heard this right-angle bit before .. can you explain it a little please.
-C2.
Confused2
EMF.... photons.... electricity..... magnetism.... They all come at right angle.
We know electric fields and magnetic fields are at right angle to each other and to the motion of travel.
I once saw a math analysis of this on the web somewhere.
As a result, as you can see from my drawing we must use the wave function and GR and SR to be able to interpret the waves signals that are being produced.
Of course, you have read my post and know what I think is producing these waves and what is the required structure.
That's why I have been saying that the solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf.
Are we confusing how to interpret how we can "see" gravity. By using E=hf?
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
My problem is that I got to learn how to translate, which I have been doing in this forum, into the language of the "math kids".
I have a concept.
I have not got the years of learning or the years of learning the same concept as the professors, that went with it. Maybe that's why I got my concept.
"Degeneracy" is one of those concept that I learned to help me translate what is in my head.
jal
EMF.... photons.... electricity..... magnetism.... They all come at right angle.
We know electric fields and magnetic fields are at right angle to each other and to the motion of travel.
I once saw a math analysis of this on the web somewhere.
As a result, as you can see from my drawing we must use the wave function and GR and SR to be able to interpret the waves signals that are being produced.
Of course, you have read my post and know what I think is producing these waves and what is the required structure.
That's why I have been saying that the solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf.
Are we confusing how to interpret how we can "see" gravity. By using E=hf?
How can we interpret inertia?
How can we interpreter mass?
My problem is that I got to learn how to translate, which I have been doing in this forum, into the language of the "math kids".
I have a concept.
I have not got the years of learning or the years of learning the same concept as the professors, that went with it. Maybe that's why I got my concept.
"Degeneracy" is one of those concept that I learned to help me translate what is in my head.
jal
jal,
I may not be very helpful here (again!).
Electromagnetic theory and photons. Well. Electromagnetic waves propagate by the interaction of magnetic and electrostatic fields in time and space, wiggly wiggly. Photons don't know about time or space and go 'zonk'. EM theory works so well and yet we mostly agree that these waves are quantised so how can both possibly be true? To get the real answer you would need to know a great deal more about both than I do but I can guess..
The guess..
The QM approach determines the statistics (probability) for a single particle, the EM approach always deals with billions of photons and the individual statistics are averaged out and become a bulk property. EM theory traditionally concerns itself with sinewave emission and absorption .. anything that isn't a sinewave is mathematically resolved into the sum of sinewaves .. still sinewaves. Since we have a sinewave emitter and sinewaves are received (we always use many photons so the photons average out) .. it makes sense to say that the waveform in between is sinusoidal. The mistake (my interpretation) is to assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates. At your level of analysis I think you need to know about photons rather than hand waving and pointing at EM theory.
I could carry on .. let's see what Good_Elf does though.
-C2.
I may not be very helpful here (again!).
Electromagnetic theory and photons. Well. Electromagnetic waves propagate by the interaction of magnetic and electrostatic fields in time and space, wiggly wiggly. Photons don't know about time or space and go 'zonk'. EM theory works so well and yet we mostly agree that these waves are quantised so how can both possibly be true? To get the real answer you would need to know a great deal more about both than I do but I can guess..
The guess..
The QM approach determines the statistics (probability) for a single particle, the EM approach always deals with billions of photons and the individual statistics are averaged out and become a bulk property. EM theory traditionally concerns itself with sinewave emission and absorption .. anything that isn't a sinewave is mathematically resolved into the sum of sinewaves .. still sinewaves. Since we have a sinewave emitter and sinewaves are received (we always use many photons so the photons average out) .. it makes sense to say that the waveform in between is sinusoidal. The mistake (my interpretation) is to assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates. At your level of analysis I think you need to know about photons rather than hand waving and pointing at EM theory.
I could carry on .. let's see what Good_Elf does though.
-C2.
Confused2
If you make me think your helpfull
If you make me think your helpfull
EMF.... photons.... electricity..... magnetism.... They all come at right angle
Of course, I'm making reference to the illustration that I put up and refering to degeneracy and how we need to use the wave funtion to get an answer on how we arrive at energy levels.
assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates
Since the wave funtion is so successfull in predicting and calculating, there has to be a physical relationship.
I wouldn't be here if I knew all the answers
I wouldn't be here if I knew all the answers
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
They have to take relativity into the equation to properly analyse the data when doing their experiments in the particle acelerator.
jal
In response to my
"Cannot assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates"
Since the wave function is so successfull in predicting and calculating, there has to be a physical relationship.
A wave function is a map of probability .. it is very successfull in predicting and calculating. When we looked at particles in a box and the probability of finding the particle at any particular point that we had a probability distribution .. a wave function. We used e^jx (effectively a sine type function) to calculate the probability because its the easiest way to do the sums. The wave function of the particle gives no insight into how the particle moves in the box .. only the probability of finding it at a particular place.
A waveform is a representation of some quantity that (almost by definition) varies with time. I assume we know magnesium burns and emits light (photons) .. if I set fire to one atom of magnesium .. what is the waveform? Is it a sinewave? You've only got one photon.. how do you make a sinewave out of one photon? It is generally assumed that no time passes for the photon.
If there is no sinewave (as I predict) then many photons can also travel without making sinewaves .. and the possibility arises that sinewaves are of no relevence to the propagation of light.
Enjoy!
-C2.
QUOTE
I may not be very helpful here (again!).
If you make me think your helpfull
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I may not be very helpful here (again!). |
If you make me think your helpfull
EMF.... photons.... electricity..... magnetism.... They all come at right angle
Of course, I'm making reference to the illustration that I put up and refering to degeneracy and how we need to use the wave funtion to get an answer on how we arrive at energy levels.
QUOTE
Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Two quantum numbers will now be necessary, one to indicate the amount of energy along each coordinate. |
assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates
Since the wave funtion is so successfull in predicting and calculating, there has to be a physical relationship.
QUOTE
you would need to know a great deal
I wouldn't be here if I knew all the answers
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you would need to know a great deal |
I wouldn't be here if I knew all the answers
To compare/understand those signal we need to use GR and SR.
They have to take relativity into the equation to properly analyse the data when doing their experiments in the particle acelerator.
jal
In response to my
"Cannot assume that the sinusoidal waveform is in any way important to the way the wave propagates"
QUOTE (jal+)
Since the wave function is so successfull in predicting and calculating, there has to be a physical relationship.
A wave function is a map of probability .. it is very successfull in predicting and calculating. When we looked at particles in a box and the probability of finding the particle at any particular point that we had a probability distribution .. a wave function. We used e^jx (effectively a sine type function) to calculate the probability because its the easiest way to do the sums. The wave function of the particle gives no insight into how the particle moves in the box .. only the probability of finding it at a particular place.
A waveform is a representation of some quantity that (almost by definition) varies with time. I assume we know magnesium burns and emits light (photons) .. if I set fire to one atom of magnesium .. what is the waveform? Is it a sinewave? You've only got one photon.. how do you make a sinewave out of one photon? It is generally assumed that no time passes for the photon.
If there is no sinewave (as I predict) then many photons can also travel without making sinewaves .. and the possibility arises that sinewaves are of no relevence to the propagation of light.
Enjoy!
-C2.
Good Day to all!
C2...... Give me a bit of rope....otherwise I won't be able to get to anything new..... a little bit of pain.
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
I’ll stop here for your help… You might think that I fell over the edge.
jal
C2...... Give me a bit of rope....otherwise I won't be able to get to anything new..... a little bit of pain.
We want to find out what simple wave structure could be making a complex wave structure.
I could be referring to it as the particle, mass, energy, or wave.
It would be the same, since QM solves by using a complex wave approach. (A wave function is a map of probability )
Referring to the diagram,
Therefore, I am showing in the X plane, that there are 4 inputs, to the complex wave structure. F (forward), B (back), R (right), L (left).
At this point, we don’t know if the 4 inputs are the same.
Same thing if we change to Y plane with a 90 degree turn.
Again, the same thing if we make a 90 degree turn to the Z plane.
Therefore, we can say that there are 3 X 4 = 12 different possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure. (Or, if you prefer the particle, the mass, or the energy).
Mathematically, degeneracy is being used to make all the inputs the same.
If we could do experimental measurements…. Would the inputs be the same? Maybe some experiments have been done and they have been identified by a name.
Help me! I’m struggling!
Let’s use the mass of the particles. We could divide those mass by 12 and find how much is being contributed from each of the inputs
We might find:
1) there is a simple wave/quantity coming from one input,
2) there is a complex amount from another input that would require explanation and simplification
3) and maybe some of the positions are not contributing an input
4) We might find out that all of the inputs have the same vibration and that we can use degeneracy.
Let’s assume that the inputs are being generated by a vibrating string.
The more vibration that the string makes, the larger the string have to be or they won’t be detectable in 2007.
By using one harmonic (vibration) the size could be detected in 2007. If we go to 4 harmonic then the possibility exist that we should have detected it already. Then, again, maybe the strings are not visible to EMF.
I want to leave room for my approach, packing, this would mean 12 X 4 = 48 possible combinations of inputs that could be making the complex wave structure.
There are 4 different distances from 12 different input source. The distance is equivalent as changing the input vibration. Just like changing the length of the guitar string.
Therefore, you would not be able to use degeneracy.
I’ll stop here for your help… You might think that I fell over the edge.
jal
eh eh eh I dare not tempt fate any longer
C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
Young made a clear case by demonstrating that light interferes with itself. If you have two sources that are in synch (coherent), when the distance from the sources to the observation point differ by an integer number of wavelengths, then you will have a maximum, because the light from both sources is pointing in the same direction there (constructive interference). If, however, they differ by some integer number of wavelengths plus another half you will have a minimum, no light at the observation point (destructive interference).
That is another good explanation/reason for selection the string vibration to be one, two, or four.
jal
I dare not tempt fate any longer C2 gave me some rope and nobody has hung me from it yet. I should point out that I was waiting for someone to indicate that I was not considering the imaginary side of the wave function.
However, I did, I should remove the temptation and included it now …. Before C2 comes back to hangs me.
I still need help.
The imaginary side of the wave function is considered by rotating the X plane by 180 degrees. This would be equivalent to putting it on its back. From that –X position you would rotate by 90 degrees to the -Y plane then 90 degrees to the -Z plane.
Therefore, this would double possible options of combining the simple waves to 24.
In my approach that would double the options to 96.
I did not put the complex wave at the center (0) of x, y, z since it might mask the possibility of having to use relativity to consider the effects of the different distances that the simple waves need to travel. ( ie. W, Z, have mass)
The following quantum effect can be assumed/used for the string vibrations.
questions/light_dual.
QUOTE
Young made a clear case by demonstrating that light interferes with itself. If you have two sources that are in synch (coherent), when the distance from the sources to the observation point differ by an integer number of wavelengths, then you will have a maximum, because the light from both sources is pointing in the same direction there (constructive interference). If, however, they differ by some integer number of wavelengths plus another half you will have a minimum, no light at the observation point (destructive interference).
That is another good explanation/reason for selection the string vibration to be one, two, or four.
jal
Hi jal
Speaking of vibrating strings, here is a site I ran across that has some unique incites to DeBroglie phase wave functions. http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/wavegrph.html
Speaking of vibrating strings, here is a site I ran across that has some unique incites to DeBroglie phase wave functions. http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/wavegrph.html
Hi jal,Montec,
The QM approach determines the statistics (probability) for a single particle, the EM approach always deals with billions of photons and the individual statistics are averaged out and become a bulk property.
I can only sow seeds .. whether they grow or not is not my responsibility.
-C2.
jal .. I think you almost saw it in the wavelets ..
QUOTE (me+)
The QM approach determines the statistics (probability) for a single particle, the EM approach always deals with billions of photons and the individual statistics are averaged out and become a bulk property.
I can only sow seeds .. whether they grow or not is not my responsibility.
-C2.
jal .. I think you almost saw it in the wavelets ..
Hi Confused2!
Glad that you didn't hang me.
I'm moving along maybe towards your points..... I don't know if we are going to end up in the same place at the end of the discusion, but the journey is well worth while. You will hear me yell Eurica!
I did like your hot cold hot cold in yq's thread.
Montec.... I liked that input.
Now to add a little something else to this conversation.
If we were to use Time as another dimension then we would need to have the plane rotate to another set of coordinates. If we only consider positive time then 4 planes X 4 input = 16 combinations vs 12 combinations. If we considered negative time then we would double to 32 combinations vs 24.
Of course my math logic could be wrong.
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
protosimplex summary
jal
Glad that you didn't hang me.
I'm moving along maybe towards your points..... I don't know if we are going to end up in the same place at the end of the discusion, but the journey is well worth while.
You will hear me yell Eurica!I did like your hot cold hot cold in yq's thread.
Montec.... I liked that input.
Now to add a little something else to this conversation.
If we were to use Time as another dimension then we would need to have the plane rotate to another set of coordinates. If we only consider positive time then 4 planes X 4 input = 16 combinations vs 12 combinations. If we considered negative time then we would double to 32 combinations vs 24.
Of course my math logic could be wrong.
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
protosimplex summary
jal
Good Day All!
Good Elf always seem to supply good links for me. At less I think that there is information in them that can be applied to what I have been saying.
I cannot agree with everything that was said in the following but there is a lot there that, as usual, has been thought of before I got to it.
Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
R. M. Kiehn, Professor Emeritus
Physics Department, University of Houston
I am only quoting some of the applicable highlights.
At times like this...I wish that I was "a math kid"
jal
Good Elf always seem to supply good links for me. At less I think that there is information in them that can be applied to what I have been saying.
I cannot agree with everything that was said in the following but there is a lot there that, as usual, has been thought of before I got to it.
Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
R. M. Kiehn, Professor Emeritus
Physics Department, University of Houston
I am only quoting some of the applicable highlights.
QUOTE
For those symmetry situations where the singular solutions are not 4 fold degenerate, then the propagation speeds of field discontinuties can be different for different polarizations and for different directions of propagation; i.e., the speed of light need not be the same in the outbound and inbound directions, say, in a rotating expanding plasma. Such results have been demonstrated in experiments with dual polarized ring lasers, and have been
demonstrated theoretically by exact singular solutions (Fresnel Kummer surfaces) to Maxwell’s equations.11
If more than 4 independent variables (geometric dimensions) are used, the new "coordinates" add new PDE’s that couple "new" field variables to the E and B field variables of the first four (Maxwell) equations, but do not alter the format of the first four PDE’s - the Maxwell Faraday equations - in any way!
3. The concept of Spinor singular solutions to Maxwell’s equations is a topological idea that does not depend upon microphysical scales. The impact of quantum mechanics, starting with Planck’s concept of the "quantized" oscillator energy enabling the thermodynamic deduction of the blackbody radiation distribution law, the Einstein model for explaining the photoelectric effect, the Bohr atom description of the emission of light carrying off integer units of angular momentum and rational amounts of energy, the Compton analysis of the relativisitic particle-like distribution peaks in the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by electrons, the deBroglie conjecture that energy and momentum were related to a "wave" analysis involving Planck’s constant, frequency and reciprocal wavelength, and Dirac’s description of the relativistic hydrogen atom, all have led to the idea that the "bundle" of energy and momentum now known as the Photon has a deep relationship to microphysics, and appears to be associated with what Cartan called spinors. Yet Spinors are not dependent upon scales, and should have physical importance in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic domain. The philosophical problem is that these bundles of energy and momentum, these photons, can have extent and coherent interactions that are many orders of magnitude greater than the dimensions of the excited atoms and molecules, from which they
supposedly originate. A fundamental question is how do the quantal properties of the Photon emerge from a topological perspective of electromagnetism? The bottom line is the result that propagating discontinuities as topological defects are independent from scale.
Maximal surfaces are 2D surfaces of zero mean curvatures that are generated by immersive maps from a two dimension space into a 3 dimensional space with a Lorentz metric.3
demonstrated theoretically by exact singular solutions (Fresnel Kummer surfaces) to Maxwell’s equations.11
If more than 4 independent variables (geometric dimensions) are used, the new "coordinates" add new PDE’s that couple "new" field variables to the E and B field variables of the first four (Maxwell) equations, but do not alter the format of the first four PDE’s - the Maxwell Faraday equations - in any way!
3. The concept of Spinor singular solutions to Maxwell’s equations is a topological idea that does not depend upon microphysical scales. The impact of quantum mechanics, starting with Planck’s concept of the "quantized" oscillator energy enabling the thermodynamic deduction of the blackbody radiation distribution law, the Einstein model for explaining the photoelectric effect, the Bohr atom description of the emission of light carrying off integer units of angular momentum and rational amounts of energy, the Compton analysis of the relativisitic particle-like distribution peaks in the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by electrons, the deBroglie conjecture that energy and momentum were related to a "wave" analysis involving Planck’s constant, frequency and reciprocal wavelength, and Dirac’s description of the relativistic hydrogen atom, all have led to the idea that the "bundle" of energy and momentum now known as the Photon has a deep relationship to microphysics, and appears to be associated with what Cartan called spinors. Yet Spinors are not dependent upon scales, and should have physical importance in the macroscopic as well as the microscopic domain. The philosophical problem is that these bundles of energy and momentum, these photons, can have extent and coherent interactions that are many orders of magnitude greater than the dimensions of the excited atoms and molecules, from which they
supposedly originate. A fundamental question is how do the quantal properties of the Photon emerge from a topological perspective of electromagnetism? The bottom line is the result that propagating discontinuities as topological defects are independent from scale.
Maximal surfaces are 2D surfaces of zero mean curvatures that are generated by immersive maps from a two dimension space into a 3 dimensional space with a Lorentz metric.3
At times like this...I wish that I was "a math kid"
jal
Hi! Yquantum! & all!
Here is the result of all my studying. The first post will indicates the problems and the second post will propose a solution.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my blue boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
The next post will be simple Jal’s solution.
Here is the result of all my studying. The first post will indicates the problems and the second post will propose a solution.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my blue boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
QUOTE
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
The next post will be simple Jal’s solution.
Citation/References: (indications that I’m on the right track):
1) The hierarchy problem
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
2) Solid sphere packing
3) A packing structure for energy (A structure for spacetime) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic maps zc and log(z)
4) Why the wave function (QM) works Degeneracy
5) An example when not using degeneracy Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
6) Finding particle mass in 12d protosimplex summary
7)Solving the hierarchy problem Randall-Sundrum theory
8) Why a new approach Grand Unification as a Bridge Between String Theory and Phenomenology
----------------------------------------------------------
JAL’S MODELING SOLUTION – WHERE TO PUT THE STRINGS!
After much reflection, you will realize that there is only one possible solution. It is simple. It avoids further problems, such as those mentioned. The universe is made up/filled up with (let’s be brave…lets called them strings) that are 10^-17 cm. with one harmonic. The more vibrations, the bigger the string have got to be. 1, 2 or 4 vibrations are possible for us to be able to see them in 2007.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the “big 4” so that we might be able to tap into it for a new source of energy. (Since The CERN laboratory in Geneva, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) won’t be familiar with my presentation, they will call it “k-k” particles or Higgs). As long as the strings are in quantum land everything should work out.
The strings are arranged as per my presentation and as per the rotation in 3d we get the 12 inputs to the complex wave. Due to the complex rotations (4 vibrating sources X 3d rotations = 12) we get the mass of the particles. Since it is required to have packing we therefore must consider that the wave can be “fabricated” from “strings” in 12 spheres. As a result, we could have 12 X 12 = 144 possible vibration combinations that could result in the configuration that would represent the particles.
These were inserted into all the boxes prior the alleged expansion. That is why we can use a complex wave function to do the calculations. The string vibrations are creating the complex waves. Models have the best chance of completing, extending and improving QM by incorporating my suggested 2D structure as the cause of the “waves”.
I expect that when all of the 12 inputs of the vibrationg strings are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement that we would get the spacetime structured formation. (ZPE, HIGGS). This formation would be a good reason why we would think that spacetime is nothing and that it cannot be detected.
Oh! ..Yes… The experimental proof…. In 2007 you’ll get 6X, more neutrinos, and more photons than expected.
For further inspiration, A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
You remember how simple was the Bohr model now look at what we got
You have seen my simple Bohr illustrations and now look at how complex it could end up looking!
Occam's Razor: He would be scandalized at the contortions being done to come up with working theories and working models.
I have tried to understand how the universe works.
I had to come up with some original thinking.
Before the WEB, I would have required years of schooling and more years to understand (which I am still continuing to do) and gather all the information that I got in few short months.
It is wonderfull how things have changed.
When the results come out from the 2007 experiments, don’t forget that I might be pointing towards the “NEW PHYSICS”.
There is still a lot of work to do to make this into a working model.
If you use this material to make a model, I would like it if you called it the “4 S MODEL” (Simple Symmetrically Structured Spacetime Model)
This inspirational material is subject to author approval prior to all publications or for any kind of publication. It is also subject to royalty negotiations between the author and all users. It is subject to a statement of gratitude, (to jal, of course), for bringing the problems and the solutions to your attention.
Getting my approval and avoiding the courts could be as simple as: “Yes, However, the beers on you and I want an autographed picture.”
(note: I don’t drink. This is an expression meant to convey the desire and expectations of getting together to share some happy times.)
(The author is Jal)
ps I you like what I have presented…Don’t trust the computer make yourself a copy from A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
1) The hierarchy problem
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
2) Solid sphere packing
3) A packing structure for energy (A structure for spacetime) Asymptotic behavior of discrete holomorphic maps zc and log(z)
4) Why the wave function (QM) works Degeneracy
5) An example when not using degeneracy Propagating Topological Singularities in the lightcone: the Photon
6) Finding particle mass in 12d protosimplex summary
7)Solving the hierarchy problem Randall-Sundrum theory
8) Why a new approach Grand Unification as a Bridge Between String Theory and Phenomenology
----------------------------------------------------------
JAL’S MODELING SOLUTION – WHERE TO PUT THE STRINGS!
After much reflection, you will realize that there is only one possible solution. It is simple. It avoids further problems, such as those mentioned. The universe is made up/filled up with (let’s be brave…lets called them strings) that are 10^-17 cm. with one harmonic. The more vibrations, the bigger the string have got to be. 1, 2 or 4 vibrations are possible for us to be able to see them in 2007.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the “big 4” so that we might be able to tap into it for a new source of energy. (Since The CERN laboratory in Geneva, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) won’t be familiar with my presentation, they will call it “k-k” particles or Higgs). As long as the strings are in quantum land everything should work out.
The strings are arranged as per my presentation and as per the rotation in 3d we get the 12 inputs to the complex wave. Due to the complex rotations (4 vibrating sources X 3d rotations = 12) we get the mass of the particles. Since it is required to have packing we therefore must consider that the wave can be “fabricated” from “strings” in 12 spheres. As a result, we could have 12 X 12 = 144 possible vibration combinations that could result in the configuration that would represent the particles.
These were inserted into all the boxes prior the alleged expansion. That is why we can use a complex wave function to do the calculations. The string vibrations are creating the complex waves. Models have the best chance of completing, extending and improving QM by incorporating my suggested 2D structure as the cause of the “waves”.
I expect that when all of the 12 inputs of the vibrationg strings are equally spaced from the center and equally spaced around the 12 spheres that make up the packing arrangement that we would get the spacetime structured formation. (ZPE, HIGGS). This formation would be a good reason why we would think that spacetime is nothing and that it cannot be detected.
Oh! ..Yes… The experimental proof…. In 2007 you’ll get 6X, more neutrinos, and more photons than expected.
For further inspiration, A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
You remember how simple was the Bohr model now look at what we got
You have seen my simple Bohr illustrations and now look at how complex it could end up looking!
Occam's Razor: He would be scandalized at the contortions being done to come up with working theories and working models.
I have tried to understand how the universe works.
I had to come up with some original thinking.
Before the WEB, I would have required years of schooling and more years to understand (which I am still continuing to do) and gather all the information that I got in few short months.
It is wonderfull how things have changed.
When the results come out from the 2007 experiments, don’t forget that I might be pointing towards the “NEW PHYSICS”.
There is still a lot of work to do to make this into a working model.
If you use this material to make a model, I would like it if you called it the “4 S MODEL” (Simple Symmetrically Structured Spacetime Model)
This inspirational material is subject to author approval prior to all publications or for any kind of publication. It is also subject to royalty negotiations between the author and all users. It is subject to a statement of gratitude, (to jal, of course), for bringing the problems and the solutions to your attention.
Getting my approval and avoiding the courts could be as simple as: “Yes, However, the beers on you and I want an autographed picture.”
(note: I don’t drink. This is an expression meant to convey the desire and expectations of getting together to share some happy times.)
(The author is Jal)
ps I you like what I have presented…Don’t trust the computer make yourself a copy from A Symmetrically Structured Spacetime-Summary of my Threads
I've decided to come trolling on your thread for a bit.. hopefully to keep you on your toes.
From http://www.sciencewatch.com/july-aug2001/s...g2001_page3.htm
What’s interesting is that this precise theory involves something called a brane, which is a lower-dimensional subspace of the higher-dimensional space. Brane is short for "membrane." So, for example, in our theories we imagine that the brane is only four dimensional, even though it lives in this five-dimensional space. There are three space dimensions and one time dimension that we see and one extra dimension that we don’t. We’re not very sensitive to it. Because the brane itself carries energy, it basically applies an attraction acting on gravity so that gravity stays very localized near the brane.
Why does only gravity do this? A brane for each force?
-C2.
From http://www.sciencewatch.com/july-aug2001/s...g2001_page3.htm
QUOTE
What’s interesting is that this precise theory involves something called a brane, which is a lower-dimensional subspace of the higher-dimensional space. Brane is short for "membrane." So, for example, in our theories we imagine that the brane is only four dimensional, even though it lives in this five-dimensional space. There are three space dimensions and one time dimension that we see and one extra dimension that we don’t. We’re not very sensitive to it. Because the brane itself carries energy, it basically applies an attraction acting on gravity so that gravity stays very localized near the brane.
Why does only gravity do this? A brane for each force?
-C2.
Hi Confused2!
I like your trolling.... I always get more than I give.
WHAT IS Kaluza-Klein?
IT’S A SPOT.
I think that my explanation is much more interesting that the Kaluza-Klein. As an added bonus, I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension. The importance of knowing the topology of the bulk will become apparent in 2007.
Kaluza-Klein
Radion
Radion
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
Confused2!
I thought that I was making things simple.
Think of spacetime as "the bulk". It is undetected with our tools.
It is an energy structure. As a 2d energy structure you can get only what I have shown as a spot. Put them together and you get the structure of a brane. (M-theories.)
In order to obtain more freedom of movement.... give them spin....rotation at right angle to the 2d.
The result is as I have been saying .... "sphere packing".
Us...particles....are the energy in those void. Most of the time the "bulk" is neutral...therefore....spacetime.
The energy of the particles are a result of the quantizied "bulk" interacting.
I prefer large...
Think of spacetime as "the bulk". It is undetected with our tools.
It is an energy structure. As a 2d energy structure you can get only what I have shown as a spot. Put them together and you get the structure of a brane. (M-theories.)
In order to obtain more freedom of movement.... give them spin....rotation at right angle to the 2d.
The result is as I have been saying .... "sphere packing".
Us...particles....are the energy in those void. Most of the time the "bulk" is neutral...therefore....spacetime.
The energy of the particles are a result of the quantizied "bulk" interacting.
I prefer large...
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models).
I used different .... hopefully simpler words. A different point of view.
This point of view makes it difficult for me to see ..."higher dimensions".
This is "out of body experience"
jal
This is an out of body experience
I don't know if I should post this .. it might be helpful or it might not .. reject it competely if you wish. A fellow traveller perhaps.
Looking through the references you have given .. and many more. It is as though many of these descriptions refer to completely unrelated Universes If there is a grain of truth and a drop of evidence for one theory then the other fails completely .. and vice versa. The problem is that if you keep the one and reject the other you could be rejecting the wrong one. You (we) have to keep both (all) and constantly test them against the best evidence available.
Of the problems..
Whatever the theory there has to be a way for information to flow from one point to another, the mechanism and nature of 'information' may vary but it has to exist in some form. This seems incredibly difficult to me. It is easy to say "gravitational waves propagate more slowly .." but really you need so explain so much more than that.
One of the gold standards for any theory seems to be special relativity - I don't think time spent gaining a complete understanding of it (not yet!) is ever wasted. General relativity seems unpopular because it describes the very things which people are trying to replace with newer theories. It seems unchallenged in terms of giving the right answers.
Noether's theorum seems to be an unchallenged (and unchallengable) aspect of the Universe. I think there was a good reference on wiki but someone has gone along and messed it up.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Emmy_Noether
She made very significant contributions to mathematics and theoretical physics . In mathematics, she worked on the theory of invariants and non-commutative algebras . In physics, she arrived at a very crucial and beautiful result known as Noether's theorem , which translated statements of invariance with respect to generalized transformations of physical systems, called symmetries by physicists, into conservation laws. The results of Noether's theorem are part of the fundamentals of modern physics, which is substantially based on the properties of symmetries.
Comments always welcome.
-C2.
I like your trolling.... I always get more than I give.
WHAT IS Kaluza-Klein?
IT’S A SPOT. I think that my explanation is much more interesting that the Kaluza-Klein. As an added bonus, I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension. The importance of knowing the topology of the bulk will become apparent in 2007.
Kaluza-Klein
QUOTE
In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1).
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.
Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.
Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
Radion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1). As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories. A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower. Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space. In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models. |
Radion
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
Helped me? No.
Scared me a bit? Maybe. Is there any branch of maths or physics not required to troll effectively on this thread?
A spot in space-time .. yes? From your response much (or very little) may flow. On the particles have mass thread we've been looking at vacuum stuff. Can you explain with less than three references where you spot fits into the general scheme of space-time? Or not .. a definite option. Feel free to keep your explanation very simple and easy to follow.
-C2.
Scared me a bit? Maybe. Is there any branch of maths or physics not required to troll effectively on this thread?
A spot in space-time .. yes? From your response much (or very little) may flow. On the particles have mass thread we've been looking at vacuum stuff. Can you explain with less than three references where you spot fits into the general scheme of space-time? Or not .. a definite option. Feel free to keep your explanation very simple and easy to follow.
-C2.
Confused2!I thought that I was making things simple.
QUOTE
I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension
Think of spacetime as "the bulk". It is undetected with our tools.
It is an energy structure. As a 2d energy structure you can get only what I have shown as a spot. Put them together and you get the structure of a brane. (M-theories.)
In order to obtain more freedom of movement.... give them spin....rotation at right angle to the 2d.
The result is as I have been saying .... "sphere packing".
Us...particles....are the energy in those void. Most of the time the "bulk" is neutral...therefore....spacetime.
The energy of the particles are a result of the quantizied "bulk" interacting.
I prefer large...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have included a topology of the bulk that exists all around us as the 5th dimension |
Think of spacetime as "the bulk". It is undetected with our tools.
It is an energy structure. As a 2d energy structure you can get only what I have shown as a spot. Put them together and you get the structure of a brane. (M-theories.)
In order to obtain more freedom of movement.... give them spin....rotation at right angle to the 2d.
The result is as I have been saying .... "sphere packing".
Us...particles....are the energy in those void. Most of the time the "bulk" is neutral...therefore....spacetime.
The energy of the particles are a result of the quantizied "bulk" interacting.
I prefer large...
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models).
I used different .... hopefully simpler words. A different point of view.
This point of view makes it difficult for me to see ..."higher dimensions".
This is "out of body experience"
jal
QUOTE (jal+)
This is an out of body experience
I don't know if I should post this .. it might be helpful or it might not .. reject it competely if you wish. A fellow traveller perhaps.
Looking through the references you have given .. and many more. It is as though many of these descriptions refer to completely unrelated Universes If there is a grain of truth and a drop of evidence for one theory then the other fails completely .. and vice versa. The problem is that if you keep the one and reject the other you could be rejecting the wrong one. You (we) have to keep both (all) and constantly test them against the best evidence available.
Of the problems..
Whatever the theory there has to be a way for information to flow from one point to another, the mechanism and nature of 'information' may vary but it has to exist in some form. This seems incredibly difficult to me. It is easy to say "gravitational waves propagate more slowly .." but really you need so explain so much more than that.
One of the gold standards for any theory seems to be special relativity - I don't think time spent gaining a complete understanding of it (not yet!) is ever wasted. General relativity seems unpopular because it describes the very things which people are trying to replace with newer theories. It seems unchallenged in terms of giving the right answers.
Noether's theorum seems to be an unchallenged (and unchallengable) aspect of the Universe. I think there was a good reference on wiki but someone has gone along and messed it up.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Emmy_Noether
QUOTE
She made very significant contributions to mathematics and theoretical physics . In mathematics, she worked on the theory of invariants and non-commutative algebras . In physics, she arrived at a very crucial and beautiful result known as Noether's theorem , which translated statements of invariance with respect to generalized transformations of physical systems, called symmetries by physicists, into conservation laws. The results of Noether's theorem are part of the fundamentals of modern physics, which is substantially based on the properties of symmetries.
Comments always welcome.
-C2.
Confused2
I cannot argue... it's pure wisdom
There must be some truth in practically everyone of the models. How to pick out the good parts and make something new and better.
As you noted.... each of those models has something going for it.
The details, 2007, will end up chosing the right one. Like so many, I expect that it will lead to "new physics". A lot of new models.
I assume that you read yq's last link... many model....many paths to reach those models.
I found it very informative.
We have been programmed, by our social, educational, environment, and evolution etc. to think a certain way. To think outside the box involves "out of body experience". We got to shed our assumptions, presumptions and prejudices.
AND. like you implied, we got to be carefull not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
If you are going to get into my boat, you are going to have to take a paddle and use it.
jal
I cannot argue... it's pure wisdom
There must be some truth in practically everyone of the models. How to pick out the good parts and make something new and better.
As you noted.... each of those models has something going for it.
The details, 2007, will end up chosing the right one. Like so many, I expect that it will lead to "new physics". A lot of new models.
I assume that you read yq's last link... many model....many paths to reach those models.
I found it very informative.
We have been programmed, by our social, educational, environment, and evolution etc. to think a certain way. To think outside the box involves "out of body experience". We got to shed our assumptions, presumptions and prejudices.
AND. like you implied, we got to be carefull not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
QUOTE
Whatever the theory there has to be a way for information to flow from one point to another, the mechanism and nature of 'information' may vary but it has to exist in some form. This seems incredibly difficult to me
If you are going to get into my boat, you are going to have to take a paddle and use it. jal
I suggest checking out my post at..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78051
partly for Mahndisa's comments on Noether's theorum (the main reason) and partly for her blogspot .. visit it and (possibly) be inspired.
Got to get conservation laws worked out sometime or the universe just goes floop .. or ploof. Symmetry .. works for me. But not too much .. that doesn't work quite so well for me.
-C2.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78051
partly for Mahndisa's comments on Noether's theorum (the main reason) and partly for her blogspot .. visit it and (possibly) be inspired.
Got to get conservation laws worked out sometime or the universe just goes floop .. or ploof. Symmetry .. works for me. But not too much .. that doesn't work quite so well for me.
-C2.
Would it be OK to take some time out to discuss y's post?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=105778
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=105778
Confused2!
Give it a go..... it fits in.... I'm in the process of doing some answers/reflections?
Concerning your thread and your previous post..... I feel like I was asleep.... you shook me once.... you shook me twice.... so I finally work up ....re-read your post...re-evaluated (my presumtions ) on Noether's theorum .... saw the details that you were alluding to....
I must confess that my presentation is not specific...and I was not trying to be specific....as a result your specific points are still outstanding
Go ahead with yq's link....while I prepare
jal
Give it a go..... it fits in.... I'm in the process of doing some answers/reflections?
Concerning your thread and your previous post..... I feel like I was asleep.... you shook me once.... you shook me twice.... so I finally work up ....re-read your post...re-evaluated (my presumtions
) on Noether's theorum .... saw the details that you were alluding to.... I must confess that my presentation is not specific...and I was not trying to be specific....as a result your specific points are still outstanding
Go ahead with yq's link....while I prepare
jal
QUANTUM GRAVITY
You have read the article. I summarized the key points. I put in bold the key points of that summary.
quantum gravity
Those seem to be the problems.
How to address the problems. You have read my approach.
It’s not 4d +2d or 5d.
Rather …. It’s 2d creating the 4d. The wave function is being used on the 4d.
It’s just a subtle difference which has more implications.
Does it work? One of the details that will tell us is
Noether's_theorem
Those seem to be the problems.
How to address the problems. You have read my approach.
It’s not 4d +2d or 5d.
Rather …. It’s 2d creating the 4d. The wave function is being used on the 4d.
It’s just a subtle difference which has more implications.
Does it work? One of the details that will tell us is
Noether's_theorem
Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example:
• the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;
• invariance with respect to rotation gives law of conservation of angular momentum;
• invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy
In quantum field theory, the analog to Noether's theorem, the Ward-Takahashi identities, yields further conservation laws, such as the conservation of electric charge from the invariance with respect to the gauge invariance of the electric potential and vector potential.
The Noether charge is also used in calculating the entropy of stationary black holes1.
From your thread we get:
see thread
Hey there C2:
Sure, I just refound this link! Schneibster's explanation invoked Neother's Theorem and set of a flurry of thought and recent research on my part. Typically physics students aren't exposed to the theorem until a first term in a Quantum Field Theory Course. However, whenever you take E &M and look at fields that can be written in terms of a scalar potential, or you do Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalism, you are invoking Noether's theorem. Noether's theorem states that whenever we have a conservation law, there is a correlated symmetry=>quantity left invariant under a certain symmetry operation. It sounds simplistic, but it is one of the single most important theorems in physics! So, whenever a system is invariant under rotations, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, and whenever the system is invariant under translations the system has momentum conservation. When you take your quantum mechanics courses, you will see that indeed, angular momentum generates rotations and translations generate linear momentum. I don't want to get into the time energy uncertainty relation and what that means, because I don't think I or many texts do that relation justice, and hence I have omitted the energy conservation example from the discussion.
If you would like a deeper classically motivated discussion, see Herbert Goldstein's Classical Mechanics Second Ed, Chapter 9 sections 1-5. This is because he covers The Symplectic Approach to Canonical Transformations, while Noether's Theorem is specifically interested in what happens along symplectic manifolds.
Like I previously said, my model may not survive detail analysis, (Bohr Model) but I think that the approach will lead to something better.
jal
What are you getting ready?
I would suspect that it will lead to an improvement.
You have read the article. I summarized the key points. I put in bold the key points of that summary.
quantum gravity
QUOTE
…(quantum gravity) ..just follow the model of QED and quantize the gravitational field, similar to the way in which the electromagnetic field was quantized?
This is more or less the path that has been taken, but it encounters extraordinary difficulties.
….the problem arguably resurfaces in the huge number of vacua associated with different compactifications of the nine space dimensions to the three we observe….
It should be noted, finally, that to date neither of the main research programs has been shown to give rise to the world we see at low energies. Indeed, it is a major challenge of loop quantum gravity to show that it has general relativity as a low-energy limit, and a major challenge of string theory to show that it has the standard model of particle physics plus general relativity as a low-energy limit.
M-theory
The rationale is that what looks like one theory at strong coupling (high energy description) looks like another theory at weak coupling (lower energy, more tractable description), and that if all the theories are related to one another, then they must all be aspects of some more fundamental theory. Though attempts have been made, there has been no successful formulation of this theory: its very existence, much less its nature, is still largely a matter of conjecture.
Loop quantum gravity
the canonical quantum gravity program treats the spacetime metric itself as a kind of field, and attempts to quantize it directly.
The problem is that if spacetime is quantized, this assumption does not make sense in anything but an approximate way. This issue in particular is decidedly neglected in both the physical and philosophical literature (but see Isham (1993)), and there is more that might be said.
Since string theory is supposed to describe the emergence of classical spacetime from some underlying quantum structure, these objects are not to be regarded as truly fundamental. Rather, their status in string theory is analogous to the status of particles in quantum field theory (Witten, 2001), which is to say that they are relevant descriptions of the fundamental physics only in situations in which there is a background spacetime with appropriate symmetries.
Whereas perturbative string theory treats spacetime in an essentially classical way, canonical quantum gravity treats it as quantum-mechanical, at least to the extent of treating the geometric structure (as opposed to, say, the topological or differential structure) as quantum-mechanical.
The problem is not so much that the spacetime is dynamical; there is no problem of time in classical general relativity. Rather, the problem is roughly that in quantizing the structure of spacetime itself, the notion of a quantum state, representing the structure of spacetime at some instant, and the notion of the evolution of the state, do not get any traction, since there are no real “instants”. (In some approaches to canonical gravity, one fixes a time before quantizing, and quantizes the spatial portions of the metric only. This approach is not without its problems, however; see Isham (1993) for discussion and further references.)
In quantum mechanics, one has particles, albeit with indefinite properties. In quantum field theory, one again has particles (at least in suitably symmetric spacetimes), but these are secondary to the fields, which again are things, albeit with indefinite properties. On the face of it, the only difference in quantum gravity is that spacetime itself becomes a kind of quantum field, and one would perhaps be inclined to say that the properties of spacetime become indefinite. But space and time traditionally play important roles in individuating objects and their properties—in fact a field is in some sense a set of properties of spacetime points — and so the quantization of such raises real problems for ontology.
Whether or not spacetime is discrete, the quantization of spacetime entails that our ordinary notion of the physical world, that of matter distributed in space and time, is at best an approximation. This in turn implies that ordinary quantum theory, in which one calculates probabilities for events to occur in a given world, is inadequate as a fundamental theory.
however, the incorporation of a dynamical, quantized spacetime clearly drives much of the cosmology-inspired work in this area.
But one might well think that one should start with the more fundamental, quantum theory, and then investigate under which circumstances one gets something that looks like a classical spacetime.
In the author's opinion, it is unlikely that a final theory of quantum gravity — if indeed there is one — will look much like any of the current candidate theories, be they string theory, canonical gravity, or other approaches.
This is more or less the path that has been taken, but it encounters extraordinary difficulties.
….the problem arguably resurfaces in the huge number of vacua associated with different compactifications of the nine space dimensions to the three we observe….
It should be noted, finally, that to date neither of the main research programs has been shown to give rise to the world we see at low energies. Indeed, it is a major challenge of loop quantum gravity to show that it has general relativity as a low-energy limit, and a major challenge of string theory to show that it has the standard model of particle physics plus general relativity as a low-energy limit.
M-theory
The rationale is that what looks like one theory at strong coupling (high energy description) looks like another theory at weak coupling (lower energy, more tractable description), and that if all the theories are related to one another, then they must all be aspects of some more fundamental theory. Though attempts have been made, there has been no successful formulation of this theory: its very existence, much less its nature, is still largely a matter of conjecture.
Loop quantum gravity
the canonical quantum gravity program treats the spacetime metric itself as a kind of field, and attempts to quantize it directly.
The problem is that if spacetime is quantized, this assumption does not make sense in anything but an approximate way. This issue in particular is decidedly neglected in both the physical and philosophical literature (but see Isham (1993)), and there is more that might be said.
Since string theory is supposed to describe the emergence of classical spacetime from some underlying quantum structure, these objects are not to be regarded as truly fundamental. Rather, their status in string theory is analogous to the status of particles in quantum field theory (Witten, 2001), which is to say that they are relevant descriptions of the fundamental physics only in situations in which there is a background spacetime with appropriate symmetries.
Whereas perturbative string theory treats spacetime in an essentially classical way, canonical quantum gravity treats it as quantum-mechanical, at least to the extent of treating the geometric structure (as opposed to, say, the topological or differential structure) as quantum-mechanical.
The problem is not so much that the spacetime is dynamical; there is no problem of time in classical general relativity. Rather, the problem is roughly that in quantizing the structure of spacetime itself, the notion of a quantum state, representing the structure of spacetime at some instant, and the notion of the evolution of the state, do not get any traction, since there are no real “instants”. (In some approaches to canonical gravity, one fixes a time before quantizing, and quantizes the spatial portions of the metric only. This approach is not without its problems, however; see Isham (1993) for discussion and further references.)
In quantum mechanics, one has particles, albeit with indefinite properties. In quantum field theory, one again has particles (at least in suitably symmetric spacetimes), but these are secondary to the fields, which again are things, albeit with indefinite properties. On the face of it, the only difference in quantum gravity is that spacetime itself becomes a kind of quantum field, and one would perhaps be inclined to say that the properties of spacetime become indefinite. But space and time traditionally play important roles in individuating objects and their properties—in fact a field is in some sense a set of properties of spacetime points — and so the quantization of such raises real problems for ontology.
Whether or not spacetime is discrete, the quantization of spacetime entails that our ordinary notion of the physical world, that of matter distributed in space and time, is at best an approximation. This in turn implies that ordinary quantum theory, in which one calculates probabilities for events to occur in a given world, is inadequate as a fundamental theory.
however, the incorporation of a dynamical, quantized spacetime clearly drives much of the cosmology-inspired work in this area.
But one might well think that one should start with the more fundamental, quantum theory, and then investigate under which circumstances one gets something that looks like a classical spacetime.
In the author's opinion, it is unlikely that a final theory of quantum gravity — if indeed there is one — will look much like any of the current candidate theories, be they string theory, canonical gravity, or other approaches.
Those seem to be the problems.
How to address the problems. You have read my approach.
It’s not 4d +2d or 5d.
Rather …. It’s 2d creating the 4d. The wave function is being used on the 4d.
It’s just a subtle difference which has more implications.
Does it work? One of the details that will tell us is
Noether's_theorem
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| …(quantum gravity) ..just follow the model of QED and quantize the gravitational field, similar to the way in which the electromagnetic field was quantized? This is more or less the path that has been taken, but it encounters extraordinary difficulties. ….the problem arguably resurfaces in the huge number of vacua associated with different compactifications of the nine space dimensions to the three we observe…. It should be noted, finally, that to date neither of the main research programs has been shown to give rise to the world we see at low energies. Indeed, it is a major challenge of loop quantum gravity to show that it has general relativity as a low-energy limit, and a major challenge of string theory to show that it has the standard model of particle physics plus general relativity as a low-energy limit. M-theory The rationale is that what looks like one theory at strong coupling (high energy description) looks like another theory at weak coupling (lower energy, more tractable description), and that if all the theories are related to one another, then they must all be aspects of some more fundamental theory. Though attempts have been made, there has been no successful formulation of this theory: its very existence, much less its nature, is still largely a matter of conjecture. Loop quantum gravity the canonical quantum gravity program treats the spacetime metric itself as a kind of field, and attempts to quantize it directly. The problem is that if spacetime is quantized, this assumption does not make sense in anything but an approximate way. This issue in particular is decidedly neglected in both the physical and philosophical literature (but see Isham (1993)), and there is more that might be said. Since string theory is supposed to describe the emergence of classical spacetime from some underlying quantum structure, these objects are not to be regarded as truly fundamental. Rather, their status in string theory is analogous to the status of particles in quantum field theory (Witten, 2001), which is to say that they are relevant descriptions of the fundamental physics only in situations in which there is a background spacetime with appropriate symmetries. Whereas perturbative string theory treats spacetime in an essentially classical way, canonical quantum gravity treats it as quantum-mechanical, at least to the extent of treating the geometric structure (as opposed to, say, the topological or differential structure) as quantum-mechanical. The problem is not so much that the spacetime is dynamical; there is no problem of time in classical general relativity. Rather, the problem is roughly that in quantizing the structure of spacetime itself, the notion of a quantum state, representing the structure of spacetime at some instant, and the notion of the evolution of the state, do not get any traction, since there are no real “instants”. (In some approaches to canonical gravity, one fixes a time before quantizing, and quantizes the spatial portions of the metric only. This approach is not without its problems, however; see Isham (1993) for discussion and further references.) In quantum mechanics, one has particles, albeit with indefinite properties. In quantum field theory, one again has particles (at least in suitably symmetric spacetimes), but these are secondary to the fields, which again are things, albeit with indefinite properties. On the face of it, the only difference in quantum gravity is that spacetime itself becomes a kind of quantum field, and one would perhaps be inclined to say that the properties of spacetime become indefinite. But space and time traditionally play important roles in individuating objects and their properties—in fact a field is in some sense a set of properties of spacetime points — and so the quantization of such raises real problems for ontology. Whether or not spacetime is discrete, the quantization of spacetime entails that our ordinary notion of the physical world, that of matter distributed in space and time, is at best an approximation. This in turn implies that ordinary quantum theory, in which one calculates probabilities for events to occur in a given world, is inadequate as a fundamental theory. however, the incorporation of a dynamical, quantized spacetime clearly drives much of the cosmology-inspired work in this area. But one might well think that one should start with the more fundamental, quantum theory, and then investigate under which circumstances one gets something that looks like a classical spacetime. In the author's opinion, it is unlikely that a final theory of quantum gravity — if indeed there is one — will look much like any of the current candidate theories, be they string theory, canonical gravity, or other approaches. |
Those seem to be the problems.
How to address the problems. You have read my approach.
It’s not 4d +2d or 5d.
Rather …. It’s 2d creating the 4d. The wave function is being used on the 4d.
It’s just a subtle difference which has more implications.
Does it work? One of the details that will tell us is
Noether's_theorem
Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example:
• the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum;
• invariance with respect to rotation gives law of conservation of angular momentum;
• invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy
In quantum field theory, the analog to Noether's theorem, the Ward-Takahashi identities, yields further conservation laws, such as the conservation of electric charge from the invariance with respect to the gauge invariance of the electric potential and vector potential.
The Noether charge is also used in calculating the entropy of stationary black holes1.
From your thread we get:
see thread
QUOTE
Hey there C2:
Sure, I just refound this link! Schneibster's explanation invoked Neother's Theorem and set of a flurry of thought and recent research on my part. Typically physics students aren't exposed to the theorem until a first term in a Quantum Field Theory Course. However, whenever you take E &M and look at fields that can be written in terms of a scalar potential, or you do Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalism, you are invoking Noether's theorem. Noether's theorem states that whenever we have a conservation law, there is a correlated symmetry=>quantity left invariant under a certain symmetry operation. It sounds simplistic, but it is one of the single most important theorems in physics! So, whenever a system is invariant under rotations, angular momentum is a conserved quantity, and whenever the system is invariant under translations the system has momentum conservation. When you take your quantum mechanics courses, you will see that indeed, angular momentum generates rotations and translations generate linear momentum. I don't want to get into the time energy uncertainty relation and what that means, because I don't think I or many texts do that relation justice, and hence I have omitted the energy conservation example from the discussion.
If you would like a deeper classically motivated discussion, see Herbert Goldstein's Classical Mechanics Second Ed, Chapter 9 sections 1-5. This is because he covers The Symplectic Approach to Canonical Transformations, while Noether's Theorem is specifically interested in what happens along symplectic manifolds.
Like I previously said, my model may not survive detail analysis, (Bohr Model) but I think that the approach will lead to something better.
jal
What are you getting ready?
I would suspect that it will lead to an improvement.
jal,
I kept hamsters for many years. Almost all escaped at least once. To escape it seems hamsters use a simple but effective strategy.. they allocate time to every possible route on the basis of their estimate of the probability of success, for each possible route they try under/over/through/intimidation/etc and again allocate time based on their estimate of the probability of success. No strategy is allocated a zero probability of success. The process continues throughout the life of the hamster and ensures that most hamsters will escape at least once. The reason for introducing hamsters to this thread is to illustrate that a strategy chosen at random can be a very powerful thing. The pleasure of writing about one of the other creatures we share the planet with is (of course) entirely irrelevent.
Noether's Theorum looks very powerful .. but is it the right thing?.. I don't know..
So many more things I don't know. But I do know a few things about hamsters.
I'll post again when I have anything to post.
Best wishes,
-C2.
This is utterly irrelevent .. a superior hamster can bluff that it has escaped .. you leave the door open so it can get back into its cage .. and then they sneak out when your back is turned. Normally they turn into homing hamsters after a day or two and the amount of damage you do to your house during this traumatic time is entirely up to you.
To be enchanted .. by hamsters.. strategies.. everything .. there is never enough time. HOW TO GET TO BED !!
I kept hamsters for many years. Almost all escaped at least once. To escape it seems hamsters use a simple but effective strategy.. they allocate time to every possible route on the basis of their estimate of the probability of success, for each possible route they try under/over/through/intimidation/etc and again allocate time based on their estimate of the probability of success. No strategy is allocated a zero probability of success. The process continues throughout the life of the hamster and ensures that most hamsters will escape at least once. The reason for introducing hamsters to this thread is to illustrate that a strategy chosen at random can be a very powerful thing. The pleasure of writing about one of the other creatures we share the planet with is (of course) entirely irrelevent.
Noether's Theorum looks very powerful .. but is it the right thing?.. I don't know..
So many more things I don't know. But I do know a few things about hamsters.
I'll post again when I have anything to post.
Best wishes,
-C2.
This is utterly irrelevent .. a superior hamster can bluff that it has escaped .. you leave the door open so it can get back into its cage .. and then they sneak out when your back is turned. Normally they turn into homing hamsters after a day or two and the amount of damage you do to your house during this traumatic time is entirely up to you.
To be enchanted .. by hamsters.. strategies.. everything .. there is never enough time. HOW TO GET TO BED !!
Confused2 !
I enjoyed your story..... if you had a deeper message.... sorry, I think that I missed it.
One of the citations from the previous link.
Wüthrich, C., 2004, “To quantize or not to quantize: fact and folklore in quantum gravity”.
To quantize or not to quantize
Given the lack of empirical indications that a quantum theory of gravity
is necessary to correctly describe the physics in these exotic regimes, one
might be inclined to dismiss the endeavor as mathematical recreation. So
far, the only empirical input is extremely indirect at best, involving an
uncomfortably large number of substantial auxiliary hypotheses to relate the
data to Planck scale physics.
Why quantize gravity?
Doplicher and collaborators have argued that the quantum uncertainty relations of the spacetime coordinates emerge from the combination of Heisenberg’s principle with general relativity. The argument, as I interpret it, should contain two main parts: the first shows that continuous spacetime loses its operational meaning at small scales already
at the semi-classical level; the second would extend the argument to full quantum gravity by defending that this operational limit is due to the truly discrete nature of spacetime at Planck scale.
The first part of the argument encodes a rather common belief that the combination of the uncertainty relations and classical general relativity imposes restrictions on the operational meaning of classical spacetime. The reasoning runs along the following lines. If
1. the greater the accuracy (or, equivalently, the smaller the uncertainty)
in the measurement of spatio-temporal coordinates, the stronger the
gravitational field generated by the measurement, and
2. an increasing gravitational field eventually becomes strong enough as
to collapse to a black hole, creating a closed trapped surface, and thus
prevents any signal from leaving the region at stake, and
3. an operational meaning can only be attached to a spacetime localization
in case signals can leave the region measured,
our reasons for rejecting them would have to be substantial enough to challenge first
principles of two of the most successful achievements of twentieth-century
physics: quantum mechanics and general relativity.
One may argue, however, that these first principles will naturally be
challenged at the level of quantum gravity.
Thus, one cannot expect that all principles that underpin the above premises will still be valid in full quantum gravity.
The failure of current physics to offer a straightforward and unique path to a quantum theory of gravity strongly suggests that the formulation of such a theory will require new physics.
Why not quantize gravity?
Most prominently, perhaps, among these alternative approaches is Sakharov’s
induced gravity theory. As it has recently been resurrected, it deserves
particular attention.2 It claims to ingest Lorentz’s vision of the possibility
of gravity merely being an effective force induced by residual electromagnetic
forces. For Sakharov, gravity is thus not a fundamental physical field,
but “induced”, i.e. emergent from quantum field theory like hydrodynamics
emerges from molecular physics. Nota bene, since the interaction part of
the action contains both classical and quantum terms, Sakharov’s account
leads to a type of semi-classical quantum gravity.
Sakharov’s induced gravity program provides an effective, semi-classical
approach to gravity that does not require a quantization of gravity. Similarly,
Jacobson’s gravitational thermodynamics conceives of gravity as emergent
from the energy flux of unobservable degrees of freedom. Again, no
quantization was necessary. Although regret must be expressed that these
accounts are but nascent attempts to understand gravity and that they are
therefore yet lacking in many respects, they establish that it is at least
conceivable that the final theory of gravity may not involve quantization.
There are a lot of brighter people than me. Therefore, I assume that they have prepared and have their papers ready in their bottom drawers to cover even my scenario. If the data from 2007 would point in this direction
There are a lot of brighter people than me. Therefore, I assume that they have prepared and have their papers ready in their bottom drawers to cover even my scenario. If the data from 2007 would point in this direction
No strategy is allocated a zero probability of success
I don't know their world. I read things like "Publish or perish".
"The first to publish gets the glory."
I am proposing a third approach…. “A quantum size 2nd dimension.”
I am sure that there are many versions of this .... just waiting for the 2007 data .... if it points somewhere else..... they will be ready.
jal
Why Not?, jal,
I apologize for this was not my intent. I should have just stayed off the site for a few weeks, I never have enough time in the 24 hours given us, but I try to make some for this site because wanting to help, I am not selling something innovative from Japan, or a new fashion from Paris. I was trying to help but I see I have done the very opposite.
Everything that explains the universe has in fact explained a universe that does not seem intuitive at best, a cosmos in which physicist think they are at the center of the human enterprise of good intentions by “helping others” can be counterproductive. Such a reality does exist for some—and I have fallen into this trap for which I am so very sorry.
I will go with the rose, at face value and enjoy the moment, everything else will fall into place I hope.
Best to you all,
yquantum
I enjoyed your story..... if you had a deeper message.... sorry, I think that I missed it.
One of the citations from the previous link.
Wüthrich, C., 2004, “To quantize or not to quantize: fact and folklore in quantum gravity”.
To quantize or not to quantize
QUOTE
Given the lack of empirical indications that a quantum theory of gravity
is necessary to correctly describe the physics in these exotic regimes, one
might be inclined to dismiss the endeavor as mathematical recreation. So
far, the only empirical input is extremely indirect at best, involving an
uncomfortably large number of substantial auxiliary hypotheses to relate the
data to Planck scale physics.
Why quantize gravity?
Doplicher and collaborators have argued that the quantum uncertainty relations of the spacetime coordinates emerge from the combination of Heisenberg’s principle with general relativity. The argument, as I interpret it, should contain two main parts: the first shows that continuous spacetime loses its operational meaning at small scales already
at the semi-classical level; the second would extend the argument to full quantum gravity by defending that this operational limit is due to the truly discrete nature of spacetime at Planck scale.
The first part of the argument encodes a rather common belief that the combination of the uncertainty relations and classical general relativity imposes restrictions on the operational meaning of classical spacetime. The reasoning runs along the following lines. If
1. the greater the accuracy (or, equivalently, the smaller the uncertainty)
in the measurement of spatio-temporal coordinates, the stronger the
gravitational field generated by the measurement, and
2. an increasing gravitational field eventually becomes strong enough as
to collapse to a black hole, creating a closed trapped surface, and thus
prevents any signal from leaving the region at stake, and
3. an operational meaning can only be attached to a spacetime localization
in case signals can leave the region measured,
our reasons for rejecting them would have to be substantial enough to challenge first
principles of two of the most successful achievements of twentieth-century
physics: quantum mechanics and general relativity.
One may argue, however, that these first principles will naturally be
challenged at the level of quantum gravity.
Thus, one cannot expect that all principles that underpin the above premises will still be valid in full quantum gravity.
The failure of current physics to offer a straightforward and unique path to a quantum theory of gravity strongly suggests that the formulation of such a theory will require new physics.
Why not quantize gravity?
Most prominently, perhaps, among these alternative approaches is Sakharov’s
induced gravity theory. As it has recently been resurrected, it deserves
particular attention.2 It claims to ingest Lorentz’s vision of the possibility
of gravity merely being an effective force induced by residual electromagnetic
forces. For Sakharov, gravity is thus not a fundamental physical field,
but “induced”, i.e. emergent from quantum field theory like hydrodynamics
emerges from molecular physics. Nota bene, since the interaction part of
the action contains both classical and quantum terms, Sakharov’s account
leads to a type of semi-classical quantum gravity.
Sakharov’s induced gravity program provides an effective, semi-classical
approach to gravity that does not require a quantization of gravity. Similarly,
Jacobson’s gravitational thermodynamics conceives of gravity as emergent
from the energy flux of unobservable degrees of freedom. Again, no
quantization was necessary. Although regret must be expressed that these
accounts are but nascent attempts to understand gravity and that they are
therefore yet lacking in many respects, they establish that it is at least
conceivable that the final theory of gravity may not involve quantization.
There are a lot of brighter people than me. Therefore, I assume that they have prepared and have their papers ready in their bottom drawers to cover even my scenario. If the data from 2007 would point in this direction
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Given the lack of empirical indications that a quantum theory of gravity is necessary to correctly describe the physics in these exotic regimes, one might be inclined to dismiss the endeavor as mathematical recreation. So far, the only empirical input is extremely indirect at best, involving an uncomfortably large number of substantial auxiliary hypotheses to relate the data to Planck scale physics. Why quantize gravity? Doplicher and collaborators have argued that the quantum uncertainty relations of the spacetime coordinates emerge from the combination of Heisenberg’s principle with general relativity. The argument, as I interpret it, should contain two main parts: the first shows that continuous spacetime loses its operational meaning at small scales already at the semi-classical level; the second would extend the argument to full quantum gravity by defending that this operational limit is due to the truly discrete nature of spacetime at Planck scale. The first part of the argument encodes a rather common belief that the combination of the uncertainty relations and classical general relativity imposes restrictions on the operational meaning of classical spacetime. The reasoning runs along the following lines. If 1. the greater the accuracy (or, equivalently, the smaller the uncertainty) in the measurement of spatio-temporal coordinates, the stronger the gravitational field generated by the measurement, and 2. an increasing gravitational field eventually becomes strong enough as to collapse to a black hole, creating a closed trapped surface, and thus prevents any signal from leaving the region at stake, and 3. an operational meaning can only be attached to a spacetime localization in case signals can leave the region measured, our reasons for rejecting them would have to be substantial enough to challenge first principles of two of the most successful achievements of twentieth-century physics: quantum mechanics and general relativity. One may argue, however, that these first principles will naturally be challenged at the level of quantum gravity. Thus, one cannot expect that all principles that underpin the above premises will still be valid in full quantum gravity. The failure of current physics to offer a straightforward and unique path to a quantum theory of gravity strongly suggests that the formulation of such a theory will require new physics. Why not quantize gravity? Most prominently, perhaps, among these alternative approaches is Sakharov’s induced gravity theory. As it has recently been resurrected, it deserves particular attention.2 It claims to ingest Lorentz’s vision of the possibility of gravity merely being an effective force induced by residual electromagnetic forces. For Sakharov, gravity is thus not a fundamental physical field, but “induced”, i.e. emergent from quantum field theory like hydrodynamics emerges from molecular physics. Nota bene, since the interaction part of the action contains both classical and quantum terms, Sakharov’s account leads to a type of semi-classical quantum gravity. Sakharov’s induced gravity program provides an effective, semi-classical approach to gravity that does not require a quantization of gravity. Similarly, Jacobson’s gravitational thermodynamics conceives of gravity as emergent from the energy flux of unobservable degrees of freedom. Again, no quantization was necessary. Although regret must be expressed that these accounts are but nascent attempts to understand gravity and that they are therefore yet lacking in many respects, they establish that it is at least conceivable that the final theory of gravity may not involve quantization. |
There are a lot of brighter people than me. Therefore, I assume that they have prepared and have their papers ready in their bottom drawers to cover even my scenario. If the data from 2007 would point in this direction
No strategy is allocated a zero probability of success
I don't know their world. I read things like "Publish or perish".
"The first to publish gets the glory."
I am proposing a third approach…. “A quantum size 2nd dimension.”
I am sure that there are many versions of this .... just waiting for the 2007 data .... if it points somewhere else..... they will be ready.
jal
Hey jal and Confused2,
I have been reading through your thread for the last couple of days and I told myself that I would not ask any questions until I was all of the way through... Well, I am not yet all of the way through but C2's "Hot Higgs, Cold no Higgs" is still stuck in my head so I decided to post (probably prematurely ).
So what can you tell me about temperature?
P.s. I just had a thought... A post can be called a point, a thread a string, and a forum a membrane! I need some sleep!
I have been reading through your thread for the last couple of days and I told myself that I would not ask any questions until I was all of the way through... Well, I am not yet all of the way through but C2's "Hot Higgs, Cold no Higgs" is still stuck in my head so I decided to post (probably prematurely
).So what can you tell me about temperature?
P.s. I just had a thought... A post can be called a point, a thread a string, and a forum a membrane!
I need some sleep!
Why Not?
C2 does have a way with words.
I thought that he was refering to the two possible "states" of Higgs and asking how kinetic energy might be an important factor into the mechanism.
Perhaps he has formed some speculation as to why and how it would reveal the true nature of the universe.
jal
QUOTE
"Hot Higgs, Cold no Higgs"
C2 does have a way with words.
I thought that he was refering to the two possible "states" of Higgs and asking how kinetic energy might be an important factor into the mechanism.
Perhaps he has formed some speculation as to why and how it would reveal the true nature of the universe.
jal
Hi yquantum!
You surprised me.
"Hot Higgs, Cold no Higgs"
I thought that .... perhaps.... experimental evidence was not supporting the use of degeneracy so globally to arrive at a 3d situation.
C2 should give us more of his thoughts.
jal
You surprised me.
"Hot Higgs, Cold no Higgs"
I thought that .... perhaps.... experimental evidence was not supporting the use of degeneracy so globally to arrive at a 3d situation.
C2 should give us more of his thoughts.
jal
jal,
Quote from the site below,
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/2/14
You could put the dynamics into your model, jal.
Read down to, 'Structure formation' and how it plays into dark matter, etc. It is more applicable in the direction of what is being said.
I hope this post goes well for you everyone, keep them thinking with fundamental laws, terms, and data and all will be fine.
ciao_
Higgs
Quote from the site below,
QUOTE
Neutrinos created in the first seconds after the Big Bang could hold vital clues about the evolution of the universe. A workshop in Trieste looked at a wealth of intriguing possibilities.
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/2/14
You could put the dynamics into your model, jal.
Read down to, 'Structure formation' and how it plays into dark matter, etc. It is more applicable in the direction of what is being said.
I hope this post goes well for you everyone, keep them thinking with fundamental laws, terms, and data and all will be fine.
ciao_
Higgs
Just a Higgs!
"There is a lot of meat on them bones"
Great link...They have opened up the discussion for so much more speculation.
The following is especially intriguing. ( at the end of the article)
You realize, of course, that I will take this new line of thought and try to see what kind of model that would result or if fits into the 2d -->4d.
Right off the top of my head....sterile neutrino--->.... spacetime????
jal
"There is a lot of meat on them bones"
Great link...They have opened up the discussion for so much more speculation.
The following is especially intriguing. ( at the end of the article)
QUOTE
Sterile neutrinos
The neutrinos that we know of do not carry an electrical charge and only interact through the weak force. Traditionally, three distinct varieties of neutrino electron, muon and tau couple to the three electrically charged, weakly interacting particles (leptons). However, a rogue "sterile" neutrino may exist that does not even feel the weak force. Such a neutrino would be difficult to detect. It is now generally accepted that neutrinos "oscillate", changing their lepton label as they propagate. If sterile neutrinos exist, it is possible that ordinary neutrinos oscillate into sterile ones and become invisible. Sterile neutrinos may also have been mass produced in the aftermath of the Big Bang. Such particles, although invisible, could have enormous implications for cosmology.
The neutrinos that we know of do not carry an electrical charge and only interact through the weak force. Traditionally, three distinct varieties of neutrino electron, muon and tau couple to the three electrically charged, weakly interacting particles (leptons). However, a rogue "sterile" neutrino may exist that does not even feel the weak force. Such a neutrino would be difficult to detect. It is now generally accepted that neutrinos "oscillate", changing their lepton label as they propagate. If sterile neutrinos exist, it is possible that ordinary neutrinos oscillate into sterile ones and become invisible. Sterile neutrinos may also have been mass produced in the aftermath of the Big Bang. Such particles, although invisible, could have enormous implications for cosmology.
You realize, of course, that I will take this new line of thought and try to see what kind of model that would result or if fits into the 2d -->4d.
Right off the top of my head....sterile neutrino--->.... spacetime????
jal
Hi!
I'm a late comer to the race.
The speculation is well underway.
sterile_neutrinos_dark_matter
jal
I'm a late comer to the race.
The speculation is well underway.
sterile_neutrinos_dark_matter
QUOTE
Scientists discovered that neutrinos have mass through neutrino oscillation experiments. This led to the postulation that "sterile" neutrinos exist - also known as right-handed neutrinos. They do not participate in weak interactions directly, but do interact through their mixing with ordinary neutrinos. The total number of sterile neutrinos in the universe is unclear. If a sterile neutrino only has a mass of a few kiloelectronvolts (1 keV is a millionth of the mass of a hydrogen atom), that would explain the huge, missing mass in the universe, sometimes called "dark matter". Astrophysical observations support the view that dark matter is likely to consist of these sterile neutrinos.
jal
Hey jal, C2, and um Just a Higgs ( - glad you made it over...)
jal,
I have soooo much to catch up on with all of the links here and the recent ones from yq's thread, so please keep in mind that I am behind the curve - but trying to ketchup.
My question about temperature (which may be poor word choice - since as yq pointed out, it is typically used in reference to EM only) was directed specifically to the role of temperature in your model.
I am interested as well in the not so confused ones' "speculation as to why and how it would reveal the true nature of the universe." But since this is your thread, I would like to know your thoughts on the roll of temperature/symmetry breaking/mass/etc within the structure of your model (relationship with entropy)... But it is up to you where we go from here.
Also, I have nothing concrete to support this statement, but I believe that nature's little afterthought has a much greater role to play in all of this. Much greater than "just" dark matter, and my gut tells me that flavor oscillation is a big fat arrow pointing to something sublime.
- glad you made it over...)jal,
I have soooo much to catch up on with all of the links here and the recent ones from yq's thread, so please keep in mind that I am behind the curve - but trying to ketchup.
My question about temperature (which may be poor word choice - since as yq pointed out, it is typically used in reference to EM only) was directed specifically to the role of temperature in your model.
I am interested as well in the not so confused ones' "speculation as to why and how it would reveal the true nature of the universe." But since this is your thread, I would like to know your thoughts on the roll of temperature/symmetry breaking/mass/etc within the structure of your model (relationship with entropy)...
But it is up to you where we go from here.Also, I have nothing concrete to support this statement, but I believe that nature's little afterthought has a much greater role to play in all of this. Much greater than "just" dark matter, and my gut tells me that flavor oscillation is a big fat arrow pointing to something sublime.
Why Not?
Right now yq has put me into overdrive....new info...new speculations....
A rose with too many names....
I don't see any conflict with the new info and my speculations.... Got to think.... maybe later..... an improved version....
Keep helping
Thanks
Jal
Right now yq has put me into overdrive....new info...new speculations....
A rose with too many names....
QUOTE
Much greater than "just" dark matter, and my gut tells me that flavor oscillation is a big fat arrow pointing to something sublime. 
I don't see any conflict with the new info and my speculations.... Got to think.... maybe later..... an improved version....
Keep helping
Thanks
Jal
jal,
I know what you mean, my cerebral fluctuations are in overdrive with all of the new info. from you, yq and C2. Must focus, must focus, most focus, oh but look at that over there... too many tangents at the moment!
Take your time (it will give me some too!), we have at least 5 and 1/2 months...
A rose by any other name will smell as sweet! But what's the Proper name? I have my guess.
I know what you mean, my cerebral fluctuations are in overdrive with all of the new info. from you, yq and C2.
Must focus, must focus, most focus, oh but look at that over there... too many tangents at the moment!Take your time (it will give me some too!), we have at least 5 and 1/2 months...
A rose by any other name will smell as sweet! But what's the Proper name? I have my guess.
Why Not?, jal,I apologize for this was not my intent. I should have just stayed off the site for a few weeks, I never have enough time in the 24 hours given us, but I try to make some for this site because wanting to help, I am not selling something innovative from Japan, or a new fashion from Paris. I was trying to help but I see I have done the very opposite.
Everything that explains the universe has in fact explained a universe that does not seem intuitive at best, a cosmos in which physicist think they are at the center of the human enterprise of good intentions by “helping others” can be counterproductive. Such a reality does exist for some—and I have fallen into this trap for which I am so very sorry.
I will go with the rose, at face value and enjoy the moment, everything else will fall into place I hope.
Best to you all,
yquantum
yquantum,
I think you misunderstand, and I think I speak for jal too, cerebral inflation is a good thing. Just takes a bit of time to re-survey the landscape.
I think you misunderstand, and I think I speak for jal too, cerebral inflation is a good thing. Just takes a bit of time to re-survey the landscape.
Good Day!
Is this link about the
sterile neutrinos
Improved search for $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillation in a long-baseline accelerator experiment. No evidence for a $\nu_e$ appearance signal was found
Does this mean that the idea of a "sterile neutrinos" is dead?
jal
Is this link about the
sterile neutrinos
Improved search for $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillation in a long-baseline accelerator experiment. No evidence for a $\nu_e$ appearance signal was found
Does this mean that the idea of a "sterile neutrinos" is dead?
jal
Good day!
I am back!….. The 4 th "sterile neutrinos" does change things in my model. I hope that it’s not a dead idea. The implications are far more than what was postulated. Now they have proposed something that can fill ”space” and have a structure.
Do I need to discard my model? NO!
Dr. Mohsen Kermanshahi
Universal Theory
I read and understood his presentation. I have a different point of view.
If you propose a quantum model that does not go to the Planck scale then you are also proposing that the universe did not start at the Planck scale. No one will challenge the established view without having “new physic” to back up their claim.
Large extra dimensions are frowned upon for this very reason. All of those models must include a “hidden” way to get to Planck scale.
(If you have read my thread then you can skip to the bold type at the end).
Let’s look at:
First law of thermo-dynamics tells us that a closed system with no structure contains maximum information. (The remainder of the paragraph is hypothesis)
“It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen. It would also have the maximum potential energy. Let’s make that 100% potential energy.”
Now, let’s add some structures. That would be the ability to diffuse that energy/information. ( The Big Bang was the chosen explanation/solution that was accepted)
Here is my explanation/hypothesis.
The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756
The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy.
A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.
Therefore, the energy/information density went from 100% to 90.69%.
If we then go to 3d we can again say that we increase the ability to diffuse that energy/information. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%.
Have I said anything different than the “Big Bang” explanation.
No.
The universe started from a high energy concentration that had the potential to evolve to now. The universe started with no kinetic energy. All it had was potential energy. It had no entropy.
The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
However, higher dimensions are added to the Big Bang because the models do not want to propose anything that do not go to Planck scale. There are no other reasons.
Did my approach require that energy be concentrated at the Planck scale? No.
Do I need higher dimensions to get particles with more mass? No.
There is 16.64% more energy in the 2d structure than in the 3d structure. (90.69% - 74.05%). Therefore, when we “probe” the quantum world we would find that there are "heavy" particles”.
They are not part of our 3d universe. They are part of the 2d branes.
The mass of those particles would also depend on the size (1/R) of the 2d.
Do we need to go to Planck size in order to achieve the observed masses? No.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.
Did we cross a barrier without knowing it? I think so.
I think that the experiments have already reached into the “bulk”, higher dimensions, and from my point of view… reached into the large 2d brane.
You can look up in the thread the models that have been developed that suggest that it is not necessary to have Planck scale dimensions.
With the 4 th "sterile neutrinos", the standard model will need to be rearranged to reflect that we are now probing “The Twilight Zone”.
Of course, the possible models are sitting in an office drawer just waiting for the data from 2007. Too many people are referring to "new physics" and not saying anything.
All the roses,….. the SS particles, the Higgs, the ZPE, and probably the 4 neutrinos will need to be taken out of our 3d and put into “The Twilight Zone”. I’ll let the “math kids” decide if the “spot” is made from the 4th neutrinos. The 4th "sterile neutrinos" will change the Standard Table. If the 4th "sterile neutrinos" does not exist then we are back to roses.
I’m also waiting for 2007. I am anxious to see what will be the new models.
I am sure that my model will change over the next 4 years.
jal
I am back!….. The 4 th "sterile neutrinos" does change things in my model. I hope that it’s not a dead idea. The implications are far more than what was postulated. Now they have proposed something that can fill ”space” and have a structure.
Do I need to discard my model? NO!
Dr. Mohsen Kermanshahi
Universal Theory
I read and understood his presentation. I have a different point of view.
If you propose a quantum model that does not go to the Planck scale then you are also proposing that the universe did not start at the Planck scale. No one will challenge the established view without having “new physic” to back up their claim.
Large extra dimensions are frowned upon for this very reason. All of those models must include a “hidden” way to get to Planck scale.
QUOTE
As the mass gets smaller the energy increases. The amount of energy for molecules are 10_ 10-3ev. The energy of electrons bond in atoms is 10ev. Inside the nuclei the energy goes up to 108ev. When particles are at rest the energy level is up to 1011ev. And at the exit (plank scale) the energy increases to enormous amount of 1028ev
First law of thermo-dynamics tells us that a closed system with no structure contains maximum information. We can compare it to the beginning of the big bang. As universe got more structured the information became more limited and decreased. Same principle can be observed in small scale. For example in Compton Scattering, the possibilities of events are endless as Feynman's diagrams shows. But when we reduce the state and bring it out in space-time the data get limited and diminished. Which shows as we get further from Planck arena the information gets diluted.
Name of Interaction Relative Magnitude Behavior
fundamental forces Relative Magnitude Behavior
Strong nuclear force 1040 1/r 7
Electromagnetic force 10 38 1/r 2
Weak nuclear force 10 15 1/r 5 to 1/r 7
Gravity 10 0 1/r 2
First law of thermo-dynamics tells us that a closed system with no structure contains maximum information. We can compare it to the beginning of the big bang. As universe got more structured the information became more limited and decreased. Same principle can be observed in small scale. For example in Compton Scattering, the possibilities of events are endless as Feynman's diagrams shows. But when we reduce the state and bring it out in space-time the data get limited and diminished. Which shows as we get further from Planck arena the information gets diluted.
Name of Interaction Relative Magnitude Behavior
fundamental forces Relative Magnitude Behavior
Strong nuclear force 1040 1/r 7
Electromagnetic force 10 38 1/r 2
Weak nuclear force 10 15 1/r 5 to 1/r 7
Gravity 10 0 1/r 2
(If you have read my thread then you can skip to the bold type at the end).
Let’s look at:
First law of thermo-dynamics tells us that a closed system with no structure contains maximum information. (The remainder of the paragraph is hypothesis)
“It would be required that there not be any freedom of movement. Therefore, we would be referring to a solid ball with no change of distances, no change of dimensions and no time. Everything would be symmetrical. All dimensions would be either unreachable or occupied. There would be no movement and no change. Nothing can happen. It would also have the maximum potential energy. Let’s make that 100% potential energy.”
Now, let’s add some structures. That would be the ability to diffuse that energy/information. ( The Big Bang was the chosen explanation/solution that was accepted)
Here is my explanation/hypothesis.
The table did not quote. Here are some extracts.
dimension kissing number
1 -----------2
2 -----------6
3 -----------12
4 -----------24
10 ---------->336
12 ---------->756
The kissing numbers are equal to freedom of movements.
If you have more dimensions you will get more entropy, less potential energy.
A practical example would be a 2d membrane.
A string could vibrate in a flat configuration and therefore could be making a two dimensional membrane. Therefore, string and m-theories calculations could have a place to start.
A 2D sheet/membrane made up of packed vibrating strings would have to take the configuration of "packed circles." One of these circles would be what Hawkins termed "an instanton." In 2d there would be a sheet of "instantons". Packed circles have 6 kissing points. This is the degree of freedom that would be permitted. The packing density of circles is 90.69%.
Therefore, the energy/information density went from 100% to 90.69%.
If we then go to 3d we can again say that we increase the ability to diffuse that energy/information. Spheres have 12 kissing points. Therefore, the information that was contained in a 2d configuration will now be diffused through 12 contact points.
Spheres have a packing density of 74.05%.
Have I said anything different than the “Big Bang” explanation.
No.
The universe started from a high energy concentration that had the potential to evolve to now. The universe started with no kinetic energy. All it had was potential energy. It had no entropy.
The more dimensions that are available the worst and more improbable it will become to have "our universe."
However, higher dimensions are added to the Big Bang because the models do not want to propose anything that do not go to Planck scale. There are no other reasons.
Did my approach require that energy be concentrated at the Planck scale? No.
Do I need higher dimensions to get particles with more mass? No.
There is 16.64% more energy in the 2d structure than in the 3d structure. (90.69% - 74.05%). Therefore, when we “probe” the quantum world we would find that there are "heavy" particles”.
They are not part of our 3d universe. They are part of the 2d branes.
The mass of those particles would also depend on the size (1/R) of the 2d.
Do we need to go to Planck size in order to achieve the observed masses? No.
Maybe spacetime has a lot more to say in how the universe of particles works than what we could possibly imagine.
Did we cross a barrier without knowing it? I think so.
I think that the experiments have already reached into the “bulk”, higher dimensions, and from my point of view… reached into the large 2d brane.
You can look up in the thread the models that have been developed that suggest that it is not necessary to have Planck scale dimensions.
With the 4 th "sterile neutrinos", the standard model will need to be rearranged to reflect that we are now probing “The Twilight Zone”.
Of course, the possible models are sitting in an office drawer just waiting for the data from 2007. Too many people are referring to "new physics" and not saying anything.
All the roses,….. the SS particles, the Higgs, the ZPE, and probably the 4 neutrinos will need to be taken out of our 3d and put into “The Twilight Zone”. I’ll let the “math kids” decide if the “spot” is made from the 4th neutrinos. The 4th "sterile neutrinos" will change the Standard Table. If the 4th "sterile neutrinos" does not exist then we are back to roses.
I’m also waiting for 2007. I am anxious to see what will be the new models.
I am sure that my model will change over the next 4 years.
jal
Good Day!
A clarification ... about a rose!
The Three Laws of Motion
Newton's_laws_of_motion
First law
Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them.
Second law
The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in the direction of the net force.
Third law
To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).
In quantum mechanics concepts such as force, momentum, and position are defined by linear operators that operate on the quantum state. At speeds that are much lower than the speed of light, Newton's laws are just as exact for these operators as they are for classical objects. At speeds comparable to the speed of light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp / dt, which says that the force is the derivative of the momentum of the object with respect to time, but some of the newer versions of the second law (such as the constant mass approximation above) do not hold at relativistic velocities.
Because force is time derivative of momentum, then the concept of force is redundant and subordinate to the conservation of momentum, and is not used in fundamental theories (like quantum mechanics, QED, general relativity, etc. Standard model explains in details how fundamental forces originate out of exchange by virtual particles.
Virtual_particles
In physics, a virtual particle is a particle-like abstraction used in some models of quantum field theory. Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do such as conservation of charge. Nevertheless they are unobservable by their very definition, and furthermore do not respect some of the most fundamental laws associated with physical particles. The concept of virtual particles necessarily arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between real particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram which facilitates understanding of calculations.
The term is rather loose and vaguely defined, in the sense that it clings to a rather incorrect view that the world is somehow made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are more accurately understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but never as indexes to the scattering matrix (i.e., they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modeled). In this sense, virtual particles are an artifact of perturbation theory, and do not appear in a nonperturbative treatment. As such, their existence is questionable; however, the term is useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman's terms.
There are two principal ways in which the notion of virtual particles appear in modern physics. They appear as intermediate terms in Feynman diagrams; that is, as terms in a perturbative calculation. They also appear as an infinite set of states to be summed or integrated over in the calculation of a semi-non-perturbative effect. In the later case, it is sometimes said that virtual particles cause the effect, or that the effect occurs because of the existence of virtual particles.
In the latter class, there are six well-known effects in particle physics that are often ascribed to virtual particles (specifically to virtual photons in all but the last case):
• The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation,
• The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes a weak, short-range attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates,
• The van der Waals force, which is essentially the Casimir effect between two atoms,
• Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron),
• Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of particle pairs.
It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons. This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the above Feynman diagram: the photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball). Furthermore, in the photon's frame of reference, no time elapses between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here.
In practice, a clear distinction can be made: real photons are detected as individual particles in particle detectors, whereas virtual photons are not directly detected; only their average or side-effects may be noticed.
An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in the vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in the vacuum be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.
Can everyone smell the roses?
jal
A clarification ... about a rose!
The Three Laws of Motion
Newton's_laws_of_motion
First law
Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them.
Second law
The rate of change of the momentum of a body is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction of the change in momentum takes place in the direction of the net force.
Third law
To every action (force applied) there is an equal and opposite reaction (equal force applied in the opposite direction).
In quantum mechanics concepts such as force, momentum, and position are defined by linear operators that operate on the quantum state. At speeds that are much lower than the speed of light, Newton's laws are just as exact for these operators as they are for classical objects. At speeds comparable to the speed of light, the second law holds in the original form F = dp / dt, which says that the force is the derivative of the momentum of the object with respect to time, but some of the newer versions of the second law (such as the constant mass approximation above) do not hold at relativistic velocities.
Because force is time derivative of momentum, then the concept of force is redundant and subordinate to the conservation of momentum, and is not used in fundamental theories (like quantum mechanics, QED, general relativity, etc. Standard model explains in details how fundamental forces originate out of exchange by virtual particles.
Virtual_particles
In physics, a virtual particle is a particle-like abstraction used in some models of quantum field theory. Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do such as conservation of charge. Nevertheless they are unobservable by their very definition, and furthermore do not respect some of the most fundamental laws associated with physical particles. The concept of virtual particles necessarily arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between real particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram which facilitates understanding of calculations.
The term is rather loose and vaguely defined, in the sense that it clings to a rather incorrect view that the world is somehow made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are more accurately understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but never as indexes to the scattering matrix (i.e., they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modeled). In this sense, virtual particles are an artifact of perturbation theory, and do not appear in a nonperturbative treatment. As such, their existence is questionable; however, the term is useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman's terms.
There are two principal ways in which the notion of virtual particles appear in modern physics. They appear as intermediate terms in Feynman diagrams; that is, as terms in a perturbative calculation. They also appear as an infinite set of states to be summed or integrated over in the calculation of a semi-non-perturbative effect. In the later case, it is sometimes said that virtual particles cause the effect, or that the effect occurs because of the existence of virtual particles.
In the latter class, there are six well-known effects in particle physics that are often ascribed to virtual particles (specifically to virtual photons in all but the last case):
• The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation,
• The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes a weak, short-range attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates,
• The van der Waals force, which is essentially the Casimir effect between two atoms,
• Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron),
• Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of particle pairs.
It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons. This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the above Feynman diagram: the photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball). Furthermore, in the photon's frame of reference, no time elapses between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here.
In practice, a clear distinction can be made: real photons are detected as individual particles in particle detectors, whereas virtual photons are not directly detected; only their average or side-effects may be noticed.
An important example of the "presence" of virtual particles in the vacuum is the Casimir effect. Here, the explanation of the effect requires that the total energy of all of the virtual particles in the vacuum be added together. Thus, although the virtual particles themselves are not directly observable in the laboratory, they do leave an observable effect: their zero-point energy results in forces acting on suitably arranged metal plates or dielectrics.
Can everyone smell the roses?
jal
Roses? Nah. Give me a cubic metre of space any day, much more interesting.
Possible omission..
Why do photons travel at the speed of light?
I rather liked my elephant on the other thread .. a nice solid 'arrow of time'. Would photons be travelling at right angles to that arrow (the elephant) or 'something else'?
-C2.
Possible omission..
Why do photons travel at the speed of light?
I rather liked my elephant on the other thread .. a nice solid 'arrow of time'. Would photons be travelling at right angles to that arrow (the elephant) or 'something else'?
-C2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone looks like a good place to start. I'm trying to make the elephant the observer .. if you see what I mean. It is caught up in the time thing the light cone is all about.
Just a thought, may not help. Might be best to ignore it. I usually do .
-C2.
Just a thought, may not help. Might be best to ignore it. I usually do
.-C2.
Confused2
The light cone has only been verified to approximately 1 mm. for gravity.
We can come back to it after.
The following is bugging me and has probably nothing to do with your approach.
Good Elf said it in a nice way …. There is no evidence that energy in leaking in or that energy is leaking out of our (4 d) universe.
That would include all para normal activities….time travel….ghosts…. etc
It also includes virtual particles… and ZPE.
All attempts to get energy from ZEP must use a fulcrum. If the researchers do not have some kind of 4 S model then they have no way of knowing where to position the fulcrum.
Words like “sea”, “fog”, “foam”, “gel” does not tell where to put the fulcrum.
Sure…. There is plenty of EMF energy from one mm to 10^-17. However, this is not a useable source of energy.
The ZEP energy is tied up in the structure.
Go to the conference at Faster-Than-Light and see if any of them have found a fulcrum and a place to use it. I am sure that the hall will be full of people wanting to find ways to get around the law of conservation of energy.
Think of putting an orange in a press…. You can squeeze the juice from it.
However, ZEP is more like a rubber ball… once you release the pressure the ball goes back to its shape. To complicate matters…. The ball is not standing still waiting for you to put in the press…. It’s moving at the speed of light.
You need a 4S model of some kind to achieve results.
It maybe money well spent for the government but it would be a waste of my hard earned money.
Conservation of Energy
jal
The light cone has only been verified to approximately 1 mm. for gravity.
We can come back to it after.
The following is bugging me and has probably nothing to do with your approach.
Good Elf said it in a nice way …. There is no evidence that energy in leaking in or that energy is leaking out of our (4 d) universe.
That would include all para normal activities….time travel….ghosts…. etc
It also includes virtual particles… and ZPE.
All attempts to get energy from ZEP must use a fulcrum. If the researchers do not have some kind of 4 S model then they have no way of knowing where to position the fulcrum.
Words like “sea”, “fog”, “foam”, “gel” does not tell where to put the fulcrum.
Sure…. There is plenty of EMF energy from one mm to 10^-17. However, this is not a useable source of energy.
The ZEP energy is tied up in the structure.
Go to the conference at Faster-Than-Light and see if any of them have found a fulcrum and a place to use it. I am sure that the hall will be full of people wanting to find ways to get around the law of conservation of energy.
Think of putting an orange in a press…. You can squeeze the juice from it.
However, ZEP is more like a rubber ball… once you release the pressure the ball goes back to its shape. To complicate matters…. The ball is not standing still waiting for you to put in the press…. It’s moving at the speed of light.
You need a 4S model of some kind to achieve results.
It maybe money well spent for the government but it would be a waste of my hard earned money.
Conservation of Energy
QUOTE
Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (including potential energy) in a closed system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.
Modern physics
With the discovery of special relativity by Albert Einstein, it was found that energy is one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector. Each of the four components (one of energy and three of momentum) of this vector is separately conserved, as well as the vector length (Minkowski norm). The latter is associated with invariant mass and rest mass. The relativistic energy of a single massive particle contains a term related to its rest mass in addition to its kinetic energy of motion. In the limit of zero kinetic energy (or equivalently in the rest frame of the massive particle, or the center-of-momentum frame for objects or systems), the total energy of particle or object (including internal kinetic energy in systems) is related to its rest mass via the famous equation E = mc2. Thus, the rule of conservation of energy was shown to be a special case of a more general rule, alternatively called the conservation of mass and energy, the conservation of mass-energy, the conservation of energy-momentum, the conservation of invariant mass or now usually just referred to as conservation of energy.
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. It is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem which states that any theory whose description is not sensitive to a starting time will have constant energy. In other words, if the theory is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation its energy is conserved. Conversely, theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy.
In quantum mechanics energy is defined as a time derivative of the wave function. Lack of commutation of the time derivative operator with time itself mathematically results in an uncertainty principle for energy definition: the longer the period of time, the more precisely energy can be defined (energy and time become a conjugate Fourier pair).
Thus uncertainty principle should not be confused with energy conservation violation (as laymen or philosophers often imply).
In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy.
Modern physics
With the discovery of special relativity by Albert Einstein, it was found that energy is one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector. Each of the four components (one of energy and three of momentum) of this vector is separately conserved, as well as the vector length (Minkowski norm). The latter is associated with invariant mass and rest mass. The relativistic energy of a single massive particle contains a term related to its rest mass in addition to its kinetic energy of motion. In the limit of zero kinetic energy (or equivalently in the rest frame of the massive particle, or the center-of-momentum frame for objects or systems), the total energy of particle or object (including internal kinetic energy in systems) is related to its rest mass via the famous equation E = mc2. Thus, the rule of conservation of energy was shown to be a special case of a more general rule, alternatively called the conservation of mass and energy, the conservation of mass-energy, the conservation of energy-momentum, the conservation of invariant mass or now usually just referred to as conservation of energy.
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. It is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem which states that any theory whose description is not sensitive to a starting time will have constant energy. In other words, if the theory is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation its energy is conserved. Conversely, theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy.
In quantum mechanics energy is defined as a time derivative of the wave function. Lack of commutation of the time derivative operator with time itself mathematically results in an uncertainty principle for energy definition: the longer the period of time, the more precisely energy can be defined (energy and time become a conjugate Fourier pair).
Thus uncertainty principle should not be confused with energy conservation violation (as laymen or philosophers often imply).
jal
Good day!
A bit more clarification.
Is this a rose?
NO!
This theory is called the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach to gravity.
It presumes to extract the EMF energy that is distributed in space.
It does not presume to extract the energy of the structure of spacetime (ZPE) but it does mislead the readers.
This is not a “true” ZEP theory. It does not deal with virtual particles, Higgs, SS, or k-k particles.
They and the Heim group will surely be attending the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit
I’ll wait for the data from 2007. After they find the k-k particles we shall see if the 4S model has any life.
jal
A bit more clarification.
Is this a rose?
NO!
This theory is called the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach to gravity.
It presumes to extract the EMF energy that is distributed in space.
It does not presume to extract the energy of the structure of spacetime (ZPE) but it does mislead the readers.
This is not a “true” ZEP theory. It does not deal with virtual particles, Higgs, SS, or k-k particles.
QUOTE
Review of Experimental Concepts for Studying the Quantum Vacuum Field
Questions and Answers
The theoretical approaches guiding this experimental investigation are based on the QED and SED models of the ZPF. The purpose of our investigation is to explore the question of whether the quantum vacuum field contains useful energy that can be exploited for space power and propulsion applications under the action of a catalyst, or cavity structure, so that energy conservation is not violated.
The estimated power output from three of these concepts could under optimum conditions range from Watts to kiloWatts. But it should be stressed that there potentially is a real theoretical and experimental challenge in modeling and predicting noise sources, edge and surface effects, etc. within the different experimental approaches, so that experimental results are unambiguously interpretable. If successful, however, it is anticipated that these experiments would lead to a
revolution in the way we generate electrical power for commercial and space applications.
Note that we do attribute momentum and energy to the electromagnetic zero-point field. Indeed, the change in momentum of an object in a collision can be attributed to the momentum flux of the ZPF.
Similarly another non-geometric approach would be to assume that the dielectric properties of space itself may change in the presence of matter: this can be called the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach to gravity.
A PV type of model does not directly relate gravitation to the ZPF (or to the more general quantum vacuum) but it does appear to provide a theoretical framework conducive to developing the conjecture of Sakharov that it is changes in the ZPF that create gravitational forces (although it also has the drawback of apparently being at odds with the existence of black holes).
The neutrino is governed by the weak interaction, and it is possible that a similar kind of ZPF-particle interaction creates inertial mass for the neutrino but now involving the ZPF of the weak interaction. At present this is pure conjecture. No theoretical work has been done on this problem. (It is worth keeping in mind, though, that while there is now considerable indirect evidence that neutrinos possess mass, even the recent Super-Kamiokande measurements are not direct measurements of neutrino mass.)
Questions and Answers
The theoretical approaches guiding this experimental investigation are based on the QED and SED models of the ZPF. The purpose of our investigation is to explore the question of whether the quantum vacuum field contains useful energy that can be exploited for space power and propulsion applications under the action of a catalyst, or cavity structure, so that energy conservation is not violated.
The estimated power output from three of these concepts could under optimum conditions range from Watts to kiloWatts. But it should be stressed that there potentially is a real theoretical and experimental challenge in modeling and predicting noise sources, edge and surface effects, etc. within the different experimental approaches, so that experimental results are unambiguously interpretable. If successful, however, it is anticipated that these experiments would lead to a
revolution in the way we generate electrical power for commercial and space applications.
Note that we do attribute momentum and energy to the electromagnetic zero-point field. Indeed, the change in momentum of an object in a collision can be attributed to the momentum flux of the ZPF.
Similarly another non-geometric approach would be to assume that the dielectric properties of space itself may change in the presence of matter: this can be called the polarizable vacuum (PV) approach to gravity.
A PV type of model does not directly relate gravitation to the ZPF (or to the more general quantum vacuum) but it does appear to provide a theoretical framework conducive to developing the conjecture of Sakharov that it is changes in the ZPF that create gravitational forces (although it also has the drawback of apparently being at odds with the existence of black holes).
The neutrino is governed by the weak interaction, and it is possible that a similar kind of ZPF-particle interaction creates inertial mass for the neutrino but now involving the ZPF of the weak interaction. At present this is pure conjecture. No theoretical work has been done on this problem. (It is worth keeping in mind, though, that while there is now considerable indirect evidence that neutrinos possess mass, even the recent Super-Kamiokande measurements are not direct measurements of neutrino mass.)
They and the Heim group will surely be attending the 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit
I’ll wait for the data from 2007. After they find the k-k particles we shall see if the 4S model has any life.
jal
Just to say I'm really enjoying watching you sniffing around. Absolutely NOT like a hamster. Awwww
-C2.
-C2.
Confused2
It is now afterward
You and everyone realize that 1/R^2 has only been verified to 1mm.
Yet.... all the theories...models want to project down to 10^-33mm and at that point (Planck scale) the models invent a mechanism that GENERATES the inverse square rule.There is no experimental evidence that a mechanism that would generate the inverse square rule cannot be invoked at 10^-17 mm
Even the two examples that I made
New Dimensions at a Millimeter
and
Randall-Sundrum Theory insist on making sure that their model also go to 10^-33mm
(k-k particles at this scale could be observed.)
Therefore, the main question is why would the models persist in maintaining such ludicrous postulates?
jal
Any explanations????
QUOTE
The light cone has only been verified to approximately 1 mm. for gravity.
We can come back to it after.
We can come back to it after.
It is now afterward
You and everyone realize that 1/R^2 has only been verified to 1mm.
Yet.... all the theories...models want to project down to 10^-33mm and at that point (Planck scale) the models invent a mechanism that GENERATES the inverse square rule.There is no experimental evidence that a mechanism that would generate the inverse square rule cannot be invoked at 10^-17 mm
Even the two examples that I made
New Dimensions at a Millimeter
and
Randall-Sundrum Theory insist on making sure that their model also go to 10^-33mm
(k-k particles at this scale could be observed.)
Therefore, the main question is why would the models persist in maintaining such ludicrous postulates?
jal
Any explanations????
2007
Yet.... all the theories...models want to project down to 10^-33mm and at that point (Planck scale) the models invent a mechanism that GENERATES the inverse square rule.There is no experimental evidence that a mechanism that would generate the inverse square rule cannot be invoked at 10^-17 mm
This inverse square law is very much ties in to the ratio between radius and surface area .. normally 4 pi r^2. If you start to lose this inverse square law I suspect you start to lose the volume law as well and if you lose that... ? It suddenly seems very interesting. I haven't thought about it much but I find myself asking "contains like.. er.. what exactly".. this might be down in the "don't care" zone.. you just do the sum and quote the answer and hope for the best. You are pioneer in the spotty space field. Maybe if you ZPE'd your spots .. I don't know.
-C2.
What !!!! You are following my line of questioning????
I do occasionally glance at the previous post before I write anything.
Sorry, I've never looked at anything this small, can you explain the implications from your POV. At first glance I'm seeing huge ZPE's and tiny little things thinking "so what" to themselves. You have to care before this uncertainty thing starts to bother you.
-C2.
My POV.... is not the key question
It is on this thread.
Why 10^-17 as opposed to any other size. What's special about it?
-C2.
QUOTE (jal+)
Yet.... all the theories...models want to project down to 10^-33mm and at that point (Planck scale) the models invent a mechanism that GENERATES the inverse square rule.There is no experimental evidence that a mechanism that would generate the inverse square rule cannot be invoked at 10^-17 mm
This inverse square law is very much ties in to the ratio between radius and surface area .. normally 4 pi r^2. If you start to lose this inverse square law I suspect you start to lose the volume law as well and if you lose that... ? It suddenly seems very interesting. I haven't thought about it much but I find myself asking "contains like.. er.. what exactly".. this might be down in the "don't care" zone.. you just do the sum and quote the answer and hope for the best. You are pioneer in the spotty space field. Maybe if you ZPE'd your spots .. I don't know.
-C2.
Confused2 2007
What !!!! You are following my line of questioning????
Thanks.
"There is more than one way to skin a cat."
Why do it at 10^-33 when 10^-17 would be just as far?
Jal
2007 What !!!! You are following my line of questioning????
Thanks.
"There is more than one way to skin a cat."
Why do it at 10^-33 when 10^-17 would be just as far?
Jal
QUOTE (jal+)
What !!!! You are following my line of questioning????
I do occasionally glance at the previous post before I write anything.
Sorry, I've never looked at anything this small, can you explain the implications from your POV. At first glance I'm seeing huge ZPE's and tiny little things thinking "so what" to themselves. You have to care before this uncertainty thing starts to bother you.
-C2.
Confused2
My POV.... is not the key question but rather why everyone want to keep a mechanism at 10^-33 when there is no evidence to contradict having a mechanism at 10^-17.
Well... there might be one reason.... we should be able to find the mechanism at 10^-17 in 2007. That would be scarry!
jal
QUOTE
the models/theories invent a mechanism that GENERATES the inverse square rule.There is no experimental evidence that a mechanism that would generate the inverse square rule cannot be invoked at 10^-17 mm
My POV.... is not the key question but rather why everyone want to keep a mechanism at 10^-33 when there is no evidence to contradict having a mechanism at 10^-17.
Well... there might be one reason.... we should be able to find the mechanism at 10^-17 in 2007. That would be scarry!
jal
QUOTE
My POV.... is not the key question
It is on this thread.
Why 10^-17 as opposed to any other size. What's special about it?
-C2.
Confused2
I have quoted papers concerning LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS (with math) which say that it is possible (vibration modes 1, 2, or 4).
We have not yet detected any other dimensions but 2007 might reveal them.
I cannot figure out why everyone want to make the mechanism at 10^-33 with no evidence when 10^-17 would do the same thing. (with no evidence)
jal
inserted from previous posts:
Kaluza-Klein
I have quoted papers concerning LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS (with math) which say that it is possible (vibration modes 1, 2, or 4).
We have not yet detected any other dimensions but 2007 might reveal them.
I cannot figure out why everyone want to make the mechanism at 10^-33 with no evidence when 10^-17 would do the same thing. (with no evidence)
jal
inserted from previous posts:
Kaluza-Klein
In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1).
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
Radion
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
QUOTE
Why 10^-17 as opposed to any other size
I have quoted papers concerning LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS (with math) which say that it is possible (vibration modes 1, 2, or 4).
We have not yet detected any other dimensions but 2007 might reveal them.
I cannot figure out why everyone want to make the mechanism at 10^-33 with no evidence when 10^-17 would do the same thing. (with no evidence)
jal
inserted from previous posts:
Kaluza-Klein
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why 10^-17 as opposed to any other size |
I have quoted papers concerning LARGE EXTRA DIMENSIONS (with math) which say that it is possible (vibration modes 1, 2, or 4).
We have not yet detected any other dimensions but 2007 might reveal them.
I cannot figure out why everyone want to make the mechanism at 10^-33 with no evidence when 10^-17 would do the same thing. (with no evidence)
jal
inserted from previous posts:
Kaluza-Klein
In modern geometry, the extra fifth dimension can be understood to be the circle group U(1), as electromagnetism can essentially be formulated as a gauge theory on a fiber bundle, the circle bundle, with gauge group U(1).
As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). However, a naive attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories.
A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would (naively) be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza–Klein tower.Since the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is normally understood to be due to concentrations of matter in four-dimensional space, the above result is interpreted as saying that four-dimensional matter is induced from geometry in five-dimensional space.
In particular, the soliton solutions of RAB = 0 can be shown to contain the Robertson-Walker metric in both matter-dominated (early universe) and radiation-dominated (present universe) forms. The general equations can be shown to be sufficiently consistent with classical tests of general relativity to be acceptable on physical principles, while still leaving considerable freedom to also provide interesting cosmological models.
Radion
QUOTE
Radion, not to be confused with the element radon, is a scalar field in quantum field theory in spacetimes with additional dimensions. It can be interpreted as the length or size of the fifth dimension as a function of the usual four dimensions of spacetime.
See also dilaton, Kaluza-Klein theory, Randall-Sundrum models.
As a quantum field, the radion field has localized quantum excitations (i.e. particles) which is called the radion particle. Its mass depends upon the specific model in question. There are many mechanisms to give masses to the radion (which can be stated equivalently as stabilizing the radius of the extra dimension).
Sorry .. still can't see a 10^-17 .. checked KK .. they seem happy on any scale .. what am I missing?
-C2.
-C2.
Confused2!
I'll have to go search in my posts for a more specific reference.
However, the Randall-Sundrum models uses an exponential curve arizing from an infinitely large 5d in order to reflect gravity.
The Kaluza-Klein reference is also making a point that there are models advocating different sizes to the k-k.
A size of 10^-17 would have one harmonic.
jal
I'll have to go search in my posts for a more specific reference.
However, the Randall-Sundrum models uses an exponential curve arizing from an infinitely large 5d in order to reflect gravity.
The Kaluza-Klein reference is also making a point that there are models advocating different sizes to the k-k.
A size of 10^-17 would have one harmonic.
jal
Good Day!
Here is an approach that could help you understand what I have been saying.
Matter is made of waves
Of course I disagree with
Rather.... I think that aether does not exist.
A Kaluza-Klein model (k-k particles) of 10^-17 is my approach.. see my thread
jal
Inserted:
However, the discussion on Aether should be carried out in Zephirs's thread.
Here is an approach that could help you understand what I have been saying.
Matter is made of waves
Of course I disagree with
QUOTE
You are not entitled to think that aether does not exist.
Rather.... I think that aether does not exist.
A Kaluza-Klein model (k-k particles) of 10^-17 is my approach.. see my thread
jal
Inserted:
However, the discussion on Aether should be carried out in Zephirs's thread.
10^-17 is not an important point .. I wasn't sure whether or not I might have missed something. The important point is to build the model .. test it.. and take it from there.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2!
I'm sure that I could not build a testable model. If the k-k particles are detected then it will become obvious that there has to be a structure.
The best that I can come up with has already been said in my thread.
It does not matter.... the people at CERN will figure it out. I'll do like the rest of you... I'll feel good that I had figured out part of the answer.
jal
I'm sure that I could not build a testable model. If the k-k particles are detected then it will become obvious that there has to be a structure.
The best that I can come up with has already been said in my thread.
It does not matter.... the people at CERN will figure it out. I'll do like the rest of you... I'll feel good that I had figured out part of the answer.
jal
Can we do our best to test it for the sheer hell of it?
-C2
-C2
Hi! confused2
Sure.... let's see if we can get rid of some bad stuff....improve some other...and maybe end up leaving some as "don't know"
jal
Sure.... let's see if we can get rid of some bad stuff....improve some other...and maybe end up leaving some as "don't know"
jal
Hey jal and Confused 2,
After a week camping with my son on the Northern CA coast, away from the Internet and cell phones too I was able to get caught up. Now I just need to get re-caught up! But I think I understand how "temperature" fits in your model now.
Also, I wanted to thank you for the links to "Sterile Neutrinos" on this thread and "Academic Lectures" on yq's thread. Chris Quigg's paper on Electroweak Theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204104) is excellent as is Boris Kayser's paper on Neutrino Physics (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040802/papers/L004.PDF). Good stuff!
Are you interested in discussing neutrinos further?
After a week camping with my son on the Northern CA coast, away from the Internet and cell phones too I was able to get caught up
. Now I just need to get re-caught up! But I think I understand how "temperature" fits in your model now. Also, I wanted to thank you for the links to "Sterile Neutrinos" on this thread and "Academic Lectures" on yq's thread. Chris Quigg's paper on Electroweak Theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204104) is excellent as is Boris Kayser's paper on Neutrino Physics (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C040802/papers/L004.PDF). Good stuff!
Are you interested in discussing neutrinos further?
Why Not...confused2
neutrinos....
Although they are suppose to acquire? mass through flavor change ...the actual mass is only inferred from a secondary process. Is the mass that is inferred the same as "ordinary mass?" Or is it just a number that is needed to make sure that we have conservation of energy? Is this where there has been guessing of the processes going on at the quantum level?
Neutrino
"for the sheer hell of it....." I could have drawn wrong conclusions too.
jal
ps I am presently "on the road" so I maybe periodically out of touch.
All comments appreciated.
neutrinos....
Although they are suppose to acquire? mass through flavor change ...the actual mass is only inferred from a secondary process. Is the mass that is inferred the same as "ordinary mass?" Or is it just a number that is needed to make sure that we have conservation of energy? Is this where there has been guessing of the processes going on at the quantum level?
Neutrino
QUOTE
Neutrinos are also obvious candidates for use in studying quantum gravity effects. Because they are not affected by either the strong interaction or electromagnetism, and because they are not normally found in composite particles (unlike quarks) or prone to near instantaneous decay (like many other standard model particles) it is easier to isolate and measure gravitational effects on neutrinos at a quantum level.
"for the sheer hell of it....."
I could have drawn wrong conclusions too. jal
ps I am presently "on the road" so I maybe periodically out of touch.
All comments appreciated.
Hi jal, why_not? et al,
Don't let me interrupt the neutrinos.
I thought I ought to read this thread .. so I've started.
Imagine you have a crate on top of a washing machine operating according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Rubada rubada rubada. You put your oranges into it (the crate not the washing machine) .. bad news .. they won't pack properly but that is not the end of it. The fun part comes when the crate is nearly full and you put an orange in at one end of the crate and ... rubada rubada rubada ... an orange jumps out at the other end. The oranges are talking to each other. Or something .
-C2.
Don't let me interrupt the neutrinos.
I thought I ought to read this thread .. so I've started.
Imagine you have a crate on top of a washing machine operating according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Rubada rubada rubada. You put your oranges into it (the crate not the washing machine) .. bad news .. they won't pack properly but that is not the end of it. The fun part comes when the crate is nearly full and you put an orange in at one end of the crate and ... rubada rubada rubada ... an orange jumps out at the other end. The oranges are talking to each other. Or something
.-C2.
Confused2
Neutrinos will probably merge farther in this discussion
Uncertainty_principle
Two years earlier in 1925 when Heisenberg had developed his matrix mechanics the difference in position and momentum were already showing up in the formula. In developing matrix mechanics Heisenberg was measuring amplitudes of position and momentum of particles such as the electron that have a period of 2π, like a cycle in a wave, which are called Fourier series variables. When amplitudes of position and momentum are measured and multiplied together, they give intensity. However, Heisenberg found that when the position and momentum were multiplied together in that respective order or in the reverse order, there was a difference between the two calculated intensities of h/(2π). In other words, the two quantities position and momentum did not commute. In 1927, to develop the standard deviation for the uncertainty principle, Heisenberg took the gaussian distribution or bell curve for the imprecision in the measurement of the position q of a moving electron to the corresponding bell curve of the measured momentum p. That gave the minimum standard deviation to be 1/2 of h/(2π), or, .
The crate... the oranges.... would they not represent the "non-local hidden variables? "
By the same logic ...the structured spacetime at 10^-17 would be the "non-local hidden variable" The mechanism
This is getting to be way too long. Let's pause here.... and reflect.
jal
Clarification...your example.....my presentation....both deal with Uncertainty_principle. Yes?.....No?....
jal
Neutrinos will probably merge farther in this discussion
Uncertainty_principle
QUOTE
Heisenberg did not just use any arbitrary number to describe the minimum standard deviation between position and momentum of a particle. Heisenberg knew that particles behaved like waves and he knew that the energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians. Therefore, dividing h by 2π describes a constant that when multiplied by the frequency of a wave gives the energy of one radian. Heisenberg took 1/2 of h bar as his standard deviation. This can be written as h bar over 2 as above or it can be written as h/(4π). Normally one will see h bar over 2 as this is simpler.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Heisenberg did not just use any arbitrary number to describe the minimum standard deviation between position and momentum of a particle. Heisenberg knew that particles behaved like waves and he knew that the energy of any wave is the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians. Therefore, dividing h by 2π describes a constant that when multiplied by the frequency of a wave gives the energy of one radian. Heisenberg took 1/2 of h bar as his standard deviation. This can be written as h bar over 2 as above or it can be written as h/(4π). Normally one will see h bar over 2 as this is simpler. |
Two years earlier in 1925 when Heisenberg had developed his matrix mechanics the difference in position and momentum were already showing up in the formula. In developing matrix mechanics Heisenberg was measuring amplitudes of position and momentum of particles such as the electron that have a period of 2π, like a cycle in a wave, which are called Fourier series variables. When amplitudes of position and momentum are measured and multiplied together, they give intensity. However, Heisenberg found that when the position and momentum were multiplied together in that respective order or in the reverse order, there was a difference between the two calculated intensities of h/(2π). In other words, the two quantities position and momentum did not commute. In 1927, to develop the standard deviation for the uncertainty principle, Heisenberg took the gaussian distribution or bell curve for the imprecision in the measurement of the position q of a moving electron to the corresponding bell curve of the measured momentum p. That gave the minimum standard deviation to be 1/2 of h/(2π), or, .
QUOTE
Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities and that these variables, if known, would show that there was what Einstein termed "local realism", a description opposite to the uncertainty principle, being that all objects must already have their properties before they are observed or measured. For the greater part of the twentieth century, there were many such hidden variable theories proposed, but in 1964 John Bell theorized the Bell inequality to counter them, which postulated that although the behavior of an individual particle is random, it is also correlated with the behavior of other particles. Therefore, if the uncertainty principle is the result of some deterministic process in which a particle has local realism, it must be the case that particles at great distances instantly transmit information to each other to ensure that the correlations in behavior between particles occur. The interpretation of Bell's theorem explicitly prevents any local hidden variable theory from holding true because it shows the necessity of a system to describe correlations between objects. The implication is, if a hidden local variable is the cause of particle 1 being at a position, then a second hidden local variable would be responsible for particle 2 being in its own position - and there is no system to correlate the behavior between them. Experiments have demonstrated that there is correlation. In the years following, Bell's theorem was tested and has held up experimentally time and time again, and these experiments are in a sense the clearest experimental confirmation of quantum mechanics. It is worth noting that Bell's theorem only applies to local hidden variable theories; non-local hidden variable theories can still exist (which some, including Bell, think is what can bridge the conceptual gap between quantum mechanics and the observable world).
The crate... the oranges.... would they not represent the "non-local hidden variables? "
By the same logic ...the structured spacetime at 10^-17 would be the "non-local hidden variable" The mechanism
This is getting to be way too long. Let's pause here.... and reflect.
jal
At my level I don't do glasses of wine or poetry like yquantum does. Washing machines hamsters and pigs is about as good as I get. If you would prefer that I do not post on your thread than you have only to say.
-C2.
-C2.
QUOTE
This is getting to be way too long. Let's pause here.... and reflect.
Clarification...your example.....my presentation....both deal with Uncertainty_principle. Yes?.....No?....
jal
Hey jal, Confused2, et al,
jal, "For the sheer hell of it..."
Is a sterile neutrino really a neutrino at all. Quarks and leptons are (at least in part) defined by the interactions that they are affected by. But a sterile neutrino would only be affected by gravity, which can't be incorporated into the Standard Model. So I wonder further, can a neutrino be described as a sterile neutrino with the additional "mass" acquired as a function of the potential energy available for participation in the weak interaction? And can an electron be described as a sterile neutrino with the additional "mass" acquired as a function of the potential energy available for participation in both the weak interaction and the electromagnetic? And I have not yet thought through the complexity involved with the strong interaction, nor lepton number conservation. But with respect to gravity, I do not think it is important where a objects acquires it mass; mass is mass. E=mc^2 does not specify certain types of energy and certain types of mass. Or does it? Can ALL mass be converted to energy, or maybe just Dirac mass? Has anyone ever looked for neutrino debris in e-,e+ annihilation?
C2, I like the analogy. But I think that with respect to uncertainty, any orange can pop out (not just one at the other end) and there is no way to figure out which particular orange it may be at a particular time. So while the oranges may be talking, they are all talking at once and based on their conversation, there is no way to tell what any individual is saying.
A final consideration to really stretch the neurons... What would be the result of a large Majorana for a sterile neutrino such that there is an equivalence between Majorana mass and Dirac mass (mass/energy)? That is, could a large Majorana mass imply that a "heavy" sterile neutrino converts to a neutrino by loosing Majorana mass through conversion to weak interaction potential???
jal, "For the sheer hell of it..."
Is a sterile neutrino really a neutrino at all. Quarks and leptons are (at least in part) defined by the interactions that they are affected by. But a sterile neutrino would only be affected by gravity, which can't be incorporated into the Standard Model. So I wonder further, can a neutrino be described as a sterile neutrino with the additional "mass" acquired as a function of the potential energy available for participation in the weak interaction? And can an electron be described as a sterile neutrino with the additional "mass" acquired as a function of the potential energy available for participation in both the weak interaction and the electromagnetic? And I have not yet thought through the complexity involved with the strong interaction, nor lepton number conservation. But with respect to gravity, I do not think it is important where a objects acquires it mass; mass is mass. E=mc^2 does not specify certain types of energy and certain types of mass. Or does it? Can ALL mass be converted to energy, or maybe just Dirac mass? Has anyone ever looked for neutrino debris in e-,e+ annihilation?
C2, I like the analogy. But I think that with respect to uncertainty, any orange can pop out (not just one at the other end) and there is no way to figure out which particular orange it may be at a particular time. So while the oranges may be talking, they are all talking at once and based on their conversation, there is no way to tell what any individual is saying.
A final consideration to really stretch the neurons... What would be the result of a large Majorana for a sterile neutrino such that there is an equivalence between Majorana mass and Dirac mass (mass/energy)? That is, could a large Majorana mass imply that a "heavy" sterile neutrino converts to a neutrino by loosing Majorana mass through conversion to weak interaction potential???
Why Not?...Why Not? et al
Your neutrino questions are also my questions.
From the info supplied by yq it appears that the higgs information will have to be separated from the neutrinos and what they can figure from the "jets".
As you saw from the article, sterile neutrinos is a speculation for a 4th kind of neutrino which could be used to account for "dark matter".
I think that we will have to wait for the results of the experiments. It looks like they will be slowly ramping up the power and that the answers might not be coming out before 2010.
There are suppose to be 9 different paths for neutrinos to acquire mass. I don't know how many have been experimentally verified as of today.
Maybe someone could give us a link.
C2.....with respect to uncertainty....how it was arrived at...."In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees"
"or it can be written as h/(4π)"
Does that remind you of my SPOT and the four positions?
A structure which could explain or could be the cause of "uncertainty"????
jal
Your neutrino questions are also my questions.
From the info supplied by yq it appears that the higgs information will have to be separated from the neutrinos and what they can figure from the "jets".
As you saw from the article, sterile neutrinos is a speculation for a 4th kind of neutrino which could be used to account for "dark matter".
I think that we will have to wait for the results of the experiments. It looks like they will be slowly ramping up the power and that the answers might not be coming out before 2010.
There are suppose to be 9 different paths for neutrinos to acquire mass. I don't know how many have been experimentally verified as of today.
Maybe someone could give us a link.
C2.....with respect to uncertainty....how it was arrived at...."In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees"
"or it can be written as h/(4π)"
Does that remind you of my SPOT and the four positions?
A structure which could explain or could be the cause of "uncertainty"????
QUOTE
The oranges are talking to each other. Or something
jal
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.