Greetings!
I am having trouble finding an answer to a question:
Two entangle photons are generated. One is fired into a detector to detect state and the other is allowed to travel a large distance and then interacts with something.
From the perspective of the entangled photons, does one event happen before the other or is this a single instantaneous transaction?
From the perspective of the entangled photons, what occurs first? Arrival at the local detector or arrival at the remote target?
Colby
Hi Colby,
According to the current theory entanglement is true "action at a distance" and therefore instantaneous. Collapsing the superposition of states on one photon of a polarization pair and "reading" it's state... instantly determines (collapses the states to one) the state of the other photon. What you can't do is predetermine the value of that state before you collapse it so you might be able to send a message (faster than light).
This was stated in "Bells Theorem" and experiments proved that this indeed happened and quantum encryption is one practical consequence of this already in use.
Or so they say....
As a matter of interest you might find the current discussion over here interesting....
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories ->Perceptions and Probability Waves
About “The Aharonov-Bohm effect”.
You might also want to look at this page...
How Quantum Entanglement Works
Cheers
According to the current theory entanglement is true "action at a distance" and therefore instantaneous. Collapsing the superposition of states on one photon of a polarization pair and "reading" it's state... instantly determines (collapses the states to one) the state of the other photon. What you can't do is predetermine the value of that state before you collapse it so you might be able to send a message (faster than light).
This was stated in "Bells Theorem" and experiments proved that this indeed happened and quantum encryption is one practical consequence of this already in use.
Or so they say....
As a matter of interest you might find the current discussion over here interesting....
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories ->Perceptions and Probability Waves
About “The Aharonov-Bohm effect”.
You might also want to look at this page...
How Quantum Entanglement Works
Cheers
QUOTE
According to the current theory entanglement is true "action at a distance" and therefore instantaneous.
I'll admit, I've never quite understood why it's called "action at a distance". Maybe someone can clear it up for me? I'm not sure I can put into words what it is that remains unclear about the situation...
When we talk about the "collapse" of the wave function, is there really a physical difference between what is happening before and what is happening after, or is it really just a fancy way of saying "we don't know", or "it doesn't matter", about the situation before the collapse? I mean, in the case of the entangled photons, it's not like we don't know anything. Conservation of mass/energy/momentum/etc. dictates that there must be a certain relationship between the states of the photons, even if we don't know the exact state, so we have some information. But this doesn't come from the photons themselves really. It comes from the fact that we know they came from one photon to start with. (On a side note, is the polarization relation just a result of the conservation laws, or a separate phenomenon?)
*Sigh* Not having an education on the matter, it's very hard for me to put this into words. I worry that I'll use terms that can be mistaken to mean something I don't intend them to...
This is how I've always thought of it: The reason that both situations can collapse instantaneously is that although there are two "branches" (the two photons, in the linked page), it is still just one "system", the branches connected at the starting point (where the photon splits). And this one system would be governed by one, albeit more complex, wave function. And so, since it is really just one system, it would have to collapse all at once. No communication is necessary, because all the information about the whole system from start to finish is contained in each of the photons, due to conservation of energy/information.
Am I missing something? Do I have something totally wrong? Or is this all entanglement is? I'll admit, the reason I feel like I'm missing something is that this just doesn't seem "spooky" to me at all. It just makes sense. And I always worry that when things make sense too easily that it's because I've missed something.
I don't know. It would be really nice to get some input. Good Elf, you've been able to nearly read my mind before in a similar situation when I was new to the board. Maybe you can do it again.
Thanks in advance to whomever answers.
Waterbreath, I have the same nagging feeling.. I always picture entangled particles as two colored balls (one red, one white) that are put in seperate brown packages. One is sent to europe, one to the US. The US recipient knows there could be a red or white ball in the box, but he won't know the actual color of the ball until he opens the box. When he opens the box, he sees the color of the ball (measurement) and he instantly knows the color of the ball in the other box. ooooh spooky action at a distance!!
Ok, now if someone with a physics degree could explain why I am wrong with that very classical analogy, I'd be very happy
Well, I think I recovered part of the knowledge I had lost track of that caused this too seem "too simple".
It was the two-slit experiment for a single electron. A single electron created an interference pattern with itself. What this means is not that we don't know which slit the electron passed through. It means that the electron actually passed through both slits. And the mind-bending part is that, if you try to determine which slit it passes through, it will not do that anymore. It will only pass through one slit.
I think it is a mistake to talk about "before" or "after" the wave collapse, as I did in my last post. I've always more thought of it in terms of this: If the electron can pass through both slits, and arrive at the same place, then it will. If it can't, then it won't. So then the question we're left with is how does it know if it can or can't? When does it find out and make the "choice" to go through one or the other? It seems to me that this point in time would be when the wave collapse happens, not at observation. What effect that viewpoint would have on the whole situation, I don't know.
I don't know. The whole thing arises out of the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity, everything is localized in space and time. In quantum mechanics, it's not. It seems that most people had gotten somewhat comfortable with things being non-localized in space, though I don't know if the two models had really been resolved with each other in that respect. But then the two-slit experiment in time showed up, and proved that events are also non-localized in time! How does that work with relativity???
One of these days... One of these days I'm going to get a bunch textbooks and start reading. The gap between where my college physics stopped (relativity, and "concepts" of quantum mechanics without math) is just too large. I need to fill it in, or my head is going to cave in.
It was the two-slit experiment for a single electron. A single electron created an interference pattern with itself. What this means is not that we don't know which slit the electron passed through. It means that the electron actually passed through both slits. And the mind-bending part is that, if you try to determine which slit it passes through, it will not do that anymore. It will only pass through one slit.
I think it is a mistake to talk about "before" or "after" the wave collapse, as I did in my last post. I've always more thought of it in terms of this: If the electron can pass through both slits, and arrive at the same place, then it will. If it can't, then it won't. So then the question we're left with is how does it know if it can or can't? When does it find out and make the "choice" to go through one or the other? It seems to me that this point in time would be when the wave collapse happens, not at observation. What effect that viewpoint would have on the whole situation, I don't know.
I don't know. The whole thing arises out of the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics. In relativity, everything is localized in space and time. In quantum mechanics, it's not. It seems that most people had gotten somewhat comfortable with things being non-localized in space, though I don't know if the two models had really been resolved with each other in that respect. But then the two-slit experiment in time showed up, and proved that events are also non-localized in time! How does that work with relativity???
One of these days... One of these days I'm going to get a bunch textbooks and start reading. The gap between where my college physics stopped (relativity, and "concepts" of quantum mechanics without math) is just too large. I need to fill it in, or my head is going to cave in.
Hi,
In my opinion, the electron in the two slit experiment always goes through both slits (or its extended fields do). If there is a detector in the path this collapses the two slit superposition to a single state so that it appears that the electron only went through one slit.
Also, in my opinion, entangled photons are connected by a vacuum vector spin field, which allows almost instantaneous transmission of the measurement signal to the second photon.
z
In my opinion, the electron in the two slit experiment always goes through both slits (or its extended fields do). If there is a detector in the path this collapses the two slit superposition to a single state so that it appears that the electron only went through one slit.
Also, in my opinion, entangled photons are connected by a vacuum vector spin field, which allows almost instantaneous transmission of the measurement signal to the second photon.
z
Could someone please tell me what if any the gravitational aspects of quarks are??? email ryanfull16@hotmail.com
Hello, Ryan -
There are no gravitational aspects to quarks. Neutrons and protons are baryons, made of three quarks each: p = uud (up up down) and n = udd. u = 2e/3, d = -e/3. They don't exist outside the nucleus unless under very specific circumstances. The other 4 quarks - top, bottom, charm, strange - aren't associated w/ "regular" matter.
hey, all
I'm just dying to bounce my ideas w/r/t entanglement off of all of you, but they're not done yet. I haven't finished the math for my "explanation". I value your input and believe this would be a good forum to discuss it before I roll over to one of the faculty members here! Nothing too fancy mind you, but I'm pretty happy w/ the creative thoughts I get while in the can in the mornings!
Spukhafte Fernwirkungen is curious b/z the change in state b/t the two photons occurs faster than ©. These experiments were carefully done @ CERN like a decade ago or so. The critical difference b/t the Guest's concept of the 2 billiard balls and the CERN experiment is that the two daughter photons were produced from a single photon. Knowing the spin states of the photons is irrelevant, since the change in state occurs faster than ©, given the distance b/t the 2 photons was about 12 kilometers in the experiment. As WB, the Goodly Elvish One mentioned, the famous Bell's inequality still stands, but if I have anything to do w/ it, perhaps knock a tiny piece out of its armor!
-ss
There are no gravitational aspects to quarks. Neutrons and protons are baryons, made of three quarks each: p = uud (up up down) and n = udd. u = 2e/3, d = -e/3. They don't exist outside the nucleus unless under very specific circumstances. The other 4 quarks - top, bottom, charm, strange - aren't associated w/ "regular" matter.
hey, all
I'm just dying to bounce my ideas w/r/t entanglement off of all of you, but they're not done yet. I haven't finished the math for my "explanation". I value your input and believe this would be a good forum to discuss it before I roll over to one of the faculty members here! Nothing too fancy mind you, but I'm pretty happy w/ the creative thoughts I get while in the can in the mornings!
Spukhafte Fernwirkungen is curious b/z the change in state b/t the two photons occurs faster than ©. These experiments were carefully done @ CERN like a decade ago or so. The critical difference b/t the Guest's concept of the 2 billiard balls and the CERN experiment is that the two daughter photons were produced from a single photon. Knowing the spin states of the photons is irrelevant, since the change in state occurs faster than ©, given the distance b/t the 2 photons was about 12 kilometers in the experiment. As WB, the Goodly Elvish One mentioned, the famous Bell's inequality still stands, but if I have anything to do w/ it, perhaps knock a tiny piece out of its armor!
-ss
Hi Ryan, Gadfly et al,
Sorry... never e-mail an unregistered guest. No protection for either of us.
This is an interesting post since I had a contribution in March this year. I was reading my post and I didn't even recognize it was mine.
First thing... If you want to just know the masses of Quarks then here it is
Quark Masses and Charges
The quark is confined by its mass (see below). You can never find "just one quark", if you suddenly had one... "God" would give you others "for free"... he he he!
Because of this aspect it will not be possible to test just a single quarks mass without some "subdefuge".
Now comes my little "thinky" on quarks...
For most things there are three quarks to make a particle with integer charge. Just have a look at the comment this author has made about the mass of a proton and the "individual" masses of the component quarks. You can see that the mass is way "off". This is down to "interactions". Interactions are causing the "mass" of the particle in the main. There are "standard answers" and there is my answer... you just know what you are going to get here.
I am a "great believer" in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. In particular the Principle of Equivalence (acceleration version).
Sorry... never e-mail an unregistered guest. No protection for either of us.
This is an interesting post since I had a contribution in March this year. I was reading my post and I didn't even recognize it was mine.
First thing... If you want to just know the masses of Quarks then here it is
Quark Masses and Charges
The quark is confined by its mass (see below). You can never find "just one quark", if you suddenly had one... "God" would give you others "for free"... he he he!
Because of this aspect it will not be possible to test just a single quarks mass without some "subdefuge".
Now comes my little "thinky" on quarks...
For most things there are three quarks to make a particle with integer charge. Just have a look at the comment this author has made about the mass of a proton and the "individual" masses of the component quarks. You can see that the mass is way "off". This is down to "interactions". Interactions are causing the "mass" of the particle in the main. There are "standard answers" and there is my answer... you just know what you are going to get here.
I am a "great believer" in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. In particular the Principle of Equivalence (acceleration version).
QUOTE (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html+)
Principle of Equivalence
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field. One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. One of the implications of the principle of equivalence is that since photons have momentum and therefore must be attributed an inertial mass, they must also have a gravitational mass. Thus photons should be deflected by gravity. They should also be impeded in their escape from a gravity field, leading to the gravitational red shift and the concept of a black hole. It also leads to gravitational lens effects.
I am of the "opinion" that this principle has a non-trivial corollary. This explains the reason why light is affected by Gravity and that it behaves as a wave and is subject to natural spreading... whereas particles with mass are confined to the region of the particle. A thread deals with this concept...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
Space-time curvature and indeed curvature in "higher dimensions" in String Theory (more influential) is the "direct" result of acceleration which is the same as "gravity" and this is a profound (if not subtle) point. The corollary says that the curvature of that "stuff" is not the result of mass but is the result of "pure" acceleration alone. Mass itself is the result of "intrinsic" (internal) acceleration and Gravity is the result of "extrinsic" (external) acceleration. So we can see and "measure" gravity as a "lumped effect" of all curvatures from "mass" and "dynamic accelerations" such as being in an accelerating rocket ship. In the end this is only the sum total acceleration of gravity and the curvature it produces and the acceleration due to the rocket motors. They are indistinguishable.
To this point mass is interpreted as "something which curves space-time". I say space-time is curved by acceleration and mass is what we measure as the "source" in many cases. By pure prejudice we distinguish accelerations from the two sources as different because in the one case we can "see" the accelerations and in the other case we cannot "see" the accelerations. The other point is the accelerations due to mass "remain" through time whereas the accelerations due to a rocket will "disappear" when the rocket motor cuts.
I would like to point out acceleration is "not conserved" but mass is. Once you have mass you have a permanent source of acceleration as a "source".
How does this spin work? If there are "higher spatial dimensions" into which objects may fall, then these are also higher dimensions into which things can accelerate as well. We "see" only three spatial dimensions. We KNOW particles under our observation are not accelerating in an obvious fashion. So what am I talking about?
Consider a person drops vertically from the top of a skyscraper (to a special mat) in such a way that he maintains an equidistant distance from two adjacent walls at right angles to each other. Continuous measurement would indicate the parameters x and y as constant in time but the parameter z is increasing by the rate of
z = 1/2*a*t
.
He would be "fixed" in the x,y plane but accelerating in the dimension perpendicular to the other two. Now consider the existence of "higher dimensions"... Uberspace.... not any of those 3 dimensions spoken of in Space-time. Let us accelerate into one or more of them... What you would find is a relative acceleration of the particle without any of the x,y,z distances in our world changing. Still this is acceleration and results in curvature the same as it would for you in a rocket. It is "traveling" nowhere in 3 dimensions but is accelerating. The result will be a self-curvature we call mass which appears that it cannot be simply removed by "extrinsic" accelerations. This curvature contributes to any existing curvature found in your region of space.
Light is massless and does not curve space-time but light will respond to the curvature of space-time. Light is also the carrier of exchange force for our Universe and has infinite range. Light propagates as a wave and thus "spreads".
Electromagnetic equipotentials being spawned and propagating at the speed of light.
This picture is an animated cross-section of the tori being spawned as the field lines cross. This is as close to "seeing" what those higher dimensional radiation patterns in the "Uberspace" look like (electromagnetic branes) is this "shadow on the wall" of "space-time". If you plotted the electric potential as a two dimensional function of distance from source you would have the familiar propagating sine wave. That "picture" does not convey it's true relationships in three dimensional space, whereas the image above does convey the true physical "shape" of electromagnetism as a "slice". . It does not show the magnetic field lines running at right angles through these loops as "concentric circles". Photons have about the same dimensional size as a single wavelength of their radiation (initially in all three dimensions). Photons also propagate using Bose-Einstein Statistics... this means billions of them can exist in the same spot at the same time all interfering and crossing each others paths at the same time without any losses or without being "seen". What you see in this picture is the nett result of that process. Though each photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation the individual packets "spread" in the orthogonal spherical "surface" as "individual" spherically curved circular patches a wavelength thick.It is a well known result that only curved surface waves like these are able to carry energy, all talk of "plane waves" in Electromagnetism are a "nonsense".
You get a curved "pancake" that gets only bigger with time... this picture shows what is happening to the "swarm" of photons being emitted in it exhibits that toroidal symmetry. The magnetic field lines run "completely" around the "source" connecting all photons together in a perpendicular direction as a "magnetic lines of force", threading the tori. The electric field lines do not "link up" individually... magnetically they are linked... in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The individual photons are potentially nearly as big as half of each of these tori and retain the inverse square law relationship. Transverse propagation velocities are "infinite" but "snipping" that magnetic thread "sets" any photon directly linked to it and thus is the reason for Bells relationships - the rationale for this thread in the first place. Entanglement becomes a property of the creation of two oppositely propagating photons linked with that magnetic "thread". A conservative relationship in the "curl" of magnetic fields.
If the "index" of this radiation "field" were more or less than "2" by even the slightest amount, the energy entering one concentric "escribed" spherical shell would not exit through a second larger "escribed" spherical shell. The energy would build up "indefinitely" and the field would become wholly evanescent.... an inductive field unable to propagate away. If this relationship is maintained exactly it is a "radiating" field and energy leaves the source and travels outwards at the speed of light. Affinely connected space-time ensures that small irregularities are "ignored".
What has mass got to do with this? Lets say the "emitted photons" had mass. This picture above would look much the same but because of the influence of the curvature of dimensional space the energy of the photons would be left behind in successive shells because the surface area of the "escribed" sphere is...
A = 4
r
and (through dimensional deformation) the "volume" exceeds...
4/3r
This mismatch means the photon could not spread any more since after a certain range almost all the energy is to be found in an "inner" volume closer to the source. This influence is not "compelling" in our three dimensions because of the terrific "tension" in our relatively flat space-time... But in the "Uberspace" of six extra dimensions which are "petal" dimensions and all curled up... the requirements for curvature are much easier. Photons "blow bubbles" in this space with a simple linear relationship E = hf. Where h is a unit of impulse and f is the frequency... a scaling multiplier for the energy.
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
In six dimensions it is possible to spin in three planes simultaneously without "disruption". In our three spatial dimensions, spin is only in one plane (two dimensional - any plane). There is an extra dimension in which you have that extra degree of freedom for spin. So a particle can have spin in up to three separate planes without being seen in our three dimensions (where there can be only one extra spin). In that sense there is no free choice in this "Uberspace" spin as there is in our space-time with one free dimension... all six dimensions are "used up" (no further degrees of freedom in six dimensions just "combinations", quanta of "spin"). This spin is coming from the intrinsic spin of the brane of our Universe. Everything has it... and it causes "quantum effects". This linking spin in photons can and does lead to quantum entanglement as noted.
This principle confines the quark as well as the force carriers for quarks. That is where the tie in comes from. We see that mass is not a scaler as all of human physics has hitherto suggested but is an "interaction" through acceleration of the three quarks in that proton... brane to brane as they spin near the speed of light. Mass is clearly a four tensor and this could be rotated in the nine dimensions to point out of the "plane" of our three spatial dimensions. In that case without affecting the mass of a particle it could obtain "freedom" to move in our three-dimensional space while anchored in higher dimensional spaces. This acceleration in higher dimensions (interpreted as mass) would be identified with particle spin which is the principal cause of the two most important quantum numbers. Our Universe and any "spawned" branes, would incorporate the spin in those six curled up dimensions. We are not able to notice this spin in our "bulk" 3D + T dimensions because of the incredible size of our universe. Assuming it to be 15 Billion Light years "across" would only need to rotate once every 500 billion years for the periphery to be traveling at near the speed of light. This is a far "too simplistic" view of our "closed" Universe but the maths has some validity. However in a much smaller "brane" attached and having the same internal "spin" would externally spin near the speed of light and exhibit a frequency depending on it's apparent dimensions. This assumes a supersymmetry in all those dimensions and in the "bulk" and Ed Witten's T-Duality of strings.
I now call your attention to an interesting paper on how a topological photon could be a electron (or visa versa).
Did you catch the article on the topological photon that "simulates" an electron. Apeman had this post which really caught my attention...
Electron is close-looped photon?
Here is the actual paper...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
So this discussion should be in the light of that material. With a little "topological" imagination you will guess where that 1/3 or 2/3 electric charge comes from, and especially where the "3" comes from too.
The paper does not utilize the higher dimensional spin concept and works with "simple" stringless theories, still it is excellent. Be aware that an electron is made up of two quarks and a proton is made up of three. There are differences. It may be that you would like to consider the "quark" as a "representation" of a newly created dimensional entity. We know they spin, and we know they have some mass, but it just does not "add up" unless mass is something a bit more subtle than just a "scaler" quantity. This paper also offers an "excuse" for the origin of charge but it is not complete. If you want to know what I think about the real "essence" of charge may be look here...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
There is obviously a lot more to this story but you could hunt it out for your own amusement.
All Good Elf's posts
You would need to log in to the forum for this "service".
Cheers
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field. One way of stating this fundamental principle of general relativity is to say that gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. One of the implications of the principle of equivalence is that since photons have momentum and therefore must be attributed an inertial mass, they must also have a gravitational mass. Thus photons should be deflected by gravity. They should also be impeded in their escape from a gravity field, leading to the gravitational red shift and the concept of a black hole. It also leads to gravitational lens effects.
I am of the "opinion" that this principle has a non-trivial corollary. This explains the reason why light is affected by Gravity and that it behaves as a wave and is subject to natural spreading... whereas particles with mass are confined to the region of the particle. A thread deals with this concept...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"?
Space-time curvature and indeed curvature in "higher dimensions" in String Theory (more influential) is the "direct" result of acceleration which is the same as "gravity" and this is a profound (if not subtle) point. The corollary says that the curvature of that "stuff" is not the result of mass but is the result of "pure" acceleration alone. Mass itself is the result of "intrinsic" (internal) acceleration and Gravity is the result of "extrinsic" (external) acceleration. So we can see and "measure" gravity as a "lumped effect" of all curvatures from "mass" and "dynamic accelerations" such as being in an accelerating rocket ship. In the end this is only the sum total acceleration of gravity and the curvature it produces and the acceleration due to the rocket motors. They are indistinguishable.
To this point mass is interpreted as "something which curves space-time". I say space-time is curved by acceleration and mass is what we measure as the "source" in many cases. By pure prejudice we distinguish accelerations from the two sources as different because in the one case we can "see" the accelerations and in the other case we cannot "see" the accelerations. The other point is the accelerations due to mass "remain" through time whereas the accelerations due to a rocket will "disappear" when the rocket motor cuts.
I would like to point out acceleration is "not conserved" but mass is. Once you have mass you have a permanent source of acceleration as a "source".
How does this spin work? If there are "higher spatial dimensions" into which objects may fall, then these are also higher dimensions into which things can accelerate as well. We "see" only three spatial dimensions. We KNOW particles under our observation are not accelerating in an obvious fashion. So what am I talking about?
Consider a person drops vertically from the top of a skyscraper (to a special mat) in such a way that he maintains an equidistant distance from two adjacent walls at right angles to each other. Continuous measurement would indicate the parameters x and y as constant in time but the parameter z is increasing by the rate of
z = 1/2*a*t
.He would be "fixed" in the x,y plane but accelerating in the dimension perpendicular to the other two. Now consider the existence of "higher dimensions"... Uberspace.... not any of those 3 dimensions spoken of in Space-time. Let us accelerate into one or more of them... What you would find is a relative acceleration of the particle without any of the x,y,z distances in our world changing. Still this is acceleration and results in curvature the same as it would for you in a rocket. It is "traveling" nowhere in 3 dimensions but is accelerating. The result will be a self-curvature we call mass which appears that it cannot be simply removed by "extrinsic" accelerations. This curvature contributes to any existing curvature found in your region of space.
Light is massless and does not curve space-time but light will respond to the curvature of space-time. Light is also the carrier of exchange force for our Universe and has infinite range. Light propagates as a wave and thus "spreads".
Electromagnetic equipotentials being spawned and propagating at the speed of light.
This picture is an animated cross-section of the tori being spawned as the field lines cross. This is as close to "seeing" what those higher dimensional radiation patterns in the "Uberspace" look like (electromagnetic branes) is this "shadow on the wall" of "space-time". If you plotted the electric potential as a two dimensional function of distance from source you would have the familiar propagating sine wave. That "picture" does not convey it's true relationships in three dimensional space, whereas the image above does convey the true physical "shape" of electromagnetism as a "slice". . It does not show the magnetic field lines running at right angles through these loops as "concentric circles". Photons have about the same dimensional size as a single wavelength of their radiation (initially in all three dimensions). Photons also propagate using Bose-Einstein Statistics... this means billions of them can exist in the same spot at the same time all interfering and crossing each others paths at the same time without any losses or without being "seen". What you see in this picture is the nett result of that process. Though each photon retains the same wavelength in the direction of propagation the individual packets "spread" in the orthogonal spherical "surface" as "individual" spherically curved circular patches a wavelength thick.It is a well known result that only curved surface waves like these are able to carry energy, all talk of "plane waves" in Electromagnetism are a "nonsense".
You get a curved "pancake" that gets only bigger with time... this picture shows what is happening to the "swarm" of photons being emitted in it exhibits that toroidal symmetry. The magnetic field lines run "completely" around the "source" connecting all photons together in a perpendicular direction as a "magnetic lines of force", threading the tori. The electric field lines do not "link up" individually... magnetically they are linked... in the direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The individual photons are potentially nearly as big as half of each of these tori and retain the inverse square law relationship. Transverse propagation velocities are "infinite" but "snipping" that magnetic thread "sets" any photon directly linked to it and thus is the reason for Bells relationships - the rationale for this thread in the first place. Entanglement becomes a property of the creation of two oppositely propagating photons linked with that magnetic "thread". A conservative relationship in the "curl" of magnetic fields.
If the "index" of this radiation "field" were more or less than "2" by even the slightest amount, the energy entering one concentric "escribed" spherical shell would not exit through a second larger "escribed" spherical shell. The energy would build up "indefinitely" and the field would become wholly evanescent.... an inductive field unable to propagate away. If this relationship is maintained exactly it is a "radiating" field and energy leaves the source and travels outwards at the speed of light. Affinely connected space-time ensures that small irregularities are "ignored".
What has mass got to do with this? Lets say the "emitted photons" had mass. This picture above would look much the same but because of the influence of the curvature of dimensional space the energy of the photons would be left behind in successive shells because the surface area of the "escribed" sphere is...
A = 4
rand (through dimensional deformation) the "volume" exceeds...
4/3
rThis mismatch means the photon could not spread any more since after a certain range almost all the energy is to be found in an "inner" volume closer to the source. This influence is not "compelling" in our three dimensions because of the terrific "tension" in our relatively flat space-time... But in the "Uberspace" of six extra dimensions which are "petal" dimensions and all curled up... the requirements for curvature are much easier. Photons "blow bubbles" in this space with a simple linear relationship E = hf. Where h is a unit of impulse and f is the frequency... a scaling multiplier for the energy.
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
In six dimensions it is possible to spin in three planes simultaneously without "disruption". In our three spatial dimensions, spin is only in one plane (two dimensional - any plane). There is an extra dimension in which you have that extra degree of freedom for spin. So a particle can have spin in up to three separate planes without being seen in our three dimensions (where there can be only one extra spin). In that sense there is no free choice in this "Uberspace" spin as there is in our space-time with one free dimension... all six dimensions are "used up" (no further degrees of freedom in six dimensions just "combinations", quanta of "spin"). This spin is coming from the intrinsic spin of the brane of our Universe. Everything has it... and it causes "quantum effects". This linking spin in photons can and does lead to quantum entanglement as noted.
This principle confines the quark as well as the force carriers for quarks. That is where the tie in comes from. We see that mass is not a scaler as all of human physics has hitherto suggested but is an "interaction" through acceleration of the three quarks in that proton... brane to brane as they spin near the speed of light. Mass is clearly a four tensor and this could be rotated in the nine dimensions to point out of the "plane" of our three spatial dimensions. In that case without affecting the mass of a particle it could obtain "freedom" to move in our three-dimensional space while anchored in higher dimensional spaces. This acceleration in higher dimensions (interpreted as mass) would be identified with particle spin which is the principal cause of the two most important quantum numbers. Our Universe and any "spawned" branes, would incorporate the spin in those six curled up dimensions. We are not able to notice this spin in our "bulk" 3D + T dimensions because of the incredible size of our universe. Assuming it to be 15 Billion Light years "across" would only need to rotate once every 500 billion years for the periphery to be traveling at near the speed of light. This is a far "too simplistic" view of our "closed" Universe but the maths has some validity. However in a much smaller "brane" attached and having the same internal "spin" would externally spin near the speed of light and exhibit a frequency depending on it's apparent dimensions. This assumes a supersymmetry in all those dimensions and in the "bulk" and Ed Witten's T-Duality of strings.
I now call your attention to an interesting paper on how a topological photon could be a electron (or visa versa).
Did you catch the article on the topological photon that "simulates" an electron. Apeman had this post which really caught my attention...
Electron is close-looped photon?
Here is the actual paper...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
So this discussion should be in the light of that material. With a little "topological" imagination you will guess where that 1/3 or 2/3 electric charge comes from, and especially where the "3" comes from too.
The paper does not utilize the higher dimensional spin concept and works with "simple" stringless theories, still it is excellent. Be aware that an electron is made up of two quarks and a proton is made up of three. There are differences. It may be that you would like to consider the "quark" as a "representation" of a newly created dimensional entity. We know they spin, and we know they have some mass, but it just does not "add up" unless mass is something a bit more subtle than just a "scaler" quantity. This paper also offers an "excuse" for the origin of charge but it is not complete. If you want to know what I think about the real "essence" of charge may be look here...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism", are bubbles the answer?
There is obviously a lot more to this story but you could hunt it out for your own amusement.
All Good Elf's posts
You would need to log in to the forum for this "service".
Cheers
Good Elf
How Quantum Entanglement Works is an excellent reference.
How Quantum Entanglement Works is an excellent reference.
Hi Gadfly,
This is a "Good Elf" version of the Universe... he he he! "Almost" all my own work.
I will have a read of your submission but I am sure it will not contain special "Good Elf" tidbits.
I am actually still polishing it up a tad. Calling back in 1/2 an hour might have a better looking presentation.
Distilled "elvan" wisdom ... he he he!
Cheers
This is a "Good Elf" version of the Universe... he he he! "Almost" all my own work.
I will have a read of your submission but I am sure it will not contain special "Good Elf" tidbits.
I am actually still polishing it up a tad. Calling back in 1/2 an hour might have a better looking presentation.
Distilled "elvan" wisdom ... he he he!
Cheers
Good thread.
Philip notes content of thread.
Only notations is that C as expressed as light is universal; so therefor corospondant to both ambient conditions, which affact C at its travel.
Philip notes content of thread.
Only notations is that C as expressed as light is universal; so therefor corospondant to both ambient conditions, which affact C at its travel.
Hi Philip and Gadfly,
Phillip... I am pretty happy with the way this idea is progressing. I have looked into the idea of refractive media and it is "easy enough" to incorporate. You can find this in some of my older posts...
All Good Elf's Posts
I am afraid you would all go to sleep if I was to become even more wordier than what I have here.
Wisdom?
The truth is people have a "threshold" where there is a trade off between what they wish to know and the time they are prepared to invest in it. I have to keep it "relatively" short because you would all "nod off" or "sod off"... he he he!
Most people who read this stuff will not be able to decide if "the elf" is a "straight shooter" or just "joshing them about". Most probably will not invest the time. What I guarantee you is the distilled "wisdom of the elves"... he he he! You will not find this elsewhere and it is mostly my attempt to incorporate string theory into mainstream physics. If you read between these lines (here, above and elsewhere in my "trace") you will find some "juicy" applications there and it is all testable and provable. If you want maths rather than understanding - - - it already exists in many physics books. What is here is a symmetry theory as well as the rudimentary concept of a completely "geometric" understanding of the Universe without particles and quanta are a natural part of that realm.
Read this as "insight" not an attempt to show just how cleaver I am at Maths (cause elves are not that cleaver at that at all).
Only elves would be game enough to say these things. That proves I am an Elf doesn't it?
PS: Hang on a bit and I will give you a reference to "incorporate" all that optical stuff into this theory...
Jian Qi Shen's Original Paper
Phillip... I am pretty happy with the way this idea is progressing. I have looked into the idea of refractive media and it is "easy enough" to incorporate. You can find this in some of my older posts...
All Good Elf's Posts
I am afraid you would all go to sleep if I was to become even more wordier than what I have here.
Wisdom?
The truth is people have a "threshold" where there is a trade off between what they wish to know and the time they are prepared to invest in it. I have to keep it "relatively" short because you would all "nod off" or "sod off"... he he he!
Most people who read this stuff will not be able to decide if "the elf" is a "straight shooter" or just "joshing them about". Most probably will not invest the time. What I guarantee you is the distilled "wisdom of the elves"... he he he! You will not find this elsewhere and it is mostly my attempt to incorporate string theory into mainstream physics. If you read between these lines (here, above and elsewhere in my "trace") you will find some "juicy" applications there and it is all testable and provable. If you want maths rather than understanding - - - it already exists in many physics books. What is here is a symmetry theory as well as the rudimentary concept of a completely "geometric" understanding of the Universe without particles and quanta are a natural part of that realm.
Read this as "insight" not an attempt to show just how cleaver I am at Maths (cause elves are not that cleaver at that at all).
Only elves would be game enough to say these things. That proves I am an Elf doesn't it?
PS: Hang on a bit and I will give you a reference to "incorporate" all that optical stuff into this theory...
Jian Qi Shen's Original Paper
QUOTE (Jian Qi Shen+)
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory
Abstract:
This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc.. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same
mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas.
This add all those bits (in lesser dimensions) to "Classical" wave theory and draws them into Quantum Physics via analogy. Catch the bit about "optical anti-matter" of Pendry.
Reversing Light : Negative Refraction... Pendry
Reversing Light: Negative Refraction...John B. Pendry and David R. Smith
The other aspects are those that relate to Bohmian Mechanics as to the way its relates to normal spaces via a configuration space. This is a very developed theory and is internally consistent.
Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Physics: David Bohm
If you want a couple more references to that stuff I can supply them. That actually is nothing to do with me and what I am doing. Every theory needs extra dimensions to properly describe what quanta are doing. It is a fact that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be expressed in purely Classical Electromagnetic Terms. I have previously indicated where this was possible (many months ago).
Here is a full text reference on-line that may assist in the more general points (reference only)
The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?
Another possible "alternative" paradigm would be Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber theory of Advanced and Retarded Potentials (Nobel Prize), though not advanced at this stage to the appropriate level of development to be incorporated into my idea... still it is possible if it was taken seriously. Brilliant stuff there. You need to widen the concept of "Time".
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
Advanced and Retarded Potentials
or this...
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics John G. Cramer
Cheers
Abstract:
This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc.. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same
mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas.
This add all those bits (in lesser dimensions) to "Classical" wave theory and draws them into Quantum Physics via analogy. Catch the bit about "optical anti-matter" of Pendry.
Reversing Light : Negative Refraction... Pendry
Reversing Light: Negative Refraction...John B. Pendry and David R. Smith
The other aspects are those that relate to Bohmian Mechanics as to the way its relates to normal spaces via a configuration space. This is a very developed theory and is internally consistent.
Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Physics: David Bohm
If you want a couple more references to that stuff I can supply them. That actually is nothing to do with me and what I am doing. Every theory needs extra dimensions to properly describe what quanta are doing. It is a fact that Schrodinger's Wave Equation can be expressed in purely Classical Electromagnetic Terms. I have previously indicated where this was possible (many months ago).
Here is a full text reference on-line that may assist in the more general points (reference only)
The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?
Another possible "alternative" paradigm would be Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber theory of Advanced and Retarded Potentials (Nobel Prize), though not advanced at this stage to the appropriate level of development to be incorporated into my idea... still it is possible if it was taken seriously. Brilliant stuff there. You need to widen the concept of "Time".
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory
Advanced and Retarded Potentials
or this...
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics John G. Cramer
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 12:16 AM)
...this picture shows what is happening to the "swarm" of photons being emitted in it exhibits that toroidal symmetry....
Hi Zephir,
This image is nothing new... I got it off the web where they have been for years. I do not think this is your image as far as I know. This image is not the basis of my theory and exposition... the real branes have no pictures that can indicate what they look like other than an "impulse" in the higher spaces and greater numbers of dimensions subject to global spin. I admit that I do not have a Web Page and I use other peoples images as they are only illustrations. That is the best I can do. The analogy is just that.... I am actually discussing "higher dimensional" objects and these behave unlike ordinary objects. For instance they can penetrate a wall for instance provided certain criteria are met. They spin in unseen dimensions. Bosons are invisible and have fermionic partners and strings reside on the surface of branes and are representations holographically of the interiors of the branes (Witten and others). Your ideas are somewhat superficially similar but are basically different (I think). Correct this if I am wrong.
Your models do not discuss higher dimensional spin, they appear "fluidic" in nature and they "invoke" the concept of "ether"... I believe that these higher dimensions are critical and necessary for any physical spin that should satisfy quantum spin properties. My variant theory is a symmetry theory and uses supersymmetry not supergravity. Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles", it is a "pseudo-property" of the frame of reference. In fact my theory has no particles whatsoever and does not utilize them for forces other than in some concepts regarding photons (which I do not regard as true "particles" either). In that one respect I think it is similar to your theory. The T-Duality arises from the Holographic principle. An all pervasive "fluid" would spoil that idea at it's base. My theory, at it's base" is pretty much standard Special and General Relativity in extended dimensions with Bohmian Mechanics thrown in for good measure to tell us where the quanta go when you are not seeing them. I feel compelled to describe that aspect of how it melds into the quantum postulates, usurps them, and the fact that there is no Planck Length or Planck Time.
These pictures show electric field lines of propagating waves from dipole antennas. That has nothing to do with your theory as far as I know. I believe it is some kind of "ether" theory. I am not big on "ether" theories. If you have a point to make please do... just do not refer me to all your submissions, I need to see what your specific point is. Honestly Zephir, I respect what you are trying to do... I only wish I understood it from my point of view. I can't read Czechoslovakian. As you can see I hide nothing of these matters, my ideas are a public record and I only hope others can benefit. I always cite any sources I use (not the illustrations the address can be obtained from the properties) and never plagiarize other than properly referenced quotes. I write everything else and I use only my own ideas except when I see a really good one and like any "true" scientist I "absorb" it but I give the reference and the paper can usually be downloaded in it's entirety.
I have seen one animation of yours which is quite good (I think). It appeared to be Special Relativity related and showed what appeared to be retarded potentials. There was another one that accompanied it... I could not quite understand, but neither had any explanation. At the time I did ask but you did not reply. There are too many threads on too many topics, I often visit a thread and see what I have written because I have forgotten the entire matter.. Without your explanation in some of your threads I am unable to account for what you are trying to point out. I have seen a number of interesting animations but I am unable to make any conclusions from them. It is probable that I am not thinking along your lines. I am "warming" to the idea of "branes" behaving like "bubbles" from a certain point of view. The bubble analogy is necessary because bubbles are cavities and are "inside out". This ties into the Fourier ideas I am trying to incorporate into this concept of reciprocal space, reciprocal time (frequency) as a parameterization in the local domains. In other ways this analogy is totally inadequate being lower dimensional. I am still thinking about all that.
I wish you could put your points the same way I put my points. These things I have been saying for as long as I have been on this forum. I have made over a thousand recorded submissions and that is "after" the loss of all my previous posts in December last year. The ideas are under continuous development though. You do good work but I cannot comment until you clarify some of your points. Honest... I don't quite "get it" yet!
As for my ideas I am the only one I know with this kind of theory and I am committed to it because I think it has the "right stuff". If not... I have allowed it to be "testable" from the bottom up unlike "other" more standard String Theories which cannot be presently tested. As such I am often the only one actually defending it too. Any criticism I deal with quite seriously except when it is an "ad hominem" attack on me personally. None of us have time to deal with that sort of thing so it is a problem.
What I will say is this that when you said this you were dead right...
This image is nothing new... I got it off the web where they have been for years. I do not think this is your image as far as I know. This image is not the basis of my theory and exposition... the real branes have no pictures that can indicate what they look like other than an "impulse" in the higher spaces and greater numbers of dimensions subject to global spin. I admit that I do not have a Web Page and I use other peoples images as they are only illustrations. That is the best I can do. The analogy is just that.... I am actually discussing "higher dimensional" objects and these behave unlike ordinary objects. For instance they can penetrate a wall for instance provided certain criteria are met. They spin in unseen dimensions. Bosons are invisible and have fermionic partners and strings reside on the surface of branes and are representations holographically of the interiors of the branes (Witten and others). Your ideas are somewhat superficially similar but are basically different (I think). Correct this if I am wrong.
Your models do not discuss higher dimensional spin, they appear "fluidic" in nature and they "invoke" the concept of "ether"... I believe that these higher dimensions are critical and necessary for any physical spin that should satisfy quantum spin properties. My variant theory is a symmetry theory and uses supersymmetry not supergravity. Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles", it is a "pseudo-property" of the frame of reference. In fact my theory has no particles whatsoever and does not utilize them for forces other than in some concepts regarding photons (which I do not regard as true "particles" either). In that one respect I think it is similar to your theory. The T-Duality arises from the Holographic principle. An all pervasive "fluid" would spoil that idea at it's base. My theory, at it's base" is pretty much standard Special and General Relativity in extended dimensions with Bohmian Mechanics thrown in for good measure to tell us where the quanta go when you are not seeing them. I feel compelled to describe that aspect of how it melds into the quantum postulates, usurps them, and the fact that there is no Planck Length or Planck Time.
These pictures show electric field lines of propagating waves from dipole antennas. That has nothing to do with your theory as far as I know. I believe it is some kind of "ether" theory. I am not big on "ether" theories. If you have a point to make please do... just do not refer me to all your submissions, I need to see what your specific point is. Honestly Zephir, I respect what you are trying to do... I only wish I understood it from my point of view. I can't read Czechoslovakian. As you can see I hide nothing of these matters, my ideas are a public record and I only hope others can benefit. I always cite any sources I use (not the illustrations the address can be obtained from the properties) and never plagiarize other than properly referenced quotes. I write everything else and I use only my own ideas except when I see a really good one and like any "true" scientist I "absorb" it but I give the reference and the paper can usually be downloaded in it's entirety.
I have seen one animation of yours which is quite good (I think). It appeared to be Special Relativity related and showed what appeared to be retarded potentials. There was another one that accompanied it... I could not quite understand, but neither had any explanation. At the time I did ask but you did not reply. There are too many threads on too many topics, I often visit a thread and see what I have written because I have forgotten the entire matter.. Without your explanation in some of your threads I am unable to account for what you are trying to point out. I have seen a number of interesting animations but I am unable to make any conclusions from them. It is probable that I am not thinking along your lines. I am "warming" to the idea of "branes" behaving like "bubbles" from a certain point of view. The bubble analogy is necessary because bubbles are cavities and are "inside out". This ties into the Fourier ideas I am trying to incorporate into this concept of reciprocal space, reciprocal time (frequency) as a parameterization in the local domains. In other ways this analogy is totally inadequate being lower dimensional. I am still thinking about all that.
I wish you could put your points the same way I put my points. These things I have been saying for as long as I have been on this forum. I have made over a thousand recorded submissions and that is "after" the loss of all my previous posts in December last year. The ideas are under continuous development though. You do good work but I cannot comment until you clarify some of your points. Honest... I don't quite "get it" yet!
As for my ideas I am the only one I know with this kind of theory and I am committed to it because I think it has the "right stuff". If not... I have allowed it to be "testable" from the bottom up unlike "other" more standard String Theories which cannot be presently tested. As such I am often the only one actually defending it too. Any criticism I deal with quite seriously except when it is an "ad hominem" attack on me personally. None of us have time to deal with that sort of thing so it is a problem.
What I will say is this that when you said this you were dead right...
QUOTE (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=2831&view=findpost&p=26340+)
..the final equations of string theory aren't known yet..
I believe, the Aether theory will bring up a more effective computing model based on the qeometrodynamic theory, extended by the hidden dimension concept - although the Standard model seems to be more proper for exact solution of most of all common problems. But with the respect of the real insight to the spacetime structure I believe, the string theory has a much better starting position for the near future, then any other physical theory available.
I am still not keen on "ether" though.
Cheers
I believe, the Aether theory will bring up a more effective computing model based on the qeometrodynamic theory, extended by the hidden dimension concept - although the Standard model seems to be more proper for exact solution of most of all common problems. But with the respect of the real insight to the spacetime structure I believe, the string theory has a much better starting position for the near future, then any other physical theory available.
I am still not keen on "ether" though.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 01:26 PM)
I do not think this is your image as far as I know...
I don't think so... I've an original 3D Studio scene file of it... I'm using a just one foreign picture linked form my web site directly here. It explains the nature of your "domains", by the way..
your models do not discuss higher dimensional spin, they appear "fluidic" in nature
Aether model isn't fluidic, but kind of very elastic gelatin or urethane foam. The spinal motion is clearly observable on the animation, you've seen a long time ago, reputedly. I am using the "higher dimensional spin" for distinguishing between neutrino and electron, for example.
Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles"
The particle concept is a quite insintric in gravity. From which are the particles formed by your theory if not from gravity?
..the T-Duality arises from the Holographic principle
Do you know, what the "T-" character means? Do you have some idea about "T-duality" appearance?
that has nothing to do with your theory as far as I know. I believe it is some kind of "ether" theory.
The name of it is the Aether theory.
I only wish I understood it from my point of view. This animation is a result of interaction of quantum loop field, i.e. 3D system of 3D loops of gravity, forming our 6D space-time. All interaction spreading here not as plane wave, but like toroidal field, which you're drawing.
..and never plagiarize other than properly referenced quotes...
Nobody calls you pagiarist.
At the time I did ask but you did not reply. I have forgotten the entire matter..
Well, it wouldn't be problem to find the animation and ask again, if you're really interested about it.
i have seen a number of interesting animations but I am unable to make any conclusions from them
Because of you're not reading the text, because of you aren't really interested about it content - as you say - you're just following by your own theory line, like the others here.
...and showed what appeared to be retarded potentials...
Please, forget the other artificial concept. I explaining the relativity using a water surface. Its a quite natural concept, isn't?
The bubble analogy is necessary because bubbles are cavities and are "inside out".
OK, but bubble is rather artificial construct. Which cavities in which material do you exactly meaning? I'd like to understand of your model, but I have no need to see some bubbles or domains in my model, just waves and its interference, just because of the EMG interaction is wave based too...
I use other peoples images as they are only illustrations. That is the best I can do.
OK, do you have some bubble/domain/brane illustration from other people?
I don't think so...
I've an original 3D Studio scene file of it... I'm using a just one foreign picture linked form my web site directly here. It explains the nature of your "domains", by the way..your models do not discuss higher dimensional spin, they appear "fluidic" in nature
Aether model isn't fluidic, but kind of very elastic gelatin or urethane foam. The spinal motion is clearly observable on the animation, you've seen a long time ago, reputedly. I am using the "higher dimensional spin" for distinguishing between neutrino and electron, for example.
Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles"
The particle concept is a quite insintric in gravity. From which are the particles formed by your theory if not from gravity?
..the T-Duality arises from the Holographic principle
Do you know, what the "T-" character means? Do you have some idea about "T-duality" appearance?
that has nothing to do with your theory as far as I know. I believe it is some kind of "ether" theory.
The name of it is the Aether theory.
I only wish I understood it from my point of view. This animation is a result of interaction of quantum loop field, i.e. 3D system of 3D loops of gravity, forming our 6D space-time. All interaction spreading here not as plane wave, but like toroidal field, which you're drawing.
..and never plagiarize other than properly referenced quotes...
Nobody calls you pagiarist.
At the time I did ask but you did not reply. I have forgotten the entire matter..
Well, it wouldn't be problem to find the animation and ask again, if you're really interested about it.
i have seen a number of interesting animations but I am unable to make any conclusions from them
Because of you're not reading the text, because of you aren't really interested about it content - as you say - you're just following by your own theory line, like the others here.
...and showed what appeared to be retarded potentials...
Please, forget the other artificial concept. I explaining the relativity using a water surface. Its a quite natural concept, isn't?
The bubble analogy is necessary because bubbles are cavities and are "inside out".
OK, but bubble is rather artificial construct. Which cavities in which material do you exactly meaning? I'd like to understand of your model, but I have no need to see some bubbles or domains in my model, just waves and its interference, just because of the EMG interaction is wave based too...
I use other peoples images as they are only illustrations. That is the best I can do.
OK, do you have some bubble/domain/brane illustration from other people?
Hi Zephir,
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Sep 23 2005+ 01:37 PM)
OK, do you have some brane illustration?
He he he! I wish!.... Have you got a six dimensional camera?
The higher dimensional brane is actually an "uncharged" entity seen in it's own realm. The problem is the way it exhibits in our Universe as many things. The electric and Magnetic Fields are not the "brane" but are "projections" of the "brane" onto the 3D + T "bulk" spacetime. A read on the subject of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect will show that the "presence" of this "proto-electromagnetic effect"... totally chargeless and "global" in our Universe with provable non-local action is responsible for this "instantaneous" action at a distance. Electromagnetism follows on this leading aspect of energy.
Something somewhere else (proven "global" effect) that is not connected by actions or fields... influences particles (independent of their charge and mass). This was the effect that really shook me. It's implications are "staggering" and right off the back of a Cereal Packet. This is not charge and it is not magnetism but it will produce them... in our Universe. This is a pan-dimensional transaction and is more mysterious than Bell's Inequality. It could be a "key" to the meaning of time or at least the "true" topology of Space in higher dimensions. It is THE question to fully understand and I am still thinking on this one.
Yeah... I would love a picture but I am not sure that it can be drawn yet. I saw a computer simulated picture of an Instanton once and that was as close to this as I could imagine. It enveloped the outside of the "brane" of a fermion as a growing and collapsing spiral from pole to pole. Close but no Kewpie doll. I imagine the transfer of particles from brane to brane involves pan-dimensional transactions of this sort that are not "temporally" connected to our Universe. Did you know that there is probably a superstring (not connected to our Universe) that has penetrated the brane of our visible Universe and is crossing a part of it now? They say another "brane" from out there bounced off us and this was the "emission" between branes... a violent message from a Parallel Universe. They have detected by a characteristic particle reaction that it causes. Sort of like that "Nexus" in the Star Trek Generations Movie and as big or long as a Galaxy. If you could view that event you would be dead from the vast radiation emitted and this is otherwise a "rent" in our Universe. Don't you just love science??
T is the tension energy related to the winding mode of the dimension...
T duality exchanges these two kinds of excitations by exchanging m with n and
T is the tension energy related to the winding mode of the dimension...
T duality exchanges these two kinds of excitations by exchanging m with n and
if theory A compactified on a space of large volume is equivalent to theory B compactified on a space of small volume, then they are called T dual.
The practical consequences of T-Duality is the ability for the coexistence of the "particle" existing with it's dual in the relationship as shown above. This would be impossible to my way of thinking if space-time was discontinuous at small scale. The way this thing works is similiar to a "reciprocal" relationship and two separate instances of the one object on the greater manifold (according to Witten). Many say this is bounded from below. I think this is not so, I can assert it and not be afraid that anyone can prove otherwise.
A less exciting but more prosaic demonstration of a similiar kind of dual object (and I hope relevant) can be taken from special relativity. The different "views" that I expressed of the photon undergoing pancake-ification ... he he he! From the photons frame of reference half the Universe appears as a bright point in front of it, time is suspended... but from our point of view the photon is actually "spreading" into half the Universe in time. They are the same but seen from different realms. Please do not take the word "seen" literally. They are reciprocal and complementry and are a task in conformal field theory to show they are "Dual". Elves don't do conformal field theory anymore. This is a job for the good o'le Laplace Transforms.
Cheers
Whoa!
Pretty.... Weed
I think you will have missed a bit in my previous post. I do tend to add stuff and fix stuff for about a 1/2 hour after I post. I like to get it out and then I "fix" it.
I think that sniffing that "ether" is not so good he he he! It's very "60's".
Cheers
He he he! I wish!.... Have you got a six dimensional camera?The higher dimensional brane is actually an "uncharged" entity seen in it's own realm. The problem is the way it exhibits in our Universe as many things. The electric and Magnetic Fields are not the "brane" but are "projections" of the "brane" onto the 3D + T "bulk" spacetime. A read on the subject of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect will show that the "presence" of this "proto-electromagnetic effect"... totally chargeless and "global" in our Universe with provable non-local action is responsible for this "instantaneous" action at a distance. Electromagnetism follows on this leading aspect of energy.
Something somewhere else (proven "global" effect) that is not connected by actions or fields... influences particles (independent of their charge and mass). This was the effect that really shook me. It's implications are "staggering" and right off the back of a Cereal Packet. This is not charge and it is not magnetism but it will produce them... in our Universe. This is a pan-dimensional transaction and is more mysterious than Bell's Inequality. It could be a "key" to the meaning of time or at least the "true" topology of Space in higher dimensions. It is THE question to fully understand and I am still thinking on this one.
Yeah... I would love a picture but I am not sure that it can be drawn yet. I saw a computer simulated picture of an Instanton once and that was as close to this as I could imagine. It enveloped the outside of the "brane" of a fermion as a growing and collapsing spiral from pole to pole. Close but no Kewpie doll. I imagine the transfer of particles from brane to brane involves pan-dimensional transactions of this sort that are not "temporally" connected to our Universe. Did you know that there is probably a superstring (not connected to our Universe) that has penetrated the brane of our visible Universe and is crossing a part of it now? They say another "brane" from out there bounced off us and this was the "emission" between branes... a violent message from a Parallel Universe. They have detected by a characteristic particle reaction that it causes. Sort of like that "Nexus" in the Star Trek Generations Movie and as big or long as a Galaxy. If you could view that event you would be dead from the vast radiation emitted and this is otherwise a "rent" in our Universe. Don't you just love science??
QUOTE
Do you know, what the "T-" character means? Do you have some idea about "T-duality" appearance?
T is the tension energy related to the winding mode of the dimension...
T duality exchanges these two kinds of excitations by exchanging m with n and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you know, what the "T-" character means? Do you have some idea about "T-duality" appearance? |
T is the tension energy related to the winding mode of the dimension...
T duality exchanges these two kinds of excitations by exchanging m with n and
if theory A compactified on a space of large volume is equivalent to theory B compactified on a space of small volume, then they are called T dual.
The practical consequences of T-Duality is the ability for the coexistence of the "particle" existing with it's dual in the relationship as shown above. This would be impossible to my way of thinking if space-time was discontinuous at small scale. The way this thing works is similiar to a "reciprocal" relationship and two separate instances of the one object on the greater manifold (according to Witten). Many say this is bounded from below. I think this is not so, I can assert it and not be afraid that anyone can prove otherwise.
A less exciting but more prosaic demonstration of a similiar kind of dual object (and I hope relevant) can be taken from special relativity. The different "views" that I expressed of the photon undergoing pancake-ification ... he he he! From the photons frame of reference half the Universe appears as a bright point in front of it, time is suspended... but from our point of view the photon is actually "spreading" into half the Universe in time. They are the same but seen from different realms. Please do not take the word "seen" literally. They are reciprocal and complementry and are a task in conformal field theory to show they are "Dual". Elves don't do conformal field theory anymore.
This is a job for the good o'le Laplace Transforms.Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 02:32 PM)
Have you got a six dimensional camera?
I've got it as the Christmas present from my daddy...
I hope, the real situation is not so strange. Try to bring up the Aether as the elastic 3D gel formed by the small closed elastic loops (3D closed string, i.e gravity wave) instead of molecules. All the interactions inside this system will be transfered as tho closed loopy 6D waves too.
I've got it as the Christmas present from my daddy...
I hope, the real situation is not so strange. Try to bring up the Aether as the elastic 3D gel formed by the small closed elastic loops (3D closed string, i.e gravity wave) instead of molecules. All the interactions inside this system will be transfered as tho closed loopy 6D waves too.
Whoa!Pretty.... Weed
I think you will have missed a bit in my previous post. I do tend to add stuff and fix stuff for about a 1/2 hour after I post. I like to get it out and then I "fix" it.
I think that sniffing that "ether" is not so good he he he! It's very "60's".
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 03:18 PM)
..I think you will have missed a bit in my previous post....
OK, try to have look to the video, what I mean by the gravity loop 6D motion... Its just a 10 minute job, but maybe helps for understanding...
OK, try to have look to the video, what I mean by the gravity loop 6D motion... Its just a 10 minute job, but maybe helps for understanding...
Hi Zephir,
I need to know what is a "gravity" loop please? If you are speaking of Quantum Gravity that is not as fashionable as it used to be? Is this Gravito-electrodynamics? How does "sourceless" gravity loop?
Are we looking at gravito-electric and gravito-magnetic potentials or what? Are these meant to be "free standing" in some kind of "quantum cavity" or something else... It is interesting but I don't understand just what this is? I am not familiar with all theories of Physics.
If you "knocked this up in 10 minutes" you have undeniable skill there!
Cheers
I need to know what is a "gravity" loop please? If you are speaking of Quantum Gravity that is not as fashionable as it used to be? Is this Gravito-electrodynamics? How does "sourceless" gravity loop?
Are we looking at gravito-electric and gravito-magnetic potentials or what? Are these meant to be "free standing" in some kind of "quantum cavity" or something else... It is interesting but I don't understand just what this is? I am not familiar with all theories of Physics.
If you "knocked this up in 10 minutes" you have undeniable skill there!
Cheers
These are great static graphics and certainly possible, but yet to be proved representations. I know that you are capable of dong dynamic graphics - yet consider what others have done.
In the quest for TOE - unifying gravity with the other forces - related theories about geo-dynamos exist, pursued by others with similar impressive, dynamic graphics.
In publishing A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal in 1995 Nature, 377, 203-209 Gary Glatzmaier [physicist now at UC - Santa Cruz] and Paul Roberts [mathematics - UCLA] presented the first "coherent explanation of magnetic field reversal". They used Pittsburgh's CRAY C90 with about 2,000 hours of processing [dynamic graphics].
They add "For that matter, why is it that instead of quietly fading away, as magnetic fields do when left to their own devices, Earth's magnetic field is still going strong after billions of years? Einstein is said to have considered it one of the most important unsolved problems in physics."
http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html
and
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
This work was also featured on PBS - NOVA - Magnetic Storm.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html
The last article read by this individual on this topic was Simulations of a Quasi–Taylor State Geomagnetic Field Including Polarity Reversals on the Earth Simulator by Futoshi Takahashi, Masaki Matsushima and Yoshimori Honkura Science, Vol 309, Issue 5733, 364-365 , 15 July 2005.
There are also sites discussing the sun.
Primitive graphics - The Sun Does a Flip - or - Giant loops in the solar atmosphere may trigger reversals of the Sun's magnetic poles, new study reveals .
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
or
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002...armagnet-a.html
In the quest for TOE - unifying gravity with the other forces - related theories about geo-dynamos exist, pursued by others with similar impressive, dynamic graphics.
In publishing A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal in 1995 Nature, 377, 203-209 Gary Glatzmaier [physicist now at UC - Santa Cruz] and Paul Roberts [mathematics - UCLA] presented the first "coherent explanation of magnetic field reversal". They used Pittsburgh's CRAY C90 with about 2,000 hours of processing [dynamic graphics].
They add "For that matter, why is it that instead of quietly fading away, as magnetic fields do when left to their own devices, Earth's magnetic field is still going strong after billions of years? Einstein is said to have considered it one of the most important unsolved problems in physics."
http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html
and
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
This work was also featured on PBS - NOVA - Magnetic Storm.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html
The last article read by this individual on this topic was Simulations of a Quasi–Taylor State Geomagnetic Field Including Polarity Reversals on the Earth Simulator by Futoshi Takahashi, Masaki Matsushima and Yoshimori Honkura Science, Vol 309, Issue 5733, 364-365 , 15 July 2005.
There are also sites discussing the sun.
Primitive graphics - The Sun Does a Flip - or - Giant loops in the solar atmosphere may trigger reversals of the Sun's magnetic poles, new study reveals .
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
or
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002...armagnet-a.html
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 03:38 PM)
I need to know what is a "gravity" loop please?
Hi, I'm talking about Quantum Loop Gravity theory. Gravity loop is simple closed space-time string. The gravity string is the 1D wave, which increases its density due to collapse (the wave pockets behaves as preons, i.e most primitive particle having mass).
If the time overruns certain limit the wave start be unstable, creating a new spatial dimension. If the third dimension is reached, it forms the 3D gravity loop. I'm not bother about some potentials.
Hi, I'm talking about Quantum Loop Gravity theory. Gravity loop is simple closed space-time string. The gravity string is the 1D wave, which increases its density due to collapse (the wave pockets behaves as preons, i.e most primitive particle having mass).
If the time overruns certain limit the wave start be unstable, creating a new spatial dimension. If the third dimension is reached, it forms the 3D gravity loop. I'm not bother about some potentials.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 03:38 PM)
A less exciting but more prosaic demonstration of a similiar kind of dual object (and I hope relevant) can be taken from special relativity
In fact, the T-duality is the system of two torroidal fields being transformed by the Lorentzian (i.e. rotational transformation) in 3D spatial dimensions. The electrical - magnetic fields are the most common example of such of this duality.
In fact, the T-duality is the system of two torroidal fields being transformed by the Lorentzian (i.e. rotational transformation) in 3D spatial dimensions. The electrical - magnetic fields are the most common example of such of this duality.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 23 2005, 03:38 PM)
It is interesting but I don't understand just what this is?
All this are just space-time vibrations, i.e deformation of space - nothing else. The main problem is, your'e talking about bubbles, cavities, domains, branes, etc. - but youre not thinking about the most basic principle - about of gravity force mechanism.
But its OK, I'll try to write some brief textbook abou Aether theory during weekend.
All this are just space-time vibrations, i.e deformation of space - nothing else. The main problem is, your'e talking about bubbles, cavities, domains, branes, etc. - but youre not thinking about the most basic principle - about of gravity force mechanism.
But its OK, I'll try to write some brief textbook abou Aether theory during weekend.
With due respect please consult Loop Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli 1997 referenced at this website:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
Rovelli “... I have emphasized the radically distinct cultural paths leading to string theory and loop quantum gravity. Here I attempt to compare the actual achievements the two theories ...”
Chapter 9 is Short Summary and Conclusion containing this quote “Experimentally, there is no support to the theory, neither direct nor indirect.”
There are efforts to try find experimental confirmation.
QLG theory is in competition with string theory. QLG theory discusses the area and volume of “the microstructure of quantum physical space, characterized by a polymer-like Planck scale discreteness”.
The above article discusses such things as s-knots and the elementary vertex.
Newer literature talks about “spin networks and spin foams”.
http://jdc.math.uwo.ca/spin-foams/
Many other articles appear on the web by Rovelli, Lee Smolin and others.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1/
Rovelli “... I have emphasized the radically distinct cultural paths leading to string theory and loop quantum gravity. Here I attempt to compare the actual achievements the two theories ...”
Chapter 9 is Short Summary and Conclusion containing this quote “Experimentally, there is no support to the theory, neither direct nor indirect.”
There are efforts to try find experimental confirmation.
QLG theory is in competition with string theory. QLG theory discusses the area and volume of “the microstructure of quantum physical space, characterized by a polymer-like Planck scale discreteness”.
The above article discusses such things as s-knots and the elementary vertex.
Newer literature talks about “spin networks and spin foams”.
http://jdc.math.uwo.ca/spin-foams/
Many other articles appear on the web by Rovelli, Lee Smolin and others.
Hi Zephir and Gadfly,
Loop Quantum Gravity requires "literal" quantization of Spacetime.... if you take this at it's "simple" interpretation the quantization of spacetime into quanta is not able to be fitted into my theory. There is a "proof" ... somewhere that showed that quantization of spacetime is incompatible with General Relativity. That is the primary reason I did not go that way. I know that those who work in HEP believe in a lot of improbable things... heh with all respect ... an amusing quote from one of my favorite "research topics"
The quantization (IMHO) is impossible.... Spacetime is stronger than "steel" and is not amenable to quantization. There are mathematical as well as "physical" objections. Gravity is such a "subtle" force that I cannot believe in energies of that order to quantize it. On the other side of the coin... if you are speaking about "petal dimensions" then it may be possible to deform them easily. I have already spoken about "blowing bubbles" in "Uberspace". That presses my buttons.
The quantization (IMHO) is impossible.... Spacetime is stronger than "steel" and is not amenable to quantization. There are mathematical as well as "physical" objections. Gravity is such a "subtle" force that I cannot believe in energies of that order to quantize it. On the other side of the coin... if you are speaking about "petal dimensions" then it may be possible to deform them easily. I have already spoken about "blowing bubbles" in "Uberspace". That presses my buttons.
Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles"
The particle concept is a quite intrinsic in gravity. From which are the particles formed by your theory if not from gravity?
In my theory particles have no actual form and are "excitations" or "strings". While I do not believe in "real strings", I believe in the excitations. That is good enough. The "Uberspace" deforms through excitations which produce "tension" in the primary "stuff" of dimensions. When a particle is created from the "Uberspace" extra "space" is manifest in the six extra dimensions which are not seen or comprehended directly in "spacetime" or 3D +T. Witten tells us that this "object" is attached to the general manifold we live on but in different dimensions. I like that idea. This extra space can be just a tiny "pocket universe" or it can expand through inflation into a fully fledged Universe as well. These are just "boundary conditions" of the event.
I will link to my concept of Gravity but in a nutshell, my Gravity is Einsteins Gravity of "curved spacetime" (for sure) but this is not good enough for a "full" theory. This needs a natural extension into all 9 dimensions with 6 of those dimensions "petal dimensions". Small deformations in spacetime are possible such as the problems you may have with a poorly built billiard table with the occasional "pocket" (Black Hole). The real flexibility occurs in those "flabby" unstretched petal dimensions that lay around "everywhere deflated"... waiting to be used. When we "launch" an electromagnetic wave this "excitation" creates a "brane" (temporary more space in the inflated "Uberspace") which then travels in "Uberspace"... hidden from our view not through any mysterious process but because it is in another dimension. We can know about the whereabouts of the "particle" because it is following "common" dynamic relationships the same as any particle in spacetime but in that extended space as a "quantum". The rules for location of the particle are those of David Bohm and Bohmian Mechanics. This utilizes the quantum "flattened" version of spacetime and adds a configuration space (simply an artifice to use as a conformal map) to show where it is "approximately" relative to spacetime. It just "joins the dots" between where the particle was and where it is when we see it. We then say "aha! ... I have found it"... this is the path it took to get there (using the map and plotting the dynamics as a Hamiltonian).
In a nutshell Gravity and Mass have the same origin. Gravity is acceleration (Einsteins Equivalence Principle for General Relativity). Mass curves spacetime. Acceleration curves spacetime. That curved spacetime tells particles of all kind (even massless ones ) which way to move. Mass (as opposed to Gravity) is the effect of "internal" acceleration... this curves spacetime "internally" and this curves 3D + T as a "permanent acceleration" and tells particles where to go. One principle for all. The "internal" acceleration is coming from the branes of all created matter through the supersymmetric principle. They spin at or near the speed of light at their "periphery". Naturally you would have a "double take" at this concept. Our 3D + T "bulk" spacetime is tightly stretched through string "tension".... but it is very big and almost "flat". This is "good". Because it is large it need only spin once in 500 Billion years to have the "periphery" travel near the speed of light. However "small vestigial" branes laying around "on the floor of your room" and everywhere, seen from the outside are spinning at nearly the speed of light obeying de Broglie relationships and obeying the law © = f*
. Constancy of the speed of light. These "branes" are also subject to "dimensional" Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction so they are "small" on the outside but "big" on the "dimensional" inside. So everything is subject to "intrinsic" acceleration light remains massless but most else is accelerated in higher "Uberspace" dimensions and acquire mass. This makes conditions for moving between our "flatland" to "Uberspace" difficult but not impossible. Every acceleration can be removed by a suitable transformation once you understand what they are. All quantum properties are "attributes" and are not written in stone. This is the source of Gravity and it is the source of mass. No particles necessary. In two dimensions you can spin in a plane. In three dimensions you can spin in any plane. In six dimensions you can spin in all six dimensions (three planes) at the one time, but there is a catch... no additional degrees of freedom left over so what we have is only "permutation". This is the origin of particle spin it is "universal" and it quantizes the property. This is the root cause of spin quantum numbers. Gravity and spin, space quantization all tied up. No need to quantize "spacetime" anymore. It's all happening in "Uberspace". The demons all go away. There are quanta and this identifies what they are. Of course if I use all 11 dimensions of String Theory this "ball" has the ability to be rotated into any plane. Maybe this is worthwhile I am still considering the benefits.
Of course I may be wrong. But my "intuition" tells me I am right. You see it here first. The theory rest "firmly" on the Pillars of Einstein...
What is Gravity?
Why photons "spread" and why "particles" with mass do not spread can be found here..
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
How to change photons iinto electrons and the origin of other particles (just add dimensions) here...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
Cheers
Loop Quantum Gravity requires "literal" quantization of Spacetime.... if you take this at it's "simple" interpretation the quantization of spacetime into quanta is not able to be fitted into my theory. There is a "proof" ... somewhere that showed that quantization of spacetime is incompatible with General Relativity. That is the primary reason I did not go that way. I know that those who work in HEP believe in a lot of improbable things... heh with all respect ... an amusing quote from one of my favorite "research topics"
QUOTE
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Lewis Carroll
The quantization (IMHO) is impossible.... Spacetime is stronger than "steel" and is not amenable to quantization. There are mathematical as well as "physical" objections. Gravity is such a "subtle" force that I cannot believe in energies of that order to quantize it. On the other side of the coin... if you are speaking about "petal dimensions" then it may be possible to deform them easily. I have already spoken about "blowing bubbles" in "Uberspace". That presses my buttons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Lewis Carroll |
The quantization (IMHO) is impossible.... Spacetime is stronger than "steel" and is not amenable to quantization. There are mathematical as well as "physical" objections. Gravity is such a "subtle" force that I cannot believe in energies of that order to quantize it. On the other side of the coin... if you are speaking about "petal dimensions" then it may be possible to deform them easily. I have already spoken about "blowing bubbles" in "Uberspace". That presses my buttons.
Gravity theory for me does not involve "particles"
The particle concept is a quite intrinsic in gravity. From which are the particles formed by your theory if not from gravity?
In my theory particles have no actual form and are "excitations" or "strings". While I do not believe in "real strings", I believe in the excitations. That is good enough. The "Uberspace" deforms through excitations which produce "tension" in the primary "stuff" of dimensions. When a particle is created from the "Uberspace" extra "space" is manifest in the six extra dimensions which are not seen or comprehended directly in "spacetime" or 3D +T. Witten tells us that this "object" is attached to the general manifold we live on but in different dimensions. I like that idea. This extra space can be just a tiny "pocket universe" or it can expand through inflation into a fully fledged Universe as well. These are just "boundary conditions" of the event.
I will link to my concept of Gravity but in a nutshell, my Gravity is Einsteins Gravity of "curved spacetime" (for sure) but this is not good enough for a "full" theory. This needs a natural extension into all 9 dimensions with 6 of those dimensions "petal dimensions". Small deformations in spacetime are possible such as the problems you may have with a poorly built billiard table with the occasional "pocket" (Black Hole). The real flexibility occurs in those "flabby" unstretched petal dimensions that lay around "everywhere deflated"... waiting to be used. When we "launch" an electromagnetic wave this "excitation" creates a "brane" (temporary more space in the inflated "Uberspace") which then travels in "Uberspace"... hidden from our view not through any mysterious process but because it is in another dimension. We can know about the whereabouts of the "particle" because it is following "common" dynamic relationships the same as any particle in spacetime but in that extended space as a "quantum". The rules for location of the particle are those of David Bohm and Bohmian Mechanics. This utilizes the quantum "flattened" version of spacetime and adds a configuration space (simply an artifice to use as a conformal map) to show where it is "approximately" relative to spacetime. It just "joins the dots" between where the particle was and where it is when we see it. We then say "aha! ... I have found it"... this is the path it took to get there (using the map and plotting the dynamics as a Hamiltonian).
In a nutshell Gravity and Mass have the same origin. Gravity is acceleration (Einsteins Equivalence Principle for General Relativity). Mass curves spacetime. Acceleration curves spacetime. That curved spacetime tells particles of all kind (even massless ones ) which way to move. Mass (as opposed to Gravity) is the effect of "internal" acceleration... this curves spacetime "internally" and this curves 3D + T as a "permanent acceleration" and tells particles where to go. One principle for all. The "internal" acceleration is coming from the branes of all created matter through the supersymmetric principle. They spin at or near the speed of light at their "periphery". Naturally you would have a "double take" at this concept. Our 3D + T "bulk" spacetime is tightly stretched through string "tension".... but it is very big and almost "flat". This is "good". Because it is large it need only spin once in 500 Billion years to have the "periphery" travel near the speed of light. However "small vestigial" branes laying around "on the floor of your room" and everywhere, seen from the outside are spinning at nearly the speed of light obeying de Broglie relationships and obeying the law © = f*
. Constancy of the speed of light. These "branes" are also subject to "dimensional" Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction so they are "small" on the outside but "big" on the "dimensional" inside. So everything is subject to "intrinsic" acceleration light remains massless but most else is accelerated in higher "Uberspace" dimensions and acquire mass. This makes conditions for moving between our "flatland" to "Uberspace" difficult but not impossible. Every acceleration can be removed by a suitable transformation once you understand what they are. All quantum properties are "attributes" and are not written in stone. This is the source of Gravity and it is the source of mass. No particles necessary. In two dimensions you can spin in a plane. In three dimensions you can spin in any plane. In six dimensions you can spin in all six dimensions (three planes) at the one time, but there is a catch... no additional degrees of freedom left over so what we have is only "permutation". This is the origin of particle spin it is "universal" and it quantizes the property. This is the root cause of spin quantum numbers. Gravity and spin, space quantization all tied up. No need to quantize "spacetime" anymore. It's all happening in "Uberspace". The demons all go away. There are quanta and this identifies what they are. Of course if I use all 11 dimensions of String Theory this "ball" has the ability to be rotated into any plane. Maybe this is worthwhile I am still considering the benefits.Of course I may be wrong. But my "intuition" tells me I am right. You see it here first. The theory rest "firmly" on the Pillars of Einstein...
What is Gravity?
Why photons "spread" and why "particles" with mass do not spread can be found here..
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
How to change photons iinto electrons and the origin of other particles (just add dimensions) here...
Is the electron a photon with Toroidal Topology
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 24 2005, 12:32 AM)
..gravity is such a "subtle" force that I cannot believe in energies of that order to quantize it...
Gravity is weak, but the super-gravity isn't. And EMG force is just the result of the super-gravity force acting on the convoluted dimension distance. Why is the light speed in mater lower with compare to vacuum? Because part of energy are spreading via the convoluted quantum loops forming the heart of particles (In fact, the very similar loops are forming the bulk vacuum too, but they're just less convoluted here. But i didn't want to complicate the picture too much at the first time). Bigger DivX animation.
The energy speed is distributed between the bulk vacuum (where it moves more slowly) and the gravity loops (where it moves a much faster). By the way, the "light slowing" mechanism in the E-B condensates has the same base, but instead of the gravity loops the quantitised atom vortex are serving here as the light energy accumulation system.
Gravity is weak, but the super-gravity isn't. And EMG force is just the result of the super-gravity force acting on the convoluted dimension distance. Why is the light speed in mater lower with compare to vacuum? Because part of energy are spreading via the convoluted quantum loops forming the heart of particles (In fact, the very similar loops are forming the bulk vacuum too, but they're just less convoluted here. But i didn't want to complicate the picture too much at the first time). Bigger DivX animation.
The energy speed is distributed between the bulk vacuum (where it moves more slowly) and the gravity loops (where it moves a much faster). By the way, the "light slowing" mechanism in the E-B condensates has the same base, but instead of the gravity loops the quantitised atom vortex are serving here as the light energy accumulation system.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 24 2005, 12:32 AM)
..while I do not believe in "real strings", I believe in the excitations..
Maybe you can believe in real excitations on the gravity string..
Maybe you can believe in real excitations on the gravity string..
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 24 2005, 12:32 AM)
quantization of space-time is incompatible with General Relativity. That is the primary reason I did not go that way
Why it should be incompatible? I recommend to weigh the reasons once again. Maybe your and mine models are much more similar to each other, than you can believe....
Why it should be incompatible? I recommend to weigh the reasons once again. Maybe your and mine models are much more similar to each other, than you can believe....
On the large scale range, gravity is the weekest interaction in the universe, of course. But its well known, its strenght increases to infinitive value at the low distances by the Newton's gravity law.
But the distance can be relative, due to spacetime compactification in the gravity loops at about 1E+50 range. So the distance 1 meter means 1E-50 meters here. On such the low distances the gravity can represent the strongest (and the only one) force in the universe!
But the distance can be relative, due to spacetime compactification in the gravity loops at about 1E+50 range. So the distance 1 meter means 1E-50 meters here. On such the low distances the gravity can represent the strongest (and the only one) force in the universe!
Hi Zephir,
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Sep 24 2005+ 04:53 PM)
Maybe your and mine models are much more similar to each other, than you can believe....
I realize that everything resides in the paradigm.... if we do not agree on the paradigm we fail to connect our ideas. I also realize that we probably are talking about the same thing on "some" level that we do not appreciate.
What I am trying to do is this... I am "researching" Supergravity and Loop Quantum Gravity to see if the "ends meet up" somewhere. What I think is both our theories are sufficiently "rogue" that neither of us know "exactly" what the other is talking about because neither of us has a "pure" form of our "pet" theories anyway. They have been "customized". Am I right? I look at definitions of LQG and Supergravity and I feel a chill in the room because it is "alien" and difficult to see how this can fit my ideas. I would "know" that any straight reading of Supersymmetry and String Theory will not find my theory even with the slightest glimmer because they are almost all "particle" theories. I want to embrace "String Theory" and many of it's concepts but the researchers behind it want this to be a "particle" theory at all cost and they are not going to listen to more basic expositions.
Here are some of the things written about LQG...
I realize that everything resides in the paradigm.... if we do not agree on the paradigm we fail to connect our ideas. I also realize that we probably are talking about the same thing on "some" level that we do not appreciate.
What I am trying to do is this... I am "researching" Supergravity and Loop Quantum Gravity to see if the "ends meet up" somewhere. What I think is both our theories are sufficiently "rogue" that neither of us know "exactly" what the other is talking about because neither of us has a "pure" form of our "pet" theories anyway. They have been "customized". Am I right? I look at definitions of LQG and Supergravity and I feel a chill in the room because it is "alien" and difficult to see how this can fit my ideas. I would "know" that any straight reading of Supersymmetry and String Theory will not find my theory even with the slightest glimmer because they are almost all "particle" theories. I want to embrace "String Theory" and many of it's concepts but the researchers behind it want this to be a "particle" theory at all cost and they are not going to listen to more basic expositions.
Here are some of the things written about LQG...
QUOTE (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/supersymmetry+)
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) in its current formulation predicts no additional spatial dimensions, nor anything else about particle physics. Lee Smolin, one of the originators of LQG, has proposed that loop quantum gravity incorporating either supersymmetry or extra dimensions, or both, be called loop quantum gravity II, in light of experimental evidence.
This is a "big" wet blanket for my theories that are all about "large" spatial dimensions on demand".
This is a "big" wet blanket for my theories that are all about "large" spatial dimensions
on demand".QUOTE (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/supersymmetry+)
String theory also requires extra spatial dimensions which have to be "hidden" somewhat as in Kaluza-Klein theory. By contrast, the minimal LQG is formulated in 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension of time. Again, as yet there is no experimental evidence for extra spatial dimensions, however it is possible (though seen as unlikely) that Kaluza-Klein modes may be seen at the LHC, or that there may be other future signals of extra dimensions.
This is where I am "affronted" because even radio physics is operationally working with these extra dimensions and electrodynamic branes. Both extra dimensions and fermionic - bosonic T-Duals already exist in most structures in our universe. We regrettably refer to them with a "defunct" paradigm that does not admit extra dimensions. As long as this occurs the understanding cannot come. The truth about "String Theory" is that if anything is a string.... everything is a string. That includes photons and other fermions and bosons too. It smacks of Galileo trying to prove the existence of other worlds and the Cardinals peering through his telescope and all reporting they see nothing. It is an 'Inquisition"... he he he! If physics can't see extra spatial dimension right now then perhaps they never will see them even if they have ten LHC's.
The superpartners of the fermions are all around as well. Once again the paradigm is hiding the reality of higher dimensions from them. If I have an atom with all the fermions in the nucleus there exists on a similar scale the bosonic partner we call (inappropriately) the electronic orbitals or shells. The "orbitals" like the radiation pattern around antenna have an existence beyond some notion that they are simply there to "hold" electrons. They are "ghosts" in the machine of fermions, their supersymmetric partners (you can't have one without the other). The individual fermion contributions sum their "influence" into these "unseen structures" that surround atoms. They are vestigial dimensions that "trap" anything that comes along... including electrons and "obviously" photons too. This is an experimental fact and has been known of for a long time. The explanation is "bundled" into the idea of an atom as something of a whole but really it is the "branes" that are the whole and the entity we see around different atoms are "summations" of a large number of interpenetrating bosonic particles we are not admitting the existence of. We all understand that fermions observe Fermi-Dirac Statistics and hence the nucleus is a collection of stacked "billiard balls" whereas the "shells" are bosons and they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics and they "interpenetrate" and "mix" in their own spaces which are in those extra six dimensions.
Take the fermions away from the nucleus one at a time till there is only one fermion left and you will still have one bosonic "shell" set left. This is that femionic particle's "sparticle" sitting there in all it's "invisible" glory. Every "particle" has a "sparticle". That is the "primary" T-Dual Supersymmetric partner. There are other "duals", as you have noted, but this one is the most essential to "String Theory" and it's understanding because it incorporates the principle of "supersymmetry".
With Quantum Electrodynamics we have an excellent "description" of the numbers there but there are numerous assumptions in order to arrive at a consistent theory that are "counterintuitive" that are bundled into that theory. We do not need these assumptions and we can still have the theory that produces those excellent numbers. This is analogous to why Newtons Gravitation is used to adjust the course of all our space probes not Einstein's Theories... it just makes sense. We understand the theories come from different paradigms but they both "work" as any good theory should. What we also understand is you do not "push" Newton into General Relativity ... the paradigms will not work there.
But if we refuse to see the greater paradigm we are not going to understand the nature of the Quantum and the forces of Gravity using only lower dimensions. If that happens we will not be able to master them. In that detail there are indeed "devils". Conventional theory swept away "forever" the notion of higher dimensions for a "flat" description of the Universe with assumptions that actually make no sense in "real" Physics today. Conventional wisdom then said you must not investigate this area since there lies "madness" and the system will punish you if you question it. The assumptions were "crutches" used by an earlier era to proceed with the need to "solve" the riddle of the quantum and everything was swept aside that did not agree to this scientific "totalitarianism". No good deed would go "unpunished". Remember the political tides that were sweeping the World then (and now)... this is the "love child" of that thinking.
The basis of modern quantum theory is "chaos"... built into its base and fondly protected by the Weapons Industry, and like earlier generations when "Evolution" and "Social Darwinism" was built into the social contract... "chaos" is the practical basis of all current political and moral paradigms today. My observations (and theory) are that this is not a reflection of the true state of the "Universe" and is a distortion, a "gestalt" of the chaotic state of our "society" and of the "tortured souls" that live in it. This has nothing to do with "religion" but as you can see if you look around on this Forum the "demons" are having their way with the mentally weak. You may not like politics (I don't) but it affects us all and also our "collective" moral imperatives. Physics is not without "morality" as the search for "Truth" is not without "Harmony". So it is left to "elves" to play in a field that does not exist and any attempt to hold a mirror up to this reality (of extra dimensions) they will avert their gaze as if you are talking pure fiction.
What do you think?
Cheers
This is where I am "affronted" because even radio physics is operationally working with these extra dimensions and electrodynamic branes. Both extra dimensions and fermionic - bosonic T-Duals already exist in most structures in our universe. We regrettably refer to them with a "defunct" paradigm that does not admit extra dimensions. As long as this occurs the understanding cannot come. The truth about "String Theory" is that if anything is a string.... everything is a string. That includes photons and other fermions and bosons too. It smacks of Galileo trying to prove the existence of other worlds and the Cardinals peering through his telescope and all reporting they see nothing. It is an 'Inquisition"... he he he! If physics can't see extra spatial dimension right now then perhaps they never will see them even if they have ten LHC's.
The superpartners of the fermions are all around as well. Once again the paradigm is hiding the reality of higher dimensions from them. If I have an atom with all the fermions in the nucleus there exists on a similar scale the bosonic partner we call (inappropriately) the electronic orbitals or shells. The "orbitals" like the radiation pattern around antenna have an existence beyond some notion that they are simply there to "hold" electrons. They are "ghosts" in the machine of fermions, their supersymmetric partners (you can't have one without the other). The individual fermion contributions sum their "influence" into these "unseen structures" that surround atoms. They are vestigial dimensions that "trap" anything that comes along... including electrons and "obviously" photons too. This is an experimental fact and has been known of for a long time. The explanation is "bundled" into the idea of an atom as something of a whole but really it is the "branes" that are the whole and the entity we see around different atoms are "summations" of a large number of interpenetrating bosonic particles we are not admitting the existence of. We all understand that fermions observe Fermi-Dirac Statistics and hence the nucleus is a collection of stacked "billiard balls" whereas the "shells" are bosons and they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics and they "interpenetrate" and "mix" in their own spaces which are in those extra six dimensions.
Take the fermions away from the nucleus one at a time till there is only one fermion left and you will still have one bosonic "shell" set left. This is that femionic particle's "sparticle" sitting there in all it's "invisible" glory. Every "particle" has a "sparticle". That is the "primary" T-Dual Supersymmetric partner. There are other "duals", as you have noted, but this one is the most essential to "String Theory" and it's understanding because it incorporates the principle of "supersymmetry".
With Quantum Electrodynamics we have an excellent "description" of the numbers there but there are numerous assumptions in order to arrive at a consistent theory that are "counterintuitive" that are bundled into that theory. We do not need these assumptions and we can still have the theory that produces those excellent numbers. This is analogous to why Newtons Gravitation is used to adjust the course of all our space probes not Einstein's Theories... it just makes sense. We understand the theories come from different paradigms but they both "work" as any good theory should. What we also understand is you do not "push" Newton into General Relativity ... the paradigms will not work there.
But if we refuse to see the greater paradigm we are not going to understand the nature of the Quantum and the forces of Gravity using only lower dimensions. If that happens we will not be able to master them. In that detail there are indeed "devils". Conventional theory swept away "forever" the notion of higher dimensions for a "flat" description of the Universe with assumptions that actually make no sense in "real" Physics today. Conventional wisdom then said you must not investigate this area since there lies "madness" and the system will punish you if you question it. The assumptions were "crutches" used by an earlier era to proceed with the need to "solve" the riddle of the quantum and everything was swept aside that did not agree to this scientific "totalitarianism". No good deed would go "unpunished". Remember the political tides that were sweeping the World then (and now)... this is the "love child" of that thinking.
The basis of modern quantum theory is "chaos"... built into its base and fondly protected by the Weapons Industry, and like earlier generations when "Evolution" and "Social Darwinism" was built into the social contract... "chaos" is the practical basis of all current political and moral paradigms today. My observations (and theory) are that this is not a reflection of the true state of the "Universe" and is a distortion, a "gestalt" of the chaotic state of our "society" and of the "tortured souls" that live in it. This has nothing to do with "religion" but as you can see if you look around on this Forum the "demons" are having their way with the mentally weak. You may not like politics (I don't) but it affects us all and also our "collective" moral imperatives. Physics is not without "morality" as the search for "Truth" is not without "Harmony". So it is left to "elves" to play in a field that does not exist and any attempt to hold a mirror up to this reality (of extra dimensions) they will avert their gaze as if you are talking pure fiction.
What do you think?
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 25 2005, 01:05 AM)
What do you think?
I think, the "Aether theory"... You know, Your problems of modern theories understanding aren't my problems.
I think, the "Aether theory"...
You know, Your problems of modern theories understanding aren't my problems.QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 25 2005, 01:05 AM)
If physics can't see extra spatial dimension right now
I am explaining the common evolution principles using a hidden dimension paradigm, not just only the matter evolution. There is unnecessary to wait to "extra spatial dimension observation", if we are able to explain a lot of common physic problems using this paradigm (Lamb shift, inflation, dark matter/energy, particle spin, charge parity, etc.... - let see my submissions in detail.)
Do you really think, we need to construct a new particle colliders to observe a spin as a manifestation of space-time rotation in hidden dimension context, for example?
I don't think so.
I am explaining the common evolution principles using a hidden dimension paradigm, not just only the matter evolution. There is unnecessary to wait to "extra spatial dimension observation", if we are able to explain a lot of common physic problems using this paradigm (Lamb shift, inflation, dark matter/energy, particle spin, charge parity, etc.... - let see my submissions in detail.)
Do you really think, we need to construct a new particle colliders to observe a spin as a manifestation of space-time rotation in hidden dimension context, for example?
I don't think so.
Hi Zephir,
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Sep 25 2005+ 01:17 PM)
Do you really think, we need to construct a new particle colliders to observe a spin as a manifestation of space-time rotation in hidden dimension context, for example?
Obviously a translation problem on your part there. That is exactly NOT what I was saying. I said...
Obviously a translation problem on your part there. That is exactly NOT what I was saying. I said...
QUOTE (Good Elf Posted on Sep 25 2005+ 01:05 AM)
If physics can't see extra spatial dimension right now then perhaps they never will see them even if they have ten LHC's.
QUOTE (Zephir Posted on Sep 25 2005+ 01:17 PM)
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 25 2005, 01:05 AM)
What do you think?
I think, the "Aether theory"... You know, Your problems of modern theories understanding aren't my problems.
I was asking for you opinion... I see you do not wish to discuss this now... thats OK. If you feel like discussing it some other time ... your are welcome.
Cheers
I think, the "Aether theory"...
You know, Your problems of modern theories understanding aren't my problems.I was asking for you opinion... I see you do not wish to discuss this now... thats OK. If you feel like discussing it some other time ... your are welcome.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 25 2005, 04:18 PM)
That is exactly NOT what I was saying. I said...
"...I want to embrace "String Theory" and many of it's concepts...but...."
I am afraid, I don't you understand you too much - It seems, you're believing in hidden spatial dimension concept - nevertheless, you have always some basic problem with string theory - I am wrong?
The superstring theory is consistent theory of both fermionic, both bosonic particles, of course - so where's your problem? You can list all your relevant objections against this theory here, If you have some - or you should keep it outside the discussion subject, if you have just "feelings".
"...I want to embrace "String Theory" and many of it's concepts...but...."
I am afraid, I don't you understand you too much - It seems, you're believing in hidden spatial dimension concept - nevertheless, you have always some basic problem with string theory - I am wrong?
The superstring theory is consistent theory of both fermionic, both bosonic particles, of course - so where's your problem? You can list all your relevant objections against this theory here, If you have some - or you should keep it outside the discussion subject, if you have just "feelings".
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 25 2005, 04:18 PM)
That is exactly NOT I see you do not wish to discuss this now...
What I want is not to waste time in controversial discussions. If you understand and agree with the hidden dimension concept (as you've proclaimed) - why are you raisin' an objections ("week gravity", "quantization impossible", etc.), which are in contradiction with this concept?
What I want is not to waste time in controversial discussions. If you understand and agree with the hidden dimension concept (as you've proclaimed) - why are you raisin' an objections ("week gravity", "quantization impossible", etc.), which are in contradiction with this concept?
Cumrun Vafa has now formulated Evidence for F-Theory of 12 dimensions. The original bosonic string theory by Susskind had 26 dimensions. At this moment, no one has proved anything. The very title of this topic - entanglement - appears to relate to photons as quanta as does the term quantum mechanics. So I do NOT understand the
QUOTE
quantization (IMHO) is impossible
No commnet
QUOTE (philip347+Sep 30 2005, 11:35 PM)
No commnet
Huh....
Is everything OK, Phill...?!?
Huh....
Is everything OK, Phill...?!?
I dont know.
Hi Zephir, Gadfly and Phillip347,
I do not see the problem. If String Theory really exists then Photons are strings as well. It is part of the basic conjecture. Since Photons are "Strings" and the world of Photons is Quantum Electrodynamics and of Chemistry and 98% of all human awareness (except Gravity) is involved with this domain... best to deal with this first since this is where all the applications will be. Not only that it is the "easiest" to deal with.
It is fine looking into the "sub-atomic realm" but if String Theory "answers" any questions at all there are going to be more "answered" questions regarding Quantum Electrodynamics in 10 plus dimensions than in the Problems with the Standard Model and QCD for instance. The Standard Model will be of some interest to the "esoteric" sciences and weapons programs but QED will "leap" into a field of Superscience overnight. Trust me... your imaginations are "underdeveloped". Read some comic books for God's sake! 
he he he!
I do not see the problem. If String Theory really exists then Photons are strings as well. It is part of the basic conjecture. Since Photons are "Strings" and the world of Photons is Quantum Electrodynamics and of Chemistry and 98% of all human awareness (except Gravity) is involved with this domain... best to deal with this first since this is where all the applications will be. Not only that it is the "easiest" to deal with.
It is fine looking into the "sub-atomic realm" but if String Theory "answers" any questions at all there are going to be more "answered" questions regarding Quantum Electrodynamics in 10 plus dimensions than in the Problems with the Standard Model and QCD for instance. The Standard Model will be of some interest to the "esoteric" sciences and weapons programs but QED will "leap" into a field of Superscience overnight. Trust me... your imaginations are "underdeveloped".
Read some comic books for God's sake! he he he!QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The quantization (IMHO) is impossible.... Spacetime is stronger than "steel" and is not amenable to quantization.
Gadfly... your comment above. Out of context. It was referring to quantization of space-time. This is the realm of the Planck Length as far as I am concerned. Literally ... "space-time" quantization. This "trick" is FOREVER beyond human capability. There is no current evidence for that either... it is all a "misdirection". Trust me on that. We will never "own" accelerators bigger than Galaxies and power sources approximating the "big bang". These issues are not about Physics but about "Religion". Now "blowing bubbles in the "Uberspace" that is another thing but it is not Planck Length Quantization either.
Cheers
Gadfly... your comment above. Out of context. It was referring to quantization of space-time. This is the realm of the Planck Length as far as I am concerned. Literally ... "space-time" quantization. This "trick" is FOREVER beyond human capability. There is no current evidence for that either... it is all a "misdirection". Trust me on that. We will never "own" accelerators bigger than Galaxies and power sources approximating the "big bang". These issues are not about Physics but about "Religion". Now "blowing bubbles in the "Uberspace" that is another thing but it is not Planck Length Quantization either.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 1 2005, 03:30 AM)
...if String Theory really exists then Photons are strings as well....
OK, but don't forget, the world "string" is just a synonym od word "wave". The string theory was developed by the mathematics, no the physics, i.e. without real practical insight with respect to existence of gravity. The wave nature of world was "guessed" as the analogy of behavior simple boson waves at the end of 60's.
OK, but don't forget, the world "string" is just a synonym od word "wave". The string theory was developed by the mathematics, no the physics, i.e. without real practical insight with respect to existence of gravity. The wave nature of world was "guessed" as the analogy of behavior simple boson waves at the end of 60's.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 1 2005, 03:30 AM)
..."space-time" quantization. This "trick" is FOREVER beyond human capability....
So then the observation using a water surface wave is outside the human capability. Don't forget, its space is heavily quantized as a result of Brownian motion (which can be observable in some cases by the naked eye, for example using dispersed sulfur and carbon disulphide), so the all surface wave observation will be limited by the uncertainty, which is deformation of liquid density, i.e. surface wave space-time metric.
So then the observation using a water surface wave is outside the human capability. Don't forget, its space is heavily quantized as a result of Brownian motion (which can be observable in some cases by the naked eye, for example using dispersed sulfur and carbon disulphide), so the all surface wave observation will be limited by the uncertainty, which is deformation of liquid density, i.e. surface wave space-time metric.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 1 2005, 03:30 AM)
There is no current evidence for that either... it is all a "misdirection".
It could be, of course. All theories can be mistaken, it's the reason we're calling it "theories", afterall. The physic isn't place of belief, but understanding. If you don't understand the wave based theories and hidden dimension concept (which is a quite natural here), then please don't believe it!. Lets choose and cultivate a different insight instead, which enables you to understand the universe deeper. But the Aether wave theory is able to explain both the basic quantum/relativity theory postulates, both the phase interface artifact/concepts, which are you calling "branes" without any other assumptions - just using the topology of the energy spreading.
Your posture seems to be rather schizophrenic, at least from my point of view. On the one hand you refute the waves in hidden dimension space model - on the other you're admitting the existence of unexplained effects, which can be explained easily just using this concept. On the one hand you're speaking about deficiency of the relevant experiments - but you forget to the explanation of all the experiments, which were done a long time ago and which fits the Aether/superstring theories concepts perfectly.
It could be, of course. All theories can be mistaken, it's the reason we're calling it "theories", afterall. The physic isn't place of belief, but understanding. If you don't understand the wave based theories and hidden dimension concept (which is a quite natural here), then please don't believe it!. Lets choose and cultivate a different insight instead, which enables you to understand the universe deeper. But the Aether wave theory is able to explain both the basic quantum/relativity theory postulates, both the phase interface artifact/concepts, which are you calling "branes" without any other assumptions - just using the topology of the energy spreading.
Your posture seems to be rather schizophrenic, at least from my point of view. On the one hand you refute the waves in hidden dimension space model - on the other you're admitting the existence of unexplained effects, which can be explained easily just using this concept. On the one hand you're speaking about deficiency of the relevant experiments - but you forget to the explanation of all the experiments, which were done a long time ago and which fits the Aether/superstring theories concepts perfectly.
Good Elf:
Thank you for explaining that I may have taken your comment "Out of context" in relation to quantization of space-time. However, this does appear to be the goal of some of the developers of various string theories.
Of course you are trusted, but verification is needed - Trust, but verify!
Forever is a long time. About 2,000 years ago the atom was thought to be the smallest physical structure and the elements were thought to be earth, fire, air and water. Look at physics now.
Who knows what the next 2,000 years may bring - NOT this observer.
Besides QLG, there is now causal set theory in competition with string theory.
One should also NOT forget A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram who developed Mathematica - software for technical computing and symbolic programming. This theory is is generally based upon mathematical game theory, providing many example of cellular automata.
Thank you for explaining that I may have taken your comment "Out of context" in relation to quantization of space-time. However, this does appear to be the goal of some of the developers of various string theories.
Of course you are trusted, but verification is needed - Trust, but verify!
Forever is a long time. About 2,000 years ago the atom was thought to be the smallest physical structure and the elements were thought to be earth, fire, air and water. Look at physics now.
Who knows what the next 2,000 years may bring - NOT this observer.
Besides QLG, there is now causal set theory in competition with string theory.
One should also NOT forget A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram who developed Mathematica - software for technical computing and symbolic programming. This theory is is generally based upon mathematical game theory, providing many example of cellular automata.
QUOTE (gadfly+Oct 1 2005, 11:20 AM)
Besides QLG, there is now causal set theory in competition with string theory.
The Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata theory is just a cellular automata theory - not the Theory of everything.
The Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata theory is just a cellular automata theory - not the Theory of everything.
Hi Gadfly,
Appreciate your interest..
Appreciate your interest..
QUOTE (gadfly Posted on Oct 1 2005+ 11:20 AM)
Forever is a long time. About 2,000 years ago the atom was thought to be the smallest physical structure and the elements were thought to be earth, fire, air and water. Look at physics now.
He he he... yes forever is a long time but "man's journey" may be considerably shorter.
As to trust. Nobody should trust elves. As to competing Theories... the "winning theory" is already in the "eye of God". Bet against it if you like. What that theory is no one is certain and this may be the case "forever".
Cheers
He he he... yes forever is a long time but "man's journey" may be considerably shorter.
As to trust. Nobody should trust elves. As to competing Theories... the "winning theory" is already in the "eye of God". Bet against it if you like. What that theory is no one is certain and this may be the case "forever".
Cheers
Zephir:
You may be correct about
[Cellular automata are cooperative games]
However consider an alternative interpretation of the official summary of the book by Wolfram -
http://www.wolframscience.com/summary/
BOOK SUMMARY - A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram
“Wolfram uses his approach to tackle a remarkable array of fundamental problems in science, from the origins of apparent randomness in physical systems, to the development of complexity in biology, the ultimate scope and limitations of mathematics, the possibility of a truly fundamental theory of physics, the interplay between free will and determinism, and the character of intelligence in the universe.”
I added the underline which I may have excessively interpreted as a possible TOE.
You may be correct about
QUOTE
The Stephen Wolfram's cellular automata theory is just a cellular automata theory - not the Theory of everything.
[Cellular automata are cooperative games]
However consider an alternative interpretation of the official summary of the book by Wolfram -
http://www.wolframscience.com/summary/
BOOK SUMMARY - A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram
“Wolfram uses his approach to tackle a remarkable array of fundamental problems in science, from the origins of apparent randomness in physical systems, to the development of complexity in biology, the ultimate scope and limitations of mathematics, the possibility of a truly fundamental theory of physics, the interplay between free will and determinism, and the character of intelligence in the universe.”
I added the underline which I may have excessively interpreted as a possible TOE.
QUOTE (gadfly+Oct 3 2005, 01:50 PM)
...which I may have excessively interpreted as a possible TOE...
I can realize the possible evolutionary consequences in Aether theory, but I don't see any direct connection between TOE and cellular automata theory - let show me at least single one, so I can believe You.
I can realize the possible evolutionary consequences in Aether theory, but I don't see any direct connection between TOE and cellular automata theory - let show me at least single one, so I can believe You.
Zephir:
Some thoughts on game theory and how this may one day relate to TOE and other physics applications.
John C. Harsanyi was a recipient of the 1994 Nobel prize in economics. In part due to “In a three-part paper published in 1967 and 1968, I showed how to convert a game with incomplete information into one with complete yet imperfect information, so as to make it accessible to game-theoretic analysis.”
http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/...yi-autobio.html
This is what scientists in physics attempt to do in the search for TOE and other phenomenon.
Game theory utilizes matrix mathematics.
From a Stanford University site Game Theory developed by Don Ross:
“Trees are used to represent sequential games, because they show the order in which actions are taken by the players. However, games are sometimes represented on matrices rather than trees. This is the second type of mathematical object used to represent games. Matrices, unlike trees, simply show the outcomes, represented in terms of the players' utility functions, for every possible combination of strategies the players might use.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
Players need NOT be limited to humans.
From Notes on the Economics of Game Theory By: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
“Game Theory would have done well to borrow mathematical techniques from quantum mechanics. For instance: strategies could have been described as wave functions with probability distributions. The same treatment could be accorded to the cardinal utility function. Obviously, the highest ranking (smallest ordinal) preference should have had the biggest probability attached to it – or could be treated as the collapse event. But these are more or less known, even trivial, objections. Some of them cannot be overcome. We must idealize the world in order to be able to relate to it scientifically at all. The idealization process entails the incorporation of gross inaccuracies into the model and the ignorance of other elements. The surprise is that the approximation yields results, which tally closely with reality – in view of its mutilation, affected by the model.”
http://samvak.tripod.com/nm056.html
“In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory. He also argued for the superiority of wave mechanics over matrix mechanics. This provoked an angry reaction, especially from Heisenberg, who insisted on the existence of discontinuous quantum jumps rather than a theory based on continuous waves. “
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
The above strongly suggest that your wave Aether wave theory has a more mathematically difficult matrix theory equivalent. Once in matrix from, then one essentially has a game theory as well. If as Vaknin suggests, game theory is able to adopt “wave function with probability distributions” parameters, then this should become more obvious.
Waves do play predictable games. This site does NOT advocate anything about game theory. It simply uses Java applets - computer programs - as Wolfram sometimes called his cellular automata.
From Florida State University - Electricity & Magnetism - Michael W. Davidson
Wave Interactions in Optical Interference [Interactive Java Tutorials]
This site demonstrates relatively predictable phase displacement and resulting constructive or destructive wave interference.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/in...veinteractions/
One suspects that many if NOT all mathematical equations can be considered games.
For example: E = m * c^2.
Superficially this appears to be an non-cooperative game of either E or m. However, it may be a cooperative game since time does NOT simultaneously permit m (scalar potential energy) to be E (vector kinetic energy).
Thomas S. Ferguson - PhD Mathematics and Statistics - University of California at Los Angeles - uses mathematical game theory to discuss this physics problem.
Bell's analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment in quantum mechanics shows that things are not quite so simple. Here is a probabilist's view of Bell's paradox
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/papers/prob5.hnt.html
Some thoughts on game theory and how this may one day relate to TOE and other physics applications.
John C. Harsanyi was a recipient of the 1994 Nobel prize in economics. In part due to “In a three-part paper published in 1967 and 1968, I showed how to convert a game with incomplete information into one with complete yet imperfect information, so as to make it accessible to game-theoretic analysis.”
http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/...yi-autobio.html
This is what scientists in physics attempt to do in the search for TOE and other phenomenon.
Game theory utilizes matrix mathematics.
From a Stanford University site Game Theory developed by Don Ross:
“Trees are used to represent sequential games, because they show the order in which actions are taken by the players. However, games are sometimes represented on matrices rather than trees. This is the second type of mathematical object used to represent games. Matrices, unlike trees, simply show the outcomes, represented in terms of the players' utility functions, for every possible combination of strategies the players might use.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
Players need NOT be limited to humans.
From Notes on the Economics of Game Theory By: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
“Game Theory would have done well to borrow mathematical techniques from quantum mechanics. For instance: strategies could have been described as wave functions with probability distributions. The same treatment could be accorded to the cardinal utility function. Obviously, the highest ranking (smallest ordinal) preference should have had the biggest probability attached to it – or could be treated as the collapse event. But these are more or less known, even trivial, objections. Some of them cannot be overcome. We must idealize the world in order to be able to relate to it scientifically at all. The idealization process entails the incorporation of gross inaccuracies into the model and the ignorance of other elements. The surprise is that the approximation yields results, which tally closely with reality – in view of its mutilation, affected by the model.”
http://samvak.tripod.com/nm056.html
“In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory. He also argued for the superiority of wave mechanics over matrix mechanics. This provoked an angry reaction, especially from Heisenberg, who insisted on the existence of discontinuous quantum jumps rather than a theory based on continuous waves. “
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
The above strongly suggest that your wave Aether wave theory has a more mathematically difficult matrix theory equivalent. Once in matrix from, then one essentially has a game theory as well. If as Vaknin suggests, game theory is able to adopt “wave function with probability distributions” parameters, then this should become more obvious.
Waves do play predictable games. This site does NOT advocate anything about game theory. It simply uses Java applets - computer programs - as Wolfram sometimes called his cellular automata.
From Florida State University - Electricity & Magnetism - Michael W. Davidson
Wave Interactions in Optical Interference [Interactive Java Tutorials]
This site demonstrates relatively predictable phase displacement and resulting constructive or destructive wave interference.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/in...veinteractions/
One suspects that many if NOT all mathematical equations can be considered games.
For example: E = m * c^2.
Superficially this appears to be an non-cooperative game of either E or m. However, it may be a cooperative game since time does NOT simultaneously permit m (scalar potential energy) to be E (vector kinetic energy).
Thomas S. Ferguson - PhD Mathematics and Statistics - University of California at Los Angeles - uses mathematical game theory to discuss this physics problem.
Bell's analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment in quantum mechanics shows that things are not quite so simple. Here is a probabilist's view of Bell's paradox
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/papers/prob5.hnt.html
Hi Gadfly and Zephir,
Unlike other Physicists, I believe that the actual interpretation of Physics is important. I would like an accurate Theory of Everything but it may be that an "interim" TOE might not be as accurate as some other operational theories because of some uneven theoretical developments in "competing" mathematical physical concepts. I would prefer a "clean" understanding of physical lore than a "machine" that chugs away for a number of years to provide the "exact answer" to be "42".
Exact answers are good but they can hide the real nature of a process because we do not appreciate some small facet of theory so we "grasp" the "easy" operational answer invoking "Occam's Razor". In the end we do Physics to understand the way the "Universe" works. In that process we can make predictions... not only about the theory's "immediate" concerns but the concerns of the future.
It is common to believe today that "Evolution" is an inevitable process that leads to humankind. This has lead to a collection of foolish "theories" such as Social Darwinism and some "insane" Political Theories as well. This is a failure to understand the metastability of the process. Many times in the history of the Planet the same ecological imperatives have solved the problem using very different "solutions". Later the world changes and that solution was no longer the total solution it appeared to be at first. At one time Dinosaurs ruled the Earth and they were the most successful species ever and ruled for hundreds of millions of years. By any reckoning they were very successful. Man has not been around as Homo Sapien for more than some hundreds of thousands of years... and already, within our own life span, we seem to be on the brink of the extinction of this Planet's Biosphere in only a few lifespans. The "experiment" becomes "extinct". Man may prove to be that kind of "solution". There is a fascinating "hint" that the birds may be the "inheritors" of that lineage we thought to be "extinct". Perhaps in the fullness of time they will provide another "solution" to this age old question. "Simple" South African Grey Parrots can master up to 400 human words and figure "complex" logic problems using human speech with brains the size of a walnut. This was also the case for "dinosaurs". The Universe has not yet "finished" calculating.... he he he!
As it was in the time of the Dinosaurs, they would hardly have apprehended that the "insignificant" nocturnal creatures that stole their eggs in the night would eventually claim the "prize" as "dominant species" of the entire planet. But for how long?... maybe the sole purpose of man is to "clear the decks" of himself and other species so that a fitter and more competent species should take his place that will grow to be wiser and show greater insight and stewardship of this planet... and eventually "beyond". They may be literally "waiting in the wings"... he he he! Awful pun but possibly the truth.
Consider that avian flu may extinct our entire species... maybe not this time but the next... clearing the decks for the next stage in evolution. Wouldn't it be funny if a mammalian flu could have been the original cause of the extinction of the Dinosaurs carried by a distant cousin of the rat. The Universe may "even the books" up in ways we could never understand. Strange isn't it that these two leading species (man and birds) are so close that we share diseases which jump species.
Just because you can find A solution does not mean that it is THE solution. In the end only THE solution will persist and provide the full answer that protects the theory and the species against "future change".
I imagine the Universe has "A" solution that actually works ... or is very close to it. This may work for "Theories of Everything" as it does for "Dominant Species" in our Universe. A "Theory of Everything" that leaves out a "vital ingredient" may provide us with the answer to both questions ... very quickly. We may then have the perfect "Theory of Nothing" for us all. It is an "intelligence test" for man as it is for his true "wisdom".
Cheers
Unlike other Physicists, I believe that the actual interpretation of Physics is important. I would like an accurate Theory of Everything but it may be that an "interim" TOE might not be as accurate as some other operational theories because of some uneven theoretical developments in "competing" mathematical physical concepts. I would prefer a "clean" understanding of physical lore than a "machine" that chugs away for a number of years to provide the "exact answer" to be "42".
Exact answers are good but they can hide the real nature of a process because we do not appreciate some small facet of theory so we "grasp" the "easy" operational answer invoking "Occam's Razor". In the end we do Physics to understand the way the "Universe" works. In that process we can make predictions... not only about the theory's "immediate" concerns but the concerns of the future.
It is common to believe today that "Evolution" is an inevitable process that leads to humankind. This has lead to a collection of foolish "theories" such as Social Darwinism and some "insane" Political Theories as well. This is a failure to understand the metastability of the process. Many times in the history of the Planet the same ecological imperatives have solved the problem using very different "solutions". Later the world changes and that solution was no longer the total solution it appeared to be at first. At one time Dinosaurs ruled the Earth and they were the most successful species ever and ruled for hundreds of millions of years. By any reckoning they were very successful. Man has not been around as Homo Sapien for more than some hundreds of thousands of years... and already, within our own life span, we seem to be on the brink of the extinction of this Planet's Biosphere in only a few lifespans. The "experiment" becomes "extinct". Man may prove to be that kind of "solution". There is a fascinating "hint" that the birds may be the "inheritors" of that lineage we thought to be "extinct". Perhaps in the fullness of time they will provide another "solution" to this age old question. "Simple" South African Grey Parrots can master up to 400 human words and figure "complex" logic problems using human speech with brains the size of a walnut. This was also the case for "dinosaurs". The Universe has not yet "finished" calculating.... he he he!
As it was in the time of the Dinosaurs, they would hardly have apprehended that the "insignificant" nocturnal creatures that stole their eggs in the night would eventually claim the "prize" as "dominant species" of the entire planet. But for how long?... maybe the sole purpose of man is to "clear the decks" of himself and other species so that a fitter and more competent species should take his place that will grow to be wiser and show greater insight and stewardship of this planet... and eventually "beyond". They may be literally "waiting in the wings"... he he he! Awful pun but possibly the truth.
Consider that avian flu may extinct our entire species... maybe not this time but the next... clearing the decks for the next stage in evolution. Wouldn't it be funny if a mammalian flu could have been the original cause of the extinction of the Dinosaurs carried by a distant cousin of the rat. The Universe may "even the books" up in ways we could never understand. Strange isn't it that these two leading species (man and birds) are so close that we share diseases which jump species.
Just because you can find A solution does not mean that it is THE solution. In the end only THE solution will persist and provide the full answer that protects the theory and the species against "future change".
I imagine the Universe has "A" solution that actually works ... or is very close to it. This may work for "Theories of Everything" as it does for "Dominant Species" in our Universe. A "Theory of Everything" that leaves out a "vital ingredient" may provide us with the answer to both questions ... very quickly. We may then have the perfect "Theory of Nothing" for us all. It is an "intelligence test" for man as it is for his true "wisdom".
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 4 2005, 03:54 PM)
but it may be that an "interim" TOE might not be as accurate as some other operational theories because of some uneven theoretical developments in "competing" mathematical physical concepts.
You're a quite right - in fact, I've explained this aspect of modern theories on the example of Mendeleev's extrapolations of atom properties.
These results were a quite exact - although they weren't based on the knowledge of the exact atom structure at all. The ab initio computing of atomic structures present technical problem event at the case of classical quantum models, the more at the case of more elementary, but no so well-conditioned/numerically stable model.
I'm fighting with this in numeric model of my theory, which is based on the numerical instability of the wave equation. There is a some uncertainty principle: if you try to predict the moment of the gravity wave collapse more exactly, you'll lose the precision of the further solution on the other hand. It means, even the approximative solution of the simple model requires a quite large computational power.
You're a quite right - in fact, I've explained this aspect of modern theories on the example of Mendeleev's extrapolations of atom properties.
These results were a quite exact - although they weren't based on the knowledge of the exact atom structure at all. The ab initio computing of atomic structures present technical problem event at the case of classical quantum models, the more at the case of more elementary, but no so well-conditioned/numerically stable model.
I'm fighting with this in numeric model of my theory, which is based on the numerical instability of the wave equation. There is a some uncertainty principle: if you try to predict the moment of the gravity wave collapse more exactly, you'll lose the precision of the further solution on the other hand. It means, even the approximative solution of the simple model requires a quite large computational power.
I think that part of this information is something we're not supposed to have, as this knowledge intimates freedom, for humans.
QUOTE (philip347+Oct 4 2005, 10:21 PM)
I think that part of this information is something we're not supposed to have, as this knowledge intimates freedom, for humans.
I believe, the whole universe is based on the Hegel's evolutionary quantity->quality transformation principle. The pile of gravitons is able to collapse, forming the more effective (with respect to the energy/information transfer) system, which is more indeterministic, at the same time - i.e., to be able the further evolution.
If you'll to pile of gravity piles, you gradually obtain so complicated, indeterministic system, you can call it intelligent. By the way, my favorite definition of intelligence is the ability to obtain a new abilities .
From this point of view the universe seems to be a certain kind of evolutionary organism, which is very intelligent as a whole.
I believe, the whole universe is based on the Hegel's evolutionary quantity->quality transformation principle. The pile of gravitons is able to collapse, forming the more effective (with respect to the energy/information transfer) system, which is more indeterministic, at the same time - i.e., to be able the further evolution.
If you'll to pile of gravity piles, you gradually obtain so complicated, indeterministic system, you can call it intelligent. By the way, my favorite definition of intelligence is the ability to obtain a new abilities .
From this point of view the universe seems to be a certain kind of evolutionary organism, which is very intelligent as a whole.
Hi Zephir and Gadfly,
Knowledge is a wonderful thing... it sets us "free". It is really the only true freedom you can ever have... and it must be in the "privacy" of your own inner awareness.
I often get deeply "intimate" with "theory". You may have gathered that from time to time from what I write. It is only a private thing... not something I wish to talk too much about except in this anonymous venue. I do not expect others to feel the same about it (... as "collectives" feel about Religion and Politics I suspect...). Those ‘groups” miss out by not expressing their "individualism".
It is still comforting to see it in other (even if the Theories are different) good friends. I totally agree with you on that sentiment... the "Universe" is more than the sum of us and our ideas and needs to "evolve" independent of man. We can 'fit in" or remain "out".
I hope that in the fullness of time man outgrows all these artificial boundaries we place between our ideas and the Universe and seek a "greater role", not as “masters” but as its "humble servants" in its greater plan of "self awareness".
Cheers
Knowledge is a wonderful thing... it sets us "free". It is really the only true freedom you can ever have... and it must be in the "privacy" of your own inner awareness.
I often get deeply "intimate" with "theory". You may have gathered that from time to time from what I write. It is only a private thing... not something I wish to talk too much about except in this anonymous venue. I do not expect others to feel the same about it (... as "collectives" feel about Religion and Politics I suspect...). Those ‘groups” miss out by not expressing their "individualism".
It is still comforting to see it in other (even if the Theories are different) good friends. I totally agree with you on that sentiment... the "Universe" is more than the sum of us and our ideas and needs to "evolve" independent of man. We can 'fit in" or remain "out".
I hope that in the fullness of time man outgrows all these artificial boundaries we place between our ideas and the Universe and seek a "greater role", not as “masters” but as its "humble servants" in its greater plan of "self awareness".
Cheers
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.