Alright, I'm reading a book entitled: "Schrodingers Kittens and the Search for Reality." by this guy and I'm getting most of it so far, but I had a thought. A little background first:
He is basically discussing the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't have the book right in front of me so bear with me. He's saying that every quantum "decision" basically is a probability wave. Once a concious observer notices a feature of the probability wave indicating a decision made (ie: the electron goes through the right hole) the wave collapses and the entity is finalized. (I apologize for the obscurities, and possible misspellings. It's very late at night here.....) An example he gave (roughly paraphrased):
~~~
It happens on tinier scales much more often because the particles are less entangled, but if there were one observer on earth, and he failed to look at the moon for a very long time it might lose quantum cohesiveness slowly loosing "reality" until it is observed. Once the observer looked at the moon again, it would regain quantum (composure?).
~~~
My thought, and I promise I'll re-write this in the morning: (as I'm sure it's barely legible) is that: (oh! forgot this: he came to the conclusion that a computer is not concious.) Imagine if we used a computer to scan the universe for things out of quantum cohesion. Not only would it be able to determine the age of the universe (things most out of cohesion) BUT it would also be able to detect another concious being based on localized areas of dense cohesion. Sound crazy? Take it up with the standard for understanding quantum mechanics!
Actually, this little brain fart was just my happy way of asking: can someone please explain this to me? I don't get how things can be out of sync with reality? Thanks. Also, how the universe instantly knows an observer is watching it? Wouldn't that imply non-localization again which is the bugger of the whole thing? Wow I'm more lost than I thought...maybe again it's the lack of sleep.... Anyway, thanks again.
~JS
My theory of an infinite sphere an, "cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore, I am" continuum, and God as the infinite mathematics of itself, the infinite sphere of the universe, and the matrix of which that continuum is slightly connected to for our consciousness.
No' it's sort of like Boolean, which is the quanta of either, not, nor, fracta.
The Schroder equation states that in principality, without the viewer looking that the nature of the cat is an uncertain, known.
So the new equation is where T mass minor, is squarerooted to two, in a three plane relationship, then the answer is never forthcoming.
The end set is, the set of all cats that are alive and all cats that are no longer.
There is no answer.
The Schroder equation states that in principality, without the viewer looking that the nature of the cat is an uncertain, known.
So the new equation is where T mass minor, is squarerooted to two, in a three plane relationship, then the answer is never forthcoming.
The end set is, the set of all cats that are alive and all cats that are no longer.
There is no answer.
Well that was my question. You're saying that without an observer the "reality" of the situation is an open set (multiple realities...) I'm asking why this is the case.....AND is my little thought experiment regarding the observation of quantum cohesion by a computer at all on track? I'm sure there has to be some flaw in it somewhere..........I just don't know where because I don't know enough about it...
~JS
~JS
ok, everything quantum is all about probability
'collapsing the wave function' or forcing it to pick one of the options with a specific probability creates a 'reality'
lets say we don't collapse the state, then each of those probabilities has their probabilities superpositioned or calculated
in 'reality' it can only take one path, but you must keep calculating and seeing each probability after, which will make the possibilities multiply
for something the size of the moon the probability of it disappearing or something else is small, but after a tonne of these probabilities multiplying themselves weird things could 'possibly' happen
and that computer scanning for quantum cohesion, if it could scan without causing the collapse of the states it interacted with (which it will) it would see where other 'consciousness' had caused collapsed states
'collapsing the wave function' or forcing it to pick one of the options with a specific probability creates a 'reality'
lets say we don't collapse the state, then each of those probabilities has their probabilities superpositioned or calculated
in 'reality' it can only take one path, but you must keep calculating and seeing each probability after, which will make the possibilities multiply
for something the size of the moon the probability of it disappearing or something else is small, but after a tonne of these probabilities multiplying themselves weird things could 'possibly' happen
and that computer scanning for quantum cohesion, if it could scan without causing the collapse of the states it interacted with (which it will) it would see where other 'consciousness' had caused collapsed states
is my little thought experiment regarding the observation of quantum cohesion by a computer at all on track
I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that if the computer cannot be considered to be an "observer", then it's own state after examining incohesive (is that a word?) systems would also be incohesive. Until the computer itself was examined by a human, at which point all the incohesiveness would collapse to cohesion.
The problem here is that cohesion and observation are so intertwined, and you really have to think about what exactly it means to "observe" something, and what exactly a measurement means, and what can be done with it, before it has been observed.
But like I said, I'm not an expert. So someone more knowledgable might want to lend their expertise.
I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that if the computer cannot be considered to be an "observer", then it's own state after examining incohesive (is that a word?) systems would also be incohesive. Until the computer itself was examined by a human, at which point all the incohesiveness would collapse to cohesion.
The problem here is that cohesion and observation are so intertwined, and you really have to think about what exactly it means to "observe" something, and what exactly a measurement means, and what can be done with it, before it has been observed.
But like I said, I'm not an expert. So someone more knowledgable might want to lend their expertise.
and that computer scanning for quantum cohesion, if it could scan without causing the collapse of the states it interacted with (which it will) it would see where other 'consciousness' had caused collapsed states
How do you detect cohesion, or the lack thereof?
How do you detect cohesion, or the lack thereof?
QUOTE
ok, everything quantum is all about probability
Very true indeed. The mistake, IMHO, is that many people try to expand the probability argument beyond the quantum world into the macroscopic world. This is not true. I don't care how many times you look at the moon, or a cat, or even a grain of sand for that matter, it will still be there.
i remember fairly recently reading a link from physorg of a way to collapse quantum states to get macroscopic stuff....can't find it either
and it 'can' be expanded to macroscopic, but it 'may' not (read very x 10 infinity low probability of something odd happening) plus the states are being collapsed constantly so it wouldn't seem like a quantum thing, just odd
and it 'can' be expanded to macroscopic, but it 'may' not (read very x 10 infinity low probability of something odd happening) plus the states are being collapsed constantly so it wouldn't seem like a quantum thing, just odd
I don't care how many times you look at the moon, or a cat, or even a grain of sand for that matter, it will still be there.
I could be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me:
It could be argued that this is because you don't only interact with the moon by viewing it. We also feel the effects of its gravity. So anyone who is on earth would be "observing" the moon at all times, whether they can see it or not.
I think, by the same token, a grain of sand will affect the grains around it in ever so slight ways, and this, by propogation, would effect the whole beach, which affects the flow of waves, etc.
So from what I can tell, the reason that things are so cohesive at macroscopic scales is that it becomes every more difficult, with increasing size, to not observe the object in question in some indirect way.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm very curious about this topic.
I could be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me:
It could be argued that this is because you don't only interact with the moon by viewing it. We also feel the effects of its gravity. So anyone who is on earth would be "observing" the moon at all times, whether they can see it or not.
I think, by the same token, a grain of sand will affect the grains around it in ever so slight ways, and this, by propogation, would effect the whole beach, which affects the flow of waves, etc.
So from what I can tell, the reason that things are so cohesive at macroscopic scales is that it becomes every more difficult, with increasing size, to not observe the object in question in some indirect way.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm very curious about this topic.
waterbreath you are a genius
Yes, Waterbreath is very, very clever.............
If God exists, is conscious and is all powerful, then why, if it is considered bad, does God allow an infant to suffer and die in a fire?
If God exists, is conscious but is not all powerful, is the Universe in jeapordy, or does the Universe require "maintenance" at all. If this is true, why is God called God?
If God exists but is not conscious then, well nothing matters, except to say that our perception of reality is based on what we percieve as logic, and perhaps the Universe is the expression of a set of mathematical rules.
However, consider the first God statement. Is OUR sense of bad and good different from God's?
Maybe the reason why these things confound our understanding is because our set of logic rules and hence our understanding of mathematics, doesn't allow us to understand this thing called reality. This is especially true when dealing with quantum stuff. Whoever will experience this directly except by inference? Will we have the same problem as Einstein had/ The explaination/prediction but not the reason why or how..
If God exists, is conscious and is all powerful, then why, if it is considered bad, does God allow an infant to suffer and die in a fire?
If God exists, is conscious but is not all powerful, is the Universe in jeapordy, or does the Universe require "maintenance" at all. If this is true, why is God called God?
If God exists but is not conscious then, well nothing matters, except to say that our perception of reality is based on what we percieve as logic, and perhaps the Universe is the expression of a set of mathematical rules.
However, consider the first God statement. Is OUR sense of bad and good different from God's?
Maybe the reason why these things confound our understanding is because our set of logic rules and hence our understanding of mathematics, doesn't allow us to understand this thing called reality. This is especially true when dealing with quantum stuff. Whoever will experience this directly except by inference? Will we have the same problem as Einstein had/ The explaination/prediction but not the reason why or how..
QUOTE
...it seems to me that if the computer cannot be considered to be an "observer", then it's own state after examining incohesive (is that a word?) systems would also be incohesive. Until the computer itself was examined by a human, at which point all the incohesiveness would collapse to cohesion.
That was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. I figured there had to be something I was missing, I'm not sure why I didn't catch it prior...
~JS
Maybe we are mathematical entities of Gods perception and reaction to his civilization. Ten commandments> or note to yourself, follow these rules made by trail and error, but how we all forget and wars rumble between beliefs until we make another set of rules by our guilt> God had guilt> Jesus> one of many subconscious entities answered.
If we subconsciously base things on our own civilization, maybe we create relative entities to the world we live in> laws, beliefs, right, or wrong> what gives or destroys.
Say. If you had a dream and it seems real. Maybe that is a place of reality in your mind and it is based on probability> choices and the undecided; enigma.
There could be a continuum of minds related to entities, and the mind has this subconscious universe.
The strangest thing maybe anyone would ask, but I will give this question. Is time conscious and subconscious>does it have enigma> probability?
I,m tired. Talk later.
Enigma> defiance and choices> are inevitable.
Again. I'll talk later.
If we subconsciously base things on our own civilization, maybe we create relative entities to the world we live in> laws, beliefs, right, or wrong> what gives or destroys.
Say. If you had a dream and it seems real. Maybe that is a place of reality in your mind and it is based on probability> choices and the undecided; enigma.
There could be a continuum of minds related to entities, and the mind has this subconscious universe.
The strangest thing maybe anyone would ask, but I will give this question. Is time conscious and subconscious>does it have enigma> probability?
I,m tired. Talk later.
Enigma> defiance and choices> are inevitable.
Again. I'll talk later.
Hi Guys,
I want to "light this candle".
WaterBreath Posted on Jan 26 2005, 07:52 PM
This is very true and is almost correct, but there are macroscopic quantum phenomena that need to be explained. Take for instance Josephson junctions and "SQUID"s (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). These demonstrate macroscopic quantum phenomena.
http://www.ifn.cnr.it/Groups/SQD/Research/qubit/qubit.htm
These devices set up "impenetrable" walls with the outside Universe and prevent us nosy parkers corrupting their "inner calm". They involve current "solitons" and will probably come into their own in quantum computing soon. It is as though they are the "dark side" of Physics always working in the dark but as close to "Schrodinger's Cat" as we can get at present. It is hard not to think of the atom and the "stationary states" that go on and on as well, and seem to only change state when there is an interaction. Otherwise this realm goes "unobserved".
It is not inconceivable to think that quantum barrier penetration by very large objects may be possible provided that it occurs in "total darkness" at least in some sense. These would not be experiments that would occur naturally since most experiments we want to carry out are usually in well-lit rooms. In much the same way double slit experiments have to be carried out in darkness too.
There are a class of natural phenomena that do fall into this category and they are the paranormal phenomena. The effect is weak and it is easily disturbed and light seems to be the natural enemy. The article on the black box that reads the future seems to be showing "something".
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#121
The appearance of so called "ghosts" may also be some temporal barrier penetration which is disturbed by observation. This may be where "spooky physics" is heading. You can deny it if you like but there are a number of experiments that have been proceeding in the past (Stargate - not the TV series) and are continuing to this day that show Military interest in such things. There is a claim of benefits to be had.
http://www.calder.net/jpiazza/2004-08-18-o...on_stargate.php
I would also like to point you to the thread...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> News discussions -> Technology -> Gravity affecting speed of light
For a discussion on propagation and interaction that might be of overlapping interest.
What I want to know is where do we go from here? Not asking you for any secrets... just the way to proceed forward into some way to analyse this problem.
Cheers
I want to "light this candle".
WaterBreath Posted on Jan 26 2005, 07:52 PM
QUOTE
So from what I can tell, the reason that things are so cohesive at macroscopic scales is that it becomes every more difficult, with increasing size, to not observe the object in question in some indirect way.
This is very true and is almost correct, but there are macroscopic quantum phenomena that need to be explained. Take for instance Josephson junctions and "SQUID"s (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). These demonstrate macroscopic quantum phenomena.
http://www.ifn.cnr.it/Groups/SQD/Research/qubit/qubit.htm
These devices set up "impenetrable" walls with the outside Universe and prevent us nosy parkers corrupting their "inner calm". They involve current "solitons" and will probably come into their own in quantum computing soon. It is as though they are the "dark side" of Physics always working in the dark but as close to "Schrodinger's Cat" as we can get at present. It is hard not to think of the atom and the "stationary states" that go on and on as well, and seem to only change state when there is an interaction. Otherwise this realm goes "unobserved".
It is not inconceivable to think that quantum barrier penetration by very large objects may be possible provided that it occurs in "total darkness" at least in some sense. These would not be experiments that would occur naturally since most experiments we want to carry out are usually in well-lit rooms. In much the same way double slit experiments have to be carried out in darkness too.
There are a class of natural phenomena that do fall into this category and they are the paranormal phenomena. The effect is weak and it is easily disturbed and light seems to be the natural enemy. The article on the black box that reads the future seems to be showing "something".
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#121
The appearance of so called "ghosts" may also be some temporal barrier penetration which is disturbed by observation. This may be where "spooky physics" is heading. You can deny it if you like but there are a number of experiments that have been proceeding in the past (Stargate - not the TV series) and are continuing to this day that show Military interest in such things. There is a claim of benefits to be had.
http://www.calder.net/jpiazza/2004-08-18-o...on_stargate.php
I would also like to point you to the thread...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> News discussions -> Technology -> Gravity affecting speed of light
For a discussion on propagation and interaction that might be of overlapping interest.
What I want to know is where do we go from here? Not asking you for any secrets... just the way to proceed forward into some way to analyse this problem.
Cheers
Hi All,
Here I go answering my own queries
(I still want feedback on this matter though).
Good Elf Posted on Mar 14 2005, 07:10 AM
I have slowly realized that this is not always true. There is a phenomenon called
The Aharonov-Bohm effect and demonstrates that the electromagnetic potentials, rather than the electric and magnetic fields, are the fundamental quantities in quantum mechanics this influence leaks out without the assistance of "fields"...
http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/ab.htm
This short summary plus the images and the link on the image are well worth seeing...
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/abe.cfm
Aharonov-Casher effect....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...&db_key=PHY
These effects have a very important influence on quantum physics and macroscopic quantum devices like the SQUID mentioned in the previous post. I feel that this is a link with such phenomena as quantum entanglement and even "spookier" effects. I predict that this will lead to much more in the future that is hard to predict in the present. The scalar and vector potential fields seem to be related to the system energy and its distribution and this appears to “distort” spacetime even if there is no electric or magnetic fields in the region in which a “wave” is travelling.
Is this true "action at a distance"? Are the electromagnetic scaler and vector potentials an entity(s) that exists outside of our spacetime and the electric and magnetic fields just projections in our universe of this higher dimensional entity? Or are they the distortions in the Zero Point Energy field? What are the ramifications if there are “physical” quantities in our Universe that we can neither “see” nor “measure” but are as real as those we can “see” and “measure”? Will this result in a “hidden variable” theory of Unified Field? Does anyone know how to measure this stuff... chargeless, sourceless, field free entity!!! Perhaps it is a kind of “ether”? Has anyone got something profound to add to this amazing result?
Cheers
Here I go answering my own queries
(I still want feedback on this matter though). Good Elf Posted on Mar 14 2005, 07:10 AM
QUOTE
These devices set up "impenetrable" walls with the outside Universe and prevent us nosy parkers corrupting their "inner calm".... as close to "Schrodinger's Cat" as we can get at present
I have slowly realized that this is not always true. There is a phenomenon called
The Aharonov-Bohm effect and demonstrates that the electromagnetic potentials, rather than the electric and magnetic fields, are the fundamental quantities in quantum mechanics this influence leaks out without the assistance of "fields"...
http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/ab.htm
This short summary plus the images and the link on the image are well worth seeing...
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/abe.cfm
Aharonov-Casher effect....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...&db_key=PHY
These effects have a very important influence on quantum physics and macroscopic quantum devices like the SQUID mentioned in the previous post. I feel that this is a link with such phenomena as quantum entanglement and even "spookier" effects. I predict that this will lead to much more in the future that is hard to predict in the present. The scalar and vector potential fields seem to be related to the system energy and its distribution and this appears to “distort” spacetime even if there is no electric or magnetic fields in the region in which a “wave” is travelling.
Is this true "action at a distance"? Are the electromagnetic scaler and vector potentials an entity(s) that exists outside of our spacetime and the electric and magnetic fields just projections in our universe of this higher dimensional entity? Or are they the distortions in the Zero Point Energy field? What are the ramifications if there are “physical” quantities in our Universe that we can neither “see” nor “measure” but are as real as those we can “see” and “measure”? Will this result in a “hidden variable” theory of Unified Field? Does anyone know how to measure this stuff... chargeless, sourceless, field free entity!!! Perhaps it is a kind of “ether”? Has anyone got something profound to add to this amazing result?
Cheers
Hi Good elf,
I have read in various places that many researcherrs into free energy and anti-gravity are convinced that scaler and vector potential fields are the keys to unlocking the doors to the utilization of such free energy and anti-gravity forces.
Many site the Aharonov-Bohm effect as an example of such.
Tesla's radiant energy concept is said to originate in scaler EM fields.
Einstein once mentioned the proposition that the magnetic vector potential might be used for creating anti-gravity and torsion fields.
z
I have read in various places that many researcherrs into free energy and anti-gravity are convinced that scaler and vector potential fields are the keys to unlocking the doors to the utilization of such free energy and anti-gravity forces.
Many site the Aharonov-Bohm effect as an example of such.
Tesla's radiant energy concept is said to originate in scaler EM fields.
Einstein once mentioned the proposition that the magnetic vector potential might be used for creating anti-gravity and torsion fields.
z
I think the idea of an immeasurable source of anything is out of the question. If we can feel the effects of something, we can measure it. We might not be able to discern exactly what it is but so long as there is an effect, there will be a cause, and at least educated guesses about this cause can be made. I think to equate anything to sight and other human senses only goes to show how little we can comprehend. I think that to ask what color an electron is does show a little insight, but to be able to fully understand that an electron cannot possibly have a color requires a lot more. I have a slight deviation from this though...if we were to physically expand an electron, so that it's properties are identical to any other electron but it were a hundered million times bigger, what color would it be then? This is another impossible question, as it cannot be done.
Wow, I'm really going off on tangents here but as I started this topic I claim rightsies :-D. Anyway, I have another question for you thinking types: Why does the absence of knowledge bother so many people? I think, and this is just from my worldly experience so don't complain if you don't agree, that religion helps calm people so that they have everything explained to them. I'm perfectly alright with accepting the fact that I have no idea what will happen to me when I die, probably nothing, but I don't need to know until I get there. I feel religion gives us a quick answer to a lot of these problems and that people require these answers in order to be able to live with themselves. Am I wrong?
~JS
Wow, I'm really going off on tangents here but as I started this topic I claim rightsies :-D. Anyway, I have another question for you thinking types: Why does the absence of knowledge bother so many people? I think, and this is just from my worldly experience so don't complain if you don't agree, that religion helps calm people so that they have everything explained to them. I'm perfectly alright with accepting the fact that I have no idea what will happen to me when I die, probably nothing, but I don't need to know until I get there. I feel religion gives us a quick answer to a lot of these problems and that people require these answers in order to be able to live with themselves. Am I wrong?
~JS
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Is this true "action at a distance"?
Good question. I think it would be interesting if a larger-scale experiment could be devised that could determine whether there is a delay between the removal of the field, and the change in vector potentials that the electrons are experiencing. It would be interesting to see if the information travelled instantaniously, or propagated at light-speed, or at some other speed. Hmmm... My brain hurts just thinking about it. I can't decide if the instantaneousness of quantum wave collapse or the delay of influence due to information-travel would dominate.
Good question. I think it would be interesting if a larger-scale experiment could be devised that could determine whether there is a delay between the removal of the field, and the change in vector potentials that the electrons are experiencing. It would be interesting to see if the information travelled instantaniously, or propagated at light-speed, or at some other speed. Hmmm... My brain hurts just thinking about it. I can't decide if the instantaneousness of quantum wave collapse or the delay of influence due to information-travel would dominate.
QUOTE (beckerist+)
I think, and this is just from my worldly experience so don't complain if you don't agree, that religion helps calm people so that they have everything explained to them.
I think for many people this is true, but not for all. My own beliefs certaintly don't "explain everything". I'm a Christian, so I don't believe physical death is the end of all life. And I believe that at some point the universe was created by God. But there are still many mysteries out of reach of both science and my philosophy. And there's no way I would try to mingle these beliefs with own scientific pursuits. I accept that what I believe, I cannot verify. I accept that I believe it because I want it to be true. So at least I'm honest with myself. Surely I'm not the only one.
I think for many people this is true, but not for all. My own beliefs certaintly don't "explain everything". I'm a Christian, so I don't believe physical death is the end of all life. And I believe that at some point the universe was created by God. But there are still many mysteries out of reach of both science and my philosophy. And there's no way I would try to mingle these beliefs with own scientific pursuits. I accept that what I believe, I cannot verify. I accept that I believe it because I want it to be true. So at least I'm honest with myself. Surely I'm not the only one.
Kind of like when you are on the bus, eh?
If I don't see the old lady with an arm full of stuff, then she don't really exist.
Well, maybe not.
We can't really depend on magic after all, sometimes the world and the various wave fronts collapse whether we are paying attention or not.
Although, solipsistic thinking does become enchanting when I watch TV, I mean, they can not possibly be that stupid, can they?
Maybe, just maybe, you are all a really bad nightmare that I haven't woke up from yet.
If I don't see the old lady with an arm full of stuff, then she don't really exist.
Well, maybe not.
We can't really depend on magic after all, sometimes the world and the various wave fronts collapse whether we are paying attention or not.
Although, solipsistic thinking does become enchanting when I watch TV, I mean, they can not possibly be that stupid, can they?
Maybe, just maybe, you are all a really bad nightmare that I haven't woke up from yet.
Hi All,
I really think that the problem that this effect poses is of truly earth shattering dimension. It has not occurred to me before but this is truly a fundamental property of the Universe (the scaler and vector potentials) and it is highly disturbing that they cannot be measured except in relative terms. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is only a sort of "comparison" with background properties. Knowledge of the absolute value of this quantity is completely hidden, even now. There could be areas of space (and I would be surprized if there were not) which could have these potentials in them but otherwise devoid of fields that we can measure. Clearly we as humans can devise ways to impose these potentials using technical means as in the experiment...
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/abe.cfm
These potentials carry "information" that modifies the properties of spacetime itself in a topological way. Let me restate this in a more directly ... they curve spacetime and alter it's geometry "linearly" (just twiddle a potentiometer and watch the interference fringes move) .... as yet the only way we are able to detect it for sure is comparison with "unaltered" nearby spacetime and notice the way it affects the passage of waves through it. This is not an "interaction" of particles but is a volume effect in the "bulk" of the nearby "space". The screen that records the fringes is incidental to the effect since the interaction occurs in the region of the "slit" and is "unseen" to human eyes and is a quantum property.
It is also path dependent and different paths suffer different topologies. The waves affected by this disturbance are not concerned by distance since it is "winding" topology that determines the phase result and the effect would propagate as far as electromagnetism can propagate (to the ends of the Universe if necessary). The fringes indicate that they impose the equivalent of velocity of propagation modification or at least phase modification. If you can know it... the screen can be as far away as kilometers from the "slit" and the influence will be identical.
If this is the basic reason why there are entangled photons then according to current theory this influence is instantaneous. This matches the properties that affect the entanglement of spatially separated photons with conjugate spins. The two "matched" photons will be related topologically with each other and separation is of no consequence.
So this is a handle on "warping" spacetime and it has been in front of our noses all the time and there are "simple" experiments that demonstrate its effect. Can other topological changes be created by modifying the geometry of the apparatus to create "wormholes" in spacetime or even more exotic effects.
Are there other more widespread phenomena that show this "effect" in other systems such as photons and gravity? Are there any tests of such effects presently existing that have had positive results? I have heard of the Aharonov-Casher effect and it appears to be confirmed. These phenomena seem to speak of the influence of topologically altered spacetime on magnetic particles. It would also seem to me that since photons and their polarization states are affected by magnetism and magnetic fields they too would be affected somehow. You would need to measure the polarization of the waves in passing through such affected areas. Has anyone heard of such things and is there something to know here?
Thezman had said that Einstein had commented on this point...
thezman Posted on Mar 17 2005, 07:43 PM
thezman do you have a reference for this statement? I am always very attentive about what Einstein says about anything in Physics.
Icecycle is right I do not believe in too extreme an interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (solipsism) results in religious dogma as a consequence. For once I no longer believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation there is probably more than one state and a superposition of "real" states is probably more the go. Don't see the link, real events can happen and they may be the result of the unobservable fundamental properties. That does not mean the events are inconsequential or unable to be influenced.
beckerist Posted on Mar 18 2005, 01:24 AM
thezman do you have a reference for this statement? I am always very attentive about what Einstein says about anything in Physics.
Icecycle is right I do not believe in too extreme an interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (solipsism) results in religious dogma as a consequence. For once I no longer believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation there is probably more than one state and a superposition of "real" states is probably more the go. Don't see the link, real events can happen and they may be the result of the unobservable fundamental properties. That does not mean the events are inconsequential or unable to be influenced.
beckerist Posted on Mar 18 2005, 01:24 AM
I think to equate anything to sight and other human senses only goes to show how little we can comprehend.
Yes it is true but the inference goes too far... we can find out more than we presently know and I think as long as science is around that is where we are going. I realize that this is a hard thing but the fact we can influence the property shows that what was physically "impossible" is now just another technical activity. This may be a real modification of spacetime and this has a knock on effect thru all science. How far has this understanding really gone (outside of "wacko" fringies)?
I dunno about you guys but just thinking about this stuff gives me a “buzz”.
Whatever you got cough it up now this elf is “all ears”.
Cheers
I really think that the problem that this effect poses is of truly earth shattering dimension. It has not occurred to me before but this is truly a fundamental property of the Universe (the scaler and vector potentials) and it is highly disturbing that they cannot be measured except in relative terms. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is only a sort of "comparison" with background properties. Knowledge of the absolute value of this quantity is completely hidden, even now. There could be areas of space (and I would be surprized if there were not) which could have these potentials in them but otherwise devoid of fields that we can measure. Clearly we as humans can devise ways to impose these potentials using technical means as in the experiment...
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/abe.cfm
These potentials carry "information" that modifies the properties of spacetime itself in a topological way. Let me restate this in a more directly ... they curve spacetime and alter it's geometry "linearly" (just twiddle a potentiometer and watch the interference fringes move) .... as yet the only way we are able to detect it for sure is comparison with "unaltered" nearby spacetime and notice the way it affects the passage of waves through it. This is not an "interaction" of particles but is a volume effect in the "bulk" of the nearby "space". The screen that records the fringes is incidental to the effect since the interaction occurs in the region of the "slit" and is "unseen" to human eyes and is a quantum property.
It is also path dependent and different paths suffer different topologies. The waves affected by this disturbance are not concerned by distance since it is "winding" topology that determines the phase result and the effect would propagate as far as electromagnetism can propagate (to the ends of the Universe if necessary). The fringes indicate that they impose the equivalent of velocity of propagation modification or at least phase modification. If you can know it... the screen can be as far away as kilometers from the "slit" and the influence will be identical.
If this is the basic reason why there are entangled photons then according to current theory this influence is instantaneous. This matches the properties that affect the entanglement of spatially separated photons with conjugate spins. The two "matched" photons will be related topologically with each other and separation is of no consequence.
So this is a handle on "warping" spacetime and it has been in front of our noses all the time and there are "simple" experiments that demonstrate its effect. Can other topological changes be created by modifying the geometry of the apparatus to create "wormholes" in spacetime or even more exotic effects.
Are there other more widespread phenomena that show this "effect" in other systems such as photons and gravity? Are there any tests of such effects presently existing that have had positive results? I have heard of the Aharonov-Casher effect and it appears to be confirmed. These phenomena seem to speak of the influence of topologically altered spacetime on magnetic particles. It would also seem to me that since photons and their polarization states are affected by magnetism and magnetic fields they too would be affected somehow. You would need to measure the polarization of the waves in passing through such affected areas. Has anyone heard of such things and is there something to know here?
Thezman had said that Einstein had commented on this point...
thezman Posted on Mar 17 2005, 07:43 PM
QUOTE
Einstein once mentioned the proposition that the magnetic vector potential might be used for creating anti-gravity and torsion fields.
thezman do you have a reference for this statement? I am always very attentive about what Einstein says about anything in Physics.
Icecycle is right I do not believe in too extreme an interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (solipsism) results in religious dogma as a consequence. For once I no longer believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation there is probably more than one state and a superposition of "real" states is probably more the go. Don't see the link, real events can happen and they may be the result of the unobservable fundamental properties. That does not mean the events are inconsequential or unable to be influenced.
beckerist Posted on Mar 18 2005, 01:24 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Einstein once mentioned the proposition that the magnetic vector potential might be used for creating anti-gravity and torsion fields. |
thezman do you have a reference for this statement? I am always very attentive about what Einstein says about anything in Physics.
Icecycle is right I do not believe in too extreme an interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation (solipsism) results in religious dogma as a consequence. For once I no longer believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation there is probably more than one state and a superposition of "real" states is probably more the go. Don't see the link, real events can happen and they may be the result of the unobservable fundamental properties. That does not mean the events are inconsequential or unable to be influenced.
beckerist Posted on Mar 18 2005, 01:24 AM
I think to equate anything to sight and other human senses only goes to show how little we can comprehend.
Yes it is true but the inference goes too far... we can find out more than we presently know and I think as long as science is around that is where we are going. I realize that this is a hard thing but the fact we can influence the property shows that what was physically "impossible" is now just another technical activity. This may be a real modification of spacetime and this has a knock on effect thru all science. How far has this understanding really gone (outside of "wacko" fringies)?
I dunno about you guys but just thinking about this stuff gives me a “buzz”.
Whatever you got cough it up now this elf is “all ears”.
Cheers
Hi Goodelf,
I don't have a reference for the einstein idea, but if I remember correctly what I read it was supposedly in one of his papers on a unified field theory from 1928 or 1929.
Also, it is the scaler and vector potential fields that I was talking about a while back when trying to explain my theory of the underlying space/time field. The idea of topology and geometry of these fields was what I was trying to convey with my ideas of structure and symmetry.
z
I don't have a reference for the einstein idea, but if I remember correctly what I read it was supposedly in one of his papers on a unified field theory from 1928 or 1929.
Also, it is the scaler and vector potential fields that I was talking about a while back when trying to explain my theory of the underlying space/time field. The idea of topology and geometry of these fields was what I was trying to convey with my ideas of structure and symmetry.
z
Hi thezman,
thezman Posted on Mar 19 2005, 07:45 PM
Well I can well realize that it meant nothing to me then. I guess you should have mentioned this stuff and maybe the pennies would have dropped. Clearly this is far more significant than I had previously realized. I have been very dismissive in the past about the vector and scalar fields. Its a bit of an "epiphany" for me. Despite all the references to it, if you are not looking for it ... it is not all that prominent.
Maybe you can help me on this point these topological "dislocations" in spacetime initially seem to indicate simple phase changes. They could equally be due to small changes in the velocity of light (sort of like passing through a block of glass) or they could equally be due to a "time dilation field". For instance equivalent to the influence of a massive gravitating body. Instead of the more complicated double slit shown in that Japanese reference to demonstrate the effect without argument, it could easily be replaced by a simple "single" central bar as in these illustrations....
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/www/faculty/s.../abe/index.html
This is clearer for the purpose of discussion. Lets say that the phase difference was in excess of 1000 * pi, before the wavelet strikes the "barrier" it has one basic de Broglie wavelength, after striking the barrier it has the "offset" side to side. Is this "just" quantum tunnelling that many 2 * pi wavelengths? Where do the wavelengths go? It “looks” like there are specific differing delays either side of the “dislocation”. It looks like there are definite advantages to travelling one side or another in overall speed.
Cheers
thezman Posted on Mar 19 2005, 07:45 PM
QUOTE
it is the scaler and vector potential fields that I was talking about a while back when trying to explain my theory of the underlying space/time field. The idea of topology and geometry of these fields was what I was trying to convey with my ideas of structure and symmetry
Well I can well realize that it meant nothing to me then. I guess you should have mentioned this stuff and maybe the pennies would have dropped. Clearly this is far more significant than I had previously realized. I have been very dismissive in the past about the vector and scalar fields. Its a bit of an "epiphany" for me. Despite all the references to it, if you are not looking for it ... it is not all that prominent.
Maybe you can help me on this point these topological "dislocations" in spacetime initially seem to indicate simple phase changes. They could equally be due to small changes in the velocity of light (sort of like passing through a block of glass) or they could equally be due to a "time dilation field". For instance equivalent to the influence of a massive gravitating body. Instead of the more complicated double slit shown in that Japanese reference to demonstrate the effect without argument, it could easily be replaced by a simple "single" central bar as in these illustrations....
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/www/faculty/s.../abe/index.html
This is clearer for the purpose of discussion. Lets say that the phase difference was in excess of 1000 * pi, before the wavelet strikes the "barrier" it has one basic de Broglie wavelength, after striking the barrier it has the "offset" side to side. Is this "just" quantum tunnelling that many 2 * pi wavelengths? Where do the wavelengths go? It “looks” like there are specific differing delays either side of the “dislocation”. It looks like there are definite advantages to travelling one side or another in overall speed.
Cheers
Is this possible, without being metaphysical?
I hope I get this across correctly, is it not true that Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory that can describe the behavior of objects that are roughly 10,000,000,000 times smaller than a typical human being? Quantum particles move from one point to another as if they are waves. However, at a detector they always appear as discrete lumps of matter. There is no counterpart to this behavior in the world that we perceive with our own senses.
For your consideration, what if (not evading the question), from a point of reference out side our 4 dimensional space/time, a physicist view would be 10,000,000,000 times larger. We would be the size of an electron or less, but the force you speak of is the same force in their space/time thus what we observe is like just seeing a micro part of the elephant's tail, if that is the case then entanglement or strangness would not be all that hard to explain from their point of reference.
If we could get outside the box then the connection would be much clearer for we could see we are the quanta and not the macro world in which we preceive ourselves. We all are connected and cohesive but from different states!
This is in response to beckerist and WaterBreath. "Schrodingers Kittens and the Search for Reality." and "Examining incohesive."
My question to you, is Super String Theory, the ghost?
I hope I get this across correctly, is it not true that Quantum mechanics is a mathematical theory that can describe the behavior of objects that are roughly 10,000,000,000 times smaller than a typical human being? Quantum particles move from one point to another as if they are waves. However, at a detector they always appear as discrete lumps of matter. There is no counterpart to this behavior in the world that we perceive with our own senses.
For your consideration, what if (not evading the question), from a point of reference out side our 4 dimensional space/time, a physicist view would be 10,000,000,000 times larger. We would be the size of an electron or less, but the force you speak of is the same force in their space/time thus what we observe is like just seeing a micro part of the elephant's tail, if that is the case then entanglement or strangness would not be all that hard to explain from their point of reference.
If we could get outside the box then the connection would be much clearer for we could see we are the quanta and not the macro world in which we preceive ourselves. We all are connected and cohesive but from different states!
This is in response to beckerist and WaterBreath. "Schrodingers Kittens and the Search for Reality." and "Examining incohesive."
My question to you, is Super String Theory, the ghost?
Hi Good elf,
I have had some vasgue thoughts that the scaler/vector field ideas could go along way to explaiining the apparent refraction of light in a gravitational field as well as accelerated expansion, dark energy, and frame dragging. If it gets more coherent I'll post.
z
I have had some vasgue thoughts that the scaler/vector field ideas could go along way to explaiining the apparent refraction of light in a gravitational field as well as accelerated expansion, dark energy, and frame dragging. If it gets more coherent I'll post.
z
Hi yquantum
yquantum Posted: Mar 20 2005, 05:27 PM
Well you are right. Almost all the laws of physics are formulated as Gauge Theories. These attempt to compare things on different scales. Some of these comparisons are pretty straight forward such as the Lorentz Gauge (Einsteins Special Theory)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/...res/node18.html
But others are not so obvious such as the gauges that relate electromagnetism and the electro-weak and electro-strong forces. Nevertheless they are generally Gauge Theories too. What that means is "sort of"...
Well you are right. Almost all the laws of physics are formulated as Gauge Theories. These attempt to compare things on different scales. Some of these comparisons are pretty straight forward such as the Lorentz Gauge (Einsteins Special Theory)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/...res/node18.html
But others are not so obvious such as the gauges that relate electromagnetism and the electro-weak and electro-strong forces. Nevertheless they are generally Gauge Theories too. What that means is "sort of"...
As above so below
What to do about all this is the hard question.
It is quite complex.
Cheers
yquantum Posted: Mar 20 2005, 05:27 PM
QUOTE
a physicist view would be 10,000,000,000 times larger. We would be the size of an electron or less, but the force you speak of is the same force in their space/time thus what we observe is like just seeing a micro part of the elephant's tail, if that is the case then entanglement or strangeness would not be all that hard to explain from their point of reference.
Well you are right. Almost all the laws of physics are formulated as Gauge Theories. These attempt to compare things on different scales. Some of these comparisons are pretty straight forward such as the Lorentz Gauge (Einsteins Special Theory)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/...res/node18.html
But others are not so obvious such as the gauges that relate electromagnetism and the electro-weak and electro-strong forces. Nevertheless they are generally Gauge Theories too. What that means is "sort of"...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| a physicist view would be 10,000,000,000 times larger. We would be the size of an electron or less, but the force you speak of is the same force in their space/time thus what we observe is like just seeing a micro part of the elephant's tail, if that is the case then entanglement or strangeness would not be all that hard to explain from their point of reference. |
Well you are right. Almost all the laws of physics are formulated as Gauge Theories. These attempt to compare things on different scales. Some of these comparisons are pretty straight forward such as the Lorentz Gauge (Einsteins Special Theory)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/...res/node18.html
But others are not so obvious such as the gauges that relate electromagnetism and the electro-weak and electro-strong forces. Nevertheless they are generally Gauge Theories too. What that means is "sort of"...
As above so below
What to do about all this is the hard question.
It is quite complex.
Cheers
Hi thezman,
thezman Posted on Mar 20 2005, 07:51 PM
Thanks for what you have already said I will keep looking around. Yup... do that. I get a sore head too. It is not easy.
Cheers
thezman Posted on Mar 20 2005, 07:51 PM
QUOTE
I have had some vague thoughts that the scaler/vector field ideas could go along way to explaining the apparent refraction of light in a gravitational field as well as accelerated expansion, dark energy, and frame dragging. If it gets more coherent I'll post.
Thanks for what you have already said I will keep looking around. Yup... do that. I get a sore head too. It is not easy.
Cheers
Hi Good elf,
I was thinking that the scaler/vector field potentials could define the topology and geometry (structure and symmetry) underlying all of space time.
Modifications of and interactions with these fields could be responsible for all physical phenomena.
In GR these could be modified by the energy/momentum tensor, which itself is a form of a scaler/vector field.
It may be that all the theories and maths thereof extant today is some way take into account these scaler/vector fields without actually defining what they are.
z
I was thinking that the scaler/vector field potentials could define the topology and geometry (structure and symmetry) underlying all of space time.
Modifications of and interactions with these fields could be responsible for all physical phenomena.
In GR these could be modified by the energy/momentum tensor, which itself is a form of a scaler/vector field.
It may be that all the theories and maths thereof extant today is some way take into account these scaler/vector fields without actually defining what they are.
z
Hi thezman,
thezman Posted on Mar 22 2005, 08:01 PM
Yeah.. you got that in one! The theory suggests that the real fundamental "stuff" of electromagnetism is not electric and magnetic fields but these "elusive" potentials that are not able to be given an "absolute" measured figure. There is no instrument to measure this stuff (as least as far as I know). This Aharonov-Bohm effect only allows us to detect the presence of the field under special topological modifications (that we need to set up) to even see it.
This is really only the beginning though since these are just the special cases where the potentials are in "stationary states" (sounds familiar doesn't it?) where there are no residual fields. This then produces EM-free spacetime but there is this peculiar "nothing" action at a distance field (due to EM fields elsewhere) that is not a particle to particle interaction and seems to propagate instantly (like quantum entanglement). The "effect" would be there independent of the "detecting particles" since the potential actually is modifying the properties of spacetime topology in a very controllable way.
This thread jumped a bit over to an old post that has long since died (quantum entanglement) due to yquantum reactivating it. I guess he felt that he did not want to upset the flow here but please go there and have a look at what we both put there. See what you think?
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Quantum Entanglement
Quantum Entanglement
There is another thread recently started by Whitestar that I thought also needed input because it was along the same lines.
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter
The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter
Elf brain go "pop". Back to you on this one....
Cheers
thezman Posted on Mar 22 2005, 08:01 PM
QUOTE
I was thinking that the scaler/vector field potentials could define the topology and geometry (structure and symmetry) underlying all of space time
Yeah.. you got that in one! The theory suggests that the real fundamental "stuff" of electromagnetism is not electric and magnetic fields but these "elusive" potentials that are not able to be given an "absolute" measured figure. There is no instrument to measure this stuff (as least as far as I know). This Aharonov-Bohm effect only allows us to detect the presence of the field under special topological modifications (that we need to set up) to even see it.
This is really only the beginning though since these are just the special cases where the potentials are in "stationary states" (sounds familiar doesn't it?) where there are no residual fields. This then produces EM-free spacetime but there is this peculiar "nothing" action at a distance field (due to EM fields elsewhere) that is not a particle to particle interaction and seems to propagate instantly (like quantum entanglement). The "effect" would be there independent of the "detecting particles" since the potential actually is modifying the properties of spacetime topology in a very controllable way.
This thread jumped a bit over to an old post that has long since died (quantum entanglement) due to yquantum reactivating it. I guess he felt that he did not want to upset the flow here but please go there and have a look at what we both put there. See what you think?
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Quantum Entanglement
Quantum Entanglement
There is another thread recently started by Whitestar that I thought also needed input because it was along the same lines.
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter
The Quantum Tunneling Teleporter
Elf brain go "pop". Back to you on this one....
Cheers
Hi Good Elf and thezman
You are correct in your assessment, when friends work and theorize, it's the only way to make life endurable so I did not want to add to the entanglement. But the wave packet collapsed on my E-mail and said "you have E-mail," so please excuse me for crashing a productive dialogue!
With so much going on I have but a few, and maybe, come to think about it for you two, that could be a good thing.
Anyway the Aharonov-Bohm effect depends upon quantum interference but you both know this, nothing new. I wanted to check on something I have not been involved in for sometime, but now that you have mentioned frame-dragging you both know that it has proven 90% of G.R. - look into it.
Remember Good Elf about Weyl's "it originally did play a role as a path-dependent 'gauging.' remember 'Yang-Mills' with the description of both weak and strong interactions in particles physicst.
I believe you will find that Energy/momentum must be conserved as you well know, so watch out for the "black holes" pun intended. We live with scaler/vector fields etc, and now we should define them but how, Entanglement may even give us the math engine of QM. I'm beginning to think so!
I would love for you guys to come up with it before the Super Strings Physicists do. It will not hurt my feelings.
It is at the very heart of quantum mechanics, not just for the philosophers. I believe so strongly you have something. I will be reading YOUR great ideas! If you come up with something profound just E-mail each other. But you know that also..........
Best regards to great minds - happy hunting-,
yquantum and his typo's had to hurry!
You are correct in your assessment, when friends work and theorize, it's the only way to make life endurable so I did not want to add to the entanglement. But the wave packet collapsed on my E-mail and said "you have E-mail," so please excuse me for crashing a productive dialogue!
With so much going on I have but a few, and maybe, come to think about it for you two, that could be a good thing.
Anyway the Aharonov-Bohm effect depends upon quantum interference but you both know this, nothing new. I wanted to check on something I have not been involved in for sometime, but now that you have mentioned frame-dragging you both know that it has proven 90% of G.R. - look into it.
Remember Good Elf about Weyl's "it originally did play a role as a path-dependent 'gauging.' remember 'Yang-Mills' with the description of both weak and strong interactions in particles physicst.
I believe you will find that Energy/momentum must be conserved as you well know, so watch out for the "black holes" pun intended. We live with scaler/vector fields etc, and now we should define them but how, Entanglement may even give us the math engine of QM. I'm beginning to think so!
I would love for you guys to come up with it before the Super Strings Physicists do. It will not hurt my feelings.
It is at the very heart of quantum mechanics, not just for the philosophers. I believe so strongly you have something. I will be reading YOUR great ideas! If you come up with something profound just E-mail each other. But you know that also..........
Best regards to great minds - happy hunting-,
yquantum and his typo's had to hurry!
Hi Good elf,
Here's an article on a new way of looking at what light is.
http://www.physorg.com/news3459.html
In the article light is said to be "a shimmering of ever-present vectors in empty space". To me this sounds like light being defined as a modification of a basic scaler/vector field potential.
A guess you could say that light may be a propagation of a disturbance in the basic scaler/vector potential fields.
Also, the scaler/vector field potentials could be responsible for entanglement. The field modification could encompass both particles until one is measured, at which time the scaler/vector field potential link is severed.
z
Here's an article on a new way of looking at what light is.
http://www.physorg.com/news3459.html
In the article light is said to be "a shimmering of ever-present vectors in empty space". To me this sounds like light being defined as a modification of a basic scaler/vector field potential.
A guess you could say that light may be a propagation of a disturbance in the basic scaler/vector potential fields.
Also, the scaler/vector field potentials could be responsible for entanglement. The field modification could encompass both particles until one is measured, at which time the scaler/vector field potential link is severed.
z
Hi thezman,
Just a question that you might be able to answer for me, Was it Alan Kostelecky that suggested this about light also said about the elusive neutrino might actually be a tachyon?
Just wondered if you knew because I am looking in other subject right now.,
Thanks,
yquantum
Just a question that you might be able to answer for me, Was it Alan Kostelecky that suggested this about light also said about the elusive neutrino might actually be a tachyon?
Just wondered if you knew because I am looking in other subject right now.,
Thanks,
yquantum
Hi thezman and yquantum,
yquantum Posted on Mar 28 2005, 01:32 AM
Yes... he is the co-author of the paper. Don't know about neutrinos.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412320
thezman Posted on Mar 27 2005, 07:36 PM
Yes... he is the co-author of the paper. Don't know about neutrinos.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412320
thezman Posted on Mar 27 2005, 07:36 PM
In the article light is said to be "a shimmering of ever-present vectors in empty space". To me this sounds like light being defined as a modification of a basic scaler/vector field potential
Ummm... could be... but what about Occams Razor?
It is an interesting speculation at this stage and I doubt that it can be tested since it involves planck length phenomena. I note that there are no experiments or convincing data at present to indicate that there is any "structure" at that level of the Universe (still conjecture) but I acknowledge that whole branches of quantum theory insist on its existence without proof (eg supersymmetry and string theory). Sigh... there is no defense against a "belief" that has no testing.
I find propositions that resort to experimentation outside of human technology to test very frustrating. I hope this is not true because it will mean an end to Physics as a Science and the beginning of Physics as a Religion. We surely have enough "religion" for all of us at present without another contender. It will also be a sad day if and when Science actually 'hits the wall" especially if it happens prematurely. That will be the day I lose interest in "Science".
Cheers
yquantum Posted on Mar 28 2005, 01:32 AM
QUOTE
Was it Alan Kostelecky that suggested this about light
Yes... he is the co-author of the paper. Don't know about neutrinos.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412320
thezman Posted on Mar 27 2005, 07:36 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Was it Alan Kostelecky that suggested this about light |
Yes... he is the co-author of the paper. Don't know about neutrinos.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412320
thezman Posted on Mar 27 2005, 07:36 PM
In the article light is said to be "a shimmering of ever-present vectors in empty space". To me this sounds like light being defined as a modification of a basic scaler/vector field potential
Ummm... could be... but what about Occams Razor?
It is an interesting speculation at this stage and I doubt that it can be tested since it involves planck length phenomena. I note that there are no experiments or convincing data at present to indicate that there is any "structure" at that level of the Universe (still conjecture) but I acknowledge that whole branches of quantum theory insist on its existence without proof (eg supersymmetry and string theory). Sigh... there is no defense against a "belief" that has no testing.
I find propositions that resort to experimentation outside of human technology to test very frustrating. I hope this is not true because it will mean an end to Physics as a Science and the beginning of Physics as a Religion. We surely have enough "religion" for all of us at present without another contender. It will also be a sad day if and when Science actually 'hits the wall" especially if it happens prematurely. That will be the day I lose interest in "Science".
Cheers
Good Elf,
Ask most physicists about tachyons just love debates, however, and you'll be told that they belong strictly in the realm of science fiction (never say never). That skepticism is understandable, since nearly all experiments searching for tachyons have so far turned up negative. Even worse, according to some physicists, if tachyons exist, they could be used to send messages back in time(do not think so, it would be only 0.00006% faster I believe I will look later). Nevertheless, over the years a few physicists have held out hope that tachyons might actually exist --possibly disguised as some other known particle.
Found out;
In fact, in 1985 Alan Chodos, Avi Hauser, and Alan Kostelecky suggested that the elusive neutrino might actually be a tachyon. Over the years, neutrinos, which are produced in nuclear reactions such as those inside the sun, have been full of surprises. Just last year, for example, it was shown that one or more of the three types of neutrinos has a small but nonzero mass. If neutrinos really are tachyons, this would be their biggest surprise of all.
Good Elf and thezman heard of the name just had to place it, by the way
G. E. do not lose faith -- this type of approach is Science we do not mind the heat in the kitchen (turn up the heat) Religion and Science the two shall not mix unless you want to be metaphysical.
I always try and keep it simple on the Forum, we deal with abstract math and theroy all the time and it is nice to have your feet touching the concrete and I do not mean philosophy-great reprieve for the mind-still searching? But use it when it is required, somethimes it is the only way!
Best regards,
y
Ask most physicists about tachyons just love debates, however, and you'll be told that they belong strictly in the realm of science fiction (never say never). That skepticism is understandable, since nearly all experiments searching for tachyons have so far turned up negative. Even worse, according to some physicists, if tachyons exist, they could be used to send messages back in time(do not think so, it would be only 0.00006% faster I believe I will look later). Nevertheless, over the years a few physicists have held out hope that tachyons might actually exist --possibly disguised as some other known particle.
Found out;
In fact, in 1985 Alan Chodos, Avi Hauser, and Alan Kostelecky suggested that the elusive neutrino might actually be a tachyon. Over the years, neutrinos, which are produced in nuclear reactions such as those inside the sun, have been full of surprises. Just last year, for example, it was shown that one or more of the three types of neutrinos has a small but nonzero mass. If neutrinos really are tachyons, this would be their biggest surprise of all.
Good Elf and thezman heard of the name just had to place it, by the way
G. E. do not lose faith -- this type of approach is Science we do not mind the heat in the kitchen (turn up the heat) Religion and Science the two shall not mix unless you want to be metaphysical.
I always try and keep it simple on the Forum, we deal with abstract math and theroy all the time and it is nice to have your feet touching the concrete and I do not mean philosophy-great reprieve for the mind-still searching? But use it when it is required, somethimes it is the only way!
Best regards,
y
QUOTE (Paddibaldi+Jan 27 2005, 05:24 PM)
Yes, Waterbreath is very, very clever.............
If God exists, is conscious and is all powerful, then why, if it is considered bad, does God allow an infant to suffer and die in a fire?
If God exists, is conscious but is not all powerful, is the Universe in jeapordy, or does the Universe require "maintenance" at all. If this is true, why is God called God?
If God exists but is not conscious then, well nothing matters, except to say that our perception of reality is based on what we percieve as logic, and perhaps the Universe is the expression of a set of mathematical rules.
However, consider the first God statement. Is OUR sense of bad and good different from God's?
Maybe the reason why these things confound our understanding is because our set of logic rules and hence our understanding of mathematics, doesn't allow us to understand this thing called reality. This is especially true when dealing with quantum stuff. Whoever will experience this directly except by inference? Will we have the same problem as Einstein had/ The explaination/prediction but not the reason why or how..
True God may be nothing more than the universe itself and our shared experience of it. It seems to me that question of probabilities and observations are related to the nature of consciousness and issues of free will. The fact that we can choose to walk forward or jump forward in perhaps a small moment of whimsy seems to me related. The idea of allowing an infant to die and if it is God's will is one of those deeper questions that the answer to will never be satisfying. However, when one considers the tragedies that men impose upon each other and the nature of "evil" also are related to the nature of free will. It seems to me that God did engrain freewill into the laws of the universe and must when doing so see the wisdom of allowing things to happen in and of themselves in order to have a richer and more varied universe. If this is truly wisdom I don't know, however if I were an artist and created something that truly lived, it would be very satisfying indeed and I would have to have consciousness in order to enjoy it. oops! I'm going off into the deep end.
If God exists, is conscious and is all powerful, then why, if it is considered bad, does God allow an infant to suffer and die in a fire?
If God exists, is conscious but is not all powerful, is the Universe in jeapordy, or does the Universe require "maintenance" at all. If this is true, why is God called God?
If God exists but is not conscious then, well nothing matters, except to say that our perception of reality is based on what we percieve as logic, and perhaps the Universe is the expression of a set of mathematical rules.
However, consider the first God statement. Is OUR sense of bad and good different from God's?
Maybe the reason why these things confound our understanding is because our set of logic rules and hence our understanding of mathematics, doesn't allow us to understand this thing called reality. This is especially true when dealing with quantum stuff. Whoever will experience this directly except by inference? Will we have the same problem as Einstein had/ The explaination/prediction but not the reason why or how..
True God may be nothing more than the universe itself and our shared experience of it. It seems to me that question of probabilities and observations are related to the nature of consciousness and issues of free will. The fact that we can choose to walk forward or jump forward in perhaps a small moment of whimsy seems to me related. The idea of allowing an infant to die and if it is God's will is one of those deeper questions that the answer to will never be satisfying. However, when one considers the tragedies that men impose upon each other and the nature of "evil" also are related to the nature of free will. It seems to me that God did engrain freewill into the laws of the universe and must when doing so see the wisdom of allowing things to happen in and of themselves in order to have a richer and more varied universe. If this is truly wisdom I don't know, however if I were an artist and created something that truly lived, it would be very satisfying indeed and I would have to have consciousness in order to enjoy it. oops! I'm going off into the deep end.
Waterbreath,
We all have question do you not just love it, not here to be philosophical.
Just someting to think about, I am going to regret this I know.
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men.
~Albert Einstein~
I am not even qualified to walk in this man's shadow when it comes to deep thinkers.
Best regards,
yquantum
We all have question do you not just love it, not here to be philosophical.
Just someting to think about, I am going to regret this I know.
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men.
~Albert Einstein~
I am not even qualified to walk in this man's shadow when it comes to deep thinkers.
Best regards,
yquantum
yquantum,
Not sure if you meant to be responding to me, or to the guest "aaron" that posted a quote from a response to me. I'm not the one that brought in the philosophical questions. That was Paddibaldi in a response that began with a compliment on some observations I made regarding quantum coherence and the interconnectedness of seemingly separate systems.
To be honest, I'm not really sure how Paddibaldi's comments followed from mine. I didn't understand the connection.
Not sure if you meant to be responding to me, or to the guest "aaron" that posted a quote from a response to me. I'm not the one that brought in the philosophical questions. That was Paddibaldi in a response that began with a compliment on some observations I made regarding quantum coherence and the interconnectedness of seemingly separate systems.
To be honest, I'm not really sure how Paddibaldi's comments followed from mine. I didn't understand the connection.
Hi WaterBreath,
Please forgive me, you are right. I told (now I know it was aaron) I would regret saying it. I do not like to mix true, falling into the trap. I will stop right now.
When you figure out what he or she meant please let me know. So I do not trip again!!!!!!
I will learn one day!
Best Regards,
yquantum
Please forgive me, you are right. I told (now I know it was aaron) I would regret saying it. I do not like to mix true, falling into the trap. I will stop right now.
When you figure out what he or she meant please let me know. So I do not trip again!!!!!!
I will learn one day!
Best Regards,
yquantum
How would deism fit into this? Deism is basically the belief that there is/was a god who designed the universe, but then left it to its own devices. I suppose that all that would do differently is make the current revelations and "miracles" not true, or explanable by other means. My question is really looking for, though, do you feel that God is changing things (if there is one) or are all the properties of the universe already set, we just don't have the ability to comprehend it yet?
~JS
~JS
Hi beckerist,
Great question, I guss from Mars Hill to Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein, and Stephen W. Hawking, etc. Guess it has been on the mind of the human race and will, till the Big Crunch (just a saying, not a point of view).
I am already in hot water due to my lack of wisdom. So because if you have one million people you have one million points of reference. eh!
Find the answer, please get back with me,
I am big enough to say I do not know! ?
Best regards,
yquantum
Great question, I guss from Mars Hill to Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein, and Stephen W. Hawking, etc. Guess it has been on the mind of the human race and will, till the Big Crunch (just a saying, not a point of view).
I am already in hot water due to my lack of wisdom. So because if you have one million people you have one million points of reference. eh!
Find the answer, please get back with me,
I am big enough to say I do not know! ?
Best regards,
yquantum
Hi yquantum, beckerist and those unquiet spirits out there,
yquantum Posted on Mar 29 2005, 04:09 PM
Here you both are asking "really big" questions and you have the scientific method at your disposal to either prove or disprove the "really big" questions. I am sure "God" will not mind if you test him. As with any good theories "put them up" then demonstrate the answer with the "test"... the Universe will answer... not our ego's talking out of our a*s (no disrespect intended). What follows is aimed at no one in particular but everyone in general.
Warning: Elf Attack in progress....
I understand that people have a desire to have spiritual experience but lack the imagination to think about it the same way they would other phenomena. The real trouble is that the real "God" is not in our image and we don't like what we see.
Here you both are asking "really big" questions and you have the scientific method at your disposal to either prove or disprove the "really big" questions. I am sure "God" will not mind if you test him. As with any good theories "put them up" then demonstrate the answer with the "test"... the Universe will answer... not our ego's talking out of our a*s (no disrespect intended). What follows is aimed at no one in particular but everyone in general.
Warning: Elf Attack in progress....
I understand that people have a desire to have spiritual experience but lack the imagination to think about it the same way they would other phenomena. The real trouble is that the real "God" is not in our image and we don't like what we see.
Don't expect anything original from an echo. ~Author Unknown
He is not going to avenge us... He will not do tricks... He doesn't speak our language... It requires us to be too patient and to listen to His "voice" - his creation (as if it wasn't loud enough).... He doesn't attend your churches... He will not be manipulated by your incessant pleading and moaning.... He may not be a "He".... He is stopping us going faster than light... He has not made us rich enough... He doesn't take your bribes at the offering... In war He may not take our side... He owes you doesn't He???
Well I am very sorry if He really is a "God of the gaps"... the huge gaps between our needs and our wants. We seem to not find God in any of these things. It is time to do what we can do and ask questions that "God" can answer... and will gladly answer. Maybe that will fill a lot of empty lives. If we can solve some of the real issues that cause suffering on the Earth then maybe we will be able to ask some honest questions and we will finally get some honest answers.
Thanks to yquantum above...
"The Grail serves those who serve..."
Cheers
yquantum Posted on Mar 29 2005, 04:09 PM
QUOTE
Find the answer, please get back with me,
I am big enough to say I do not know! ?
I am big enough to say I do not know! ?
Here you both are asking "really big" questions and you have the scientific method at your disposal to either prove or disprove the "really big" questions. I am sure "God" will not mind if you test him. As with any good theories "put them up" then demonstrate the answer with the "test"... the Universe will answer... not our ego's talking out of our a*s (no disrespect intended). What follows is aimed at no one in particular but everyone in general.
Warning: Elf Attack in progress....
I understand that people have a desire to have spiritual experience but lack the imagination to think about it the same way they would other phenomena. The real trouble is that the real "God" is not in our image and we don't like what we see.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Find the answer, please get back with me, I am big enough to say I do not know! ? |
Here you both are asking "really big" questions and you have the scientific method at your disposal to either prove or disprove the "really big" questions. I am sure "God" will not mind if you test him. As with any good theories "put them up" then demonstrate the answer with the "test"... the Universe will answer... not our ego's talking out of our a*s (no disrespect intended). What follows is aimed at no one in particular but everyone in general.
Warning: Elf Attack in progress....
I understand that people have a desire to have spiritual experience but lack the imagination to think about it the same way they would other phenomena. The real trouble is that the real "God" is not in our image and we don't like what we see.
Don't expect anything original from an echo. ~Author Unknown
He is not going to avenge us... He will not do tricks... He doesn't speak our language... It requires us to be too patient and to listen to His "voice" - his creation (as if it wasn't loud enough).... He doesn't attend your churches... He will not be manipulated by your incessant pleading and moaning.... He may not be a "He".... He is stopping us going faster than light... He has not made us rich enough... He doesn't take your bribes at the offering... In war He may not take our side... He owes you doesn't He???
Well I am very sorry if He really is a "God of the gaps"... the huge gaps between our needs and our wants. We seem to not find God in any of these things. It is time to do what we can do and ask questions that "God" can answer... and will gladly answer. Maybe that will fill a lot of empty lives. If we can solve some of the real issues that cause suffering on the Earth then maybe we will be able to ask some honest questions and we will finally get some honest answers.
QUOTE
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. ~Albert Einstein
Thanks to yquantum above...
"The Grail serves those who serve..."
Cheers
There's lots of speculation on how far we should take this "indeterminate state" thing - if you cannot observe it, it has no state. In short, the argument is that anything that is immediately outside of my field of vision does not exist. Literally. Likewise, state only comes to finalization just as it is observed - also known as "late binding", and "JIT Compiling". You're saying that the universe is written in Java, for chrissakes... no wonder Time moves so slow. And it's written by people who couldn't handle VB! 
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I had ya going, though, I know it. On the good side, it means that Black Holes are actually just a garbage collection routine for boneheads who cannot manage their pointers. Any "information loss" actually happened a long time before the stuff fell in... that should make Hawking happy, at least.
Someone earlier wrote,
"The appearance of so called "ghosts" may also be some temporal barrier penetration which is disturbed by observation. "
Not likely. There's plenty of anecdotle experience where the "appearance" survives observation in a sustained fashion... including but not limited to real interaction.
Not wanting to change this topic to ghost stories, but there's an easier solution that's much more consistent. And most importantly, it explains something.
Pick your favorite camera ghost - you know, five people in a room, noone sees anything. Some jerk takes a photo, and there's this ghost-fog-thing in the picture. Someone chases one down with an EMF detector and shoots a roll, bang - they get it on film exactly as predicted, a nice white fog with a defined depth - sometimes in front of an object, sometimes partially behind. For sake of argument, let's pretend that at least one of these photos is legit. Let's see what must be true for our "white fog ghost" to happen on film, when noone in the room can see it.
a) Film works because of emulsions that are photosensitive. Each emulsion tends to be sensitive to a specific color. Our "ghost"... is.... (drumroll) white. I don't care what it is, but it's emitting a wide spectrum. The result on the film demands it.
b ) Film works because photons hit it. Either in a dark area with no flash, or a bright area - the "ghost" will wash-out (overexpose) the region of film that it hits. It's a bright little thing, isn't it...
c) It's really bright, and tossing out a big pile of visible frequencies. And, we cannot see it. Yeah, right... or no, maybe we can't. We have proof (the film) that the photons are emitted. What we don't know is the time interval that they were emitted. You can pump a million photons into our film over the course of an hour like the astro-geeks do, or you can pump a million photons over a millisecond. Assuming nothing melts, the result on the film will be the same... it is effectively a photon counter as far as we're concerned, and nothing more. So, why don't we see them? It's a fast period. On for a zillisecond, off for... who knows, one second, one hour, whatever. As we suddenly remember the Movie Theater trick of subliminal advertising, a good duty cycle would do a nice job of making photons appear on film without us "seeing" them.
d) So, let's pretend that's the case. Of course, physiologists will tell us that we *do* in fact see them - but we do not perceive them consciously or some other blather... instead, we're left wanting popcorn, a coke, and to buy more movie tickets. For ghost stories. We'll walk into a basement of an old house - nice and haunted with these fast-blinky things that might be wafting around - and we'll "feel" lots of motion or activity around us, but not "see" it. "There's something down here."
e) On the good side, this can be easily demonstrated (or disproven). A real short dutycycle with a real wide spectrum means you've got one *very* big spike to look for. Hell, even I could probably find it. If you're really bored, grab some used fiber test equip (the kind you'd use to locate defects) and make some mods, and you can probably track position in real time.
f) Once that's done, it's time for torture. I'm really surprised noone has ever tried any of this, it's *so* obvious. Is there a static field around the ghost that makes your arm-hair stand up? GET A BALLOON, rub it on your head, and stick it in your ghost. If it works on my cat, it'll work on this ghost - and probably with the same result. Is there a "cold spot"? Ooo! Endothermic, it wants heat! Two words: HAIR DRYER. Never been done, which is sad. Just sucking it through a hair dryer is only one use, though - whatever this "ghost" is, it has proximity. It's also tracking along with our planet, which would take a *lot* of effort. OTOH, it'd make perfect sense if it was in fact *dragged* along by our planet just like the rest of us, because it is subject to gravity. Ooo! Mass! And, Momentum. Lets turn our hairdryer around, and see if we can "blow" it around the room. It might work, it might not - and how much it'd work would give us a mild indicator of density. Or at least, density when it's "in view", spitting photons at us.
Oh well, back to our regularly scheduled topic...
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I had ya going, though, I know it. On the good side, it means that Black Holes are actually just a garbage collection routine for boneheads who cannot manage their pointers. Any "information loss" actually happened a long time before the stuff fell in... that should make Hawking happy, at least.
Someone earlier wrote,
"The appearance of so called "ghosts" may also be some temporal barrier penetration which is disturbed by observation. "
Not likely. There's plenty of anecdotle experience where the "appearance" survives observation in a sustained fashion... including but not limited to real interaction.
Not wanting to change this topic to ghost stories, but there's an easier solution that's much more consistent. And most importantly, it explains something.
Pick your favorite camera ghost - you know, five people in a room, noone sees anything. Some jerk takes a photo, and there's this ghost-fog-thing in the picture. Someone chases one down with an EMF detector and shoots a roll, bang - they get it on film exactly as predicted, a nice white fog with a defined depth - sometimes in front of an object, sometimes partially behind. For sake of argument, let's pretend that at least one of these photos is legit. Let's see what must be true for our "white fog ghost" to happen on film, when noone in the room can see it.
a) Film works because of emulsions that are photosensitive. Each emulsion tends to be sensitive to a specific color. Our "ghost"... is.... (drumroll) white. I don't care what it is, but it's emitting a wide spectrum. The result on the film demands it.
b ) Film works because photons hit it. Either in a dark area with no flash, or a bright area - the "ghost" will wash-out (overexpose) the region of film that it hits. It's a bright little thing, isn't it...
c) It's really bright, and tossing out a big pile of visible frequencies. And, we cannot see it. Yeah, right... or no, maybe we can't. We have proof (the film) that the photons are emitted. What we don't know is the time interval that they were emitted. You can pump a million photons into our film over the course of an hour like the astro-geeks do, or you can pump a million photons over a millisecond. Assuming nothing melts, the result on the film will be the same... it is effectively a photon counter as far as we're concerned, and nothing more. So, why don't we see them? It's a fast period. On for a zillisecond, off for... who knows, one second, one hour, whatever. As we suddenly remember the Movie Theater trick of subliminal advertising, a good duty cycle would do a nice job of making photons appear on film without us "seeing" them.
d) So, let's pretend that's the case. Of course, physiologists will tell us that we *do* in fact see them - but we do not perceive them consciously or some other blather... instead, we're left wanting popcorn, a coke, and to buy more movie tickets. For ghost stories. We'll walk into a basement of an old house - nice and haunted with these fast-blinky things that might be wafting around - and we'll "feel" lots of motion or activity around us, but not "see" it. "There's something down here."
e) On the good side, this can be easily demonstrated (or disproven). A real short dutycycle with a real wide spectrum means you've got one *very* big spike to look for. Hell, even I could probably find it. If you're really bored, grab some used fiber test equip (the kind you'd use to locate defects) and make some mods, and you can probably track position in real time.
f) Once that's done, it's time for torture. I'm really surprised noone has ever tried any of this, it's *so* obvious. Is there a static field around the ghost that makes your arm-hair stand up? GET A BALLOON, rub it on your head, and stick it in your ghost. If it works on my cat, it'll work on this ghost - and probably with the same result. Is there a "cold spot"? Ooo! Endothermic, it wants heat! Two words: HAIR DRYER. Never been done, which is sad. Just sucking it through a hair dryer is only one use, though - whatever this "ghost" is, it has proximity. It's also tracking along with our planet, which would take a *lot* of effort. OTOH, it'd make perfect sense if it was in fact *dragged* along by our planet just like the rest of us, because it is subject to gravity. Ooo! Mass! And, Momentum. Lets turn our hairdryer around, and see if we can "blow" it around the room. It might work, it might not - and how much it'd work would give us a mild indicator of density. Or at least, density when it's "in view", spitting photons at us.
Oh well, back to our regularly scheduled topic...
Steve,
Are we back?
I have been doing some extra research and away from this site. What is the - Question ? It looks like you and Good Elf have puts it back on track and sounds great, but I want to make sure before I go any further! eh!
Best regards,
yquantum
Are we back?
I have been doing some extra research and away from this site. What is the - Question ? It looks like you and Good Elf have puts it back on track and sounds great, but I want to make sure before I go any further! eh!
Best regards,
yquantum
Hi yquantum and Steve,
The discussion about ghosts is interesting because I think they may be a quantum process. This could be "purely" a quantum process and is like so many virtual photons that pop in and out of our Universe. The act of observation could disturb the quantum event just like too much light in a double slit experiment ruins the interference fringes. They "work" best in the near dark but like any "object" you need some light to see them... I really do not think they are luminous but work by "reflected" light just like us. Unfortunately the more light the less the observation will be. You are collapsing the quantum superposition of states and our Universe does not have this "beastie" in it (not permanently that is).
This question of why ghosts are dragged around by our world. They are affected by spacetime curvature (gravity) and other electromagnetic effects (even the Aharonov-Bohm Effect) but probably not directly from our Universe.
Steve Posted on Mar 31 2005, 08:58 AM
Not really - we are too influenced by the Movies and TV where the special effects are "less subtle". Almost every "real" story I have heard... ghosts "appear" like real people just sort of "washed out" and reflecting light rather than emitting light. To be seen they usually hang out in shadows or low light. I think the same goes for physical interaction since this would be rarely possible being an interaction of virtual photons which result in "force". All the pictures we have of people are by reflected light so I think it is the same.
My conjecture is that ghosts are from a parallel dimension linked to our Universe very loosely and are true quantum phenomena that seem able to persist for long periods of time because they are 'prevented" from "discharging" into the environment by some "system" forbidden energy state. Sort of an afterimage of someone that used to live here but now confined to a "stationary" state, able to preserve aspects of whom they were.
This is good since that this then provides the Universe with "stored" experience. If I were a Universe that is exactly what I would evolve! I know what you are all going to say that this all has something to do with "God". I wish! It is a continuation of this life and I don't know how long it lasts. It may slowly "wind on down". Maybe you need to reincarnate to "charge up" after a while. This would potentially pass on to the next generation something from previous generations something like our genetic code but far more personal and individualistic. This is like a "back channel" of evolution. Since all living things share our genetic information (DNA) I am sure everything alive has it. This is all the more reason why we need to prevent species extinction if we want to keep that “afterlife” because without reincarnation there will be no survival.
A lot of wishful thinking there but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for it. Science is full of both these things.
Cheers
The discussion about ghosts is interesting because I think they may be a quantum process. This could be "purely" a quantum process and is like so many virtual photons that pop in and out of our Universe. The act of observation could disturb the quantum event just like too much light in a double slit experiment ruins the interference fringes. They "work" best in the near dark but like any "object" you need some light to see them... I really do not think they are luminous but work by "reflected" light just like us. Unfortunately the more light the less the observation will be. You are collapsing the quantum superposition of states and our Universe does not have this "beastie" in it (not permanently that is).
This question of why ghosts are dragged around by our world. They are affected by spacetime curvature (gravity) and other electromagnetic effects (even the Aharonov-Bohm Effect) but probably not directly from our Universe.
Steve Posted on Mar 31 2005, 08:58 AM
QUOTE
We have proof (the film) that the photons are emitted.
Not really - we are too influenced by the Movies and TV where the special effects are "less subtle". Almost every "real" story I have heard... ghosts "appear" like real people just sort of "washed out" and reflecting light rather than emitting light. To be seen they usually hang out in shadows or low light. I think the same goes for physical interaction since this would be rarely possible being an interaction of virtual photons which result in "force". All the pictures we have of people are by reflected light so I think it is the same.
My conjecture is that ghosts are from a parallel dimension linked to our Universe very loosely and are true quantum phenomena that seem able to persist for long periods of time because they are 'prevented" from "discharging" into the environment by some "system" forbidden energy state. Sort of an afterimage of someone that used to live here but now confined to a "stationary" state, able to preserve aspects of whom they were.
This is good since that this then provides the Universe with "stored" experience. If I were a Universe that is exactly what I would evolve!
I know what you are all going to say that this all has something to do with "God". I wish! It is a continuation of this life and I don't know how long it lasts. It may slowly "wind on down". Maybe you need to reincarnate to "charge up" after a while. This would potentially pass on to the next generation something from previous generations something like our genetic code but far more personal and individualistic. This is like a "back channel" of evolution. Since all living things share our genetic information (DNA) I am sure everything alive has it. This is all the more reason why we need to prevent species extinction if we want to keep that “afterlife” because without reincarnation there will be no survival.A lot of wishful thinking there but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for it. Science is full of both these things.
Cheers
Have to get to work but Hi Good Elf,
Good Elf has a great point, before I put my wave function in, would like to hear your reply. Not picking sides, Good Elf would collapse my wave packet in a nanosecond.
BR,
y
Good Elf has a great point, before I put my wave function in, would like to hear your reply. Not picking sides, Good Elf would collapse my wave packet in a nanosecond.BR,
y
Phew! It was only supposed to be a sidebar, for chrissake
QUOTE
The discussion about ghosts is interesting because I think they may be a quantum process. This could be "purely" a quantum process and is like so many virtual photons that pop in and out of our Universe.
Ehh... I'm not a big fan of things "popping in and out". Either they're here, or they aren't. They might be here and rotated out of view, but they're still very much here, right around us, whatever (Vphoton or ghost) we're talking about.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The discussion about ghosts is interesting because I think they may be a quantum process. This could be "purely" a quantum process and is like so many virtual photons that pop in and out of our Universe. |
Ehh... I'm not a big fan of things "popping in and out". Either they're here, or they aren't. They might be here and rotated out of view, but they're still very much here, right around us, whatever (Vphoton or ghost) we're talking about.
They "work" best in the near dark but like any "object" you need some light to see them... I really do not think they are luminous but work by "reflected" light just like us.
They "work" best in the near dark but like any "object" you need some light to see them... I really do not think they are luminous but work by "reflected" light just like us.
Actually, they work best near dark because you'll use a faster film and/or longer exposure. I've seen plenty of good shots (again, I'm taking liberties under the premise that at least one was legit) in dark, no flash. Assuming it's legit, that is.
QUOTE
Unfortunately the more light the less the observation will be. You are collapsing the quantum superposition of states and our Universe does not have this "beastie" in it (not permanently that is).
Or, film - the more light, the more competition there is between photons from the object and photons from the environment. Tough call - but I have to say that your idea is certainly more fun. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unfortunately the more light the less the observation will be. You are collapsing the quantum superposition of states and our Universe does not have this "beastie" in it (not permanently that is). |
Or, film - the more light, the more competition there is between photons from the object and photons from the environment. Tough call - but I have to say that your idea is certainly more fun.
This question of why ghosts are dragged around by our world. They are affected by spacetime curvature (gravity) and other electromagnetic effects (even the Aharonov-Bohm Effect) but probably not directly from our Universe.
This question of why ghosts are dragged around by our world. They are affected by spacetime curvature (gravity) and other electromagnetic effects (even the Aharonov-Bohm Effect) but probably not directly from our Universe.
Again, you're in the universe, or not. If you aren't, even for a moment - then there's a moment when you're not dragged by the big G - and when you get back into the universe, good luck trying to hide under little Johnny's bed, you'd never find it.
QUOTE
Steve Posted on Mar 31 2005, 08:58 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steve Posted on Mar 31 2005, 08:58 AM We have proof (the film) that the photons are emitted. Not really - we are too influenced by the Movies and TV where the special effects are "less subtle". Almost every "real" story I have heard... ghosts "appear" like real people just sort of "washed out" and reflecting light rather than emitting light. |
Gotta buzz you out on this one - reflection is (if I recall, I might be totally wrong) the absorbtion and reemission of a photon. Doesn't matter if the object is active or passive in regards to *where* the photons come from, it's emitting at some point. I'd also suggest that, due to the overexposures in non-flash images, there's not necessarily enough ambient light to account for that overexposed region. I'm guessing at this, however, so let me qualify these statements right here and now.
Other problem, as a sidebar, with "appearing" like real people - the bulk of images I've seen are nothing of the sort. Instead, they'll tend to be a circular region a few inches across, or occasionally a distributed fog (again, assuming the images aren't hogwash; this entire discussion would get very boring very fast unless we keep asserting that. Thank god we're allowed to neglect friction and assume photos are real, heh.) There are anecdotal stories of people "seeing" ghost-like people, however... and I even have a couple that are somewhat authoritative - not 3rd person to me, but 2nd person from a source I'd view as "credible". I'll tell ya the story later if ya like, it's a good one - and difficult to refute if you know the players involved, simply on their credibility alone.
Regardless, though, there's a problem. There's several, in fact.
- Ghosts that look like people are always wearing clothes. I know that fashions die, but that's stupid. You cannot take it with you.
- At least good portion of our memories are chemically stored. Perhaps not all, but certainly most. You cannot take those with you, either... includes things like speech, perception of spoken language (what the words mean), and math, along with what clothes I'm freakin wearing today. Perhaps some things could be "learned" by the core-ghost entity and persist - but not most things, not by a longshot.
- Since clothes don't die, our ghost cannot actually be wearing any, and we cannot actually be "seeing" the real ghost. What we'd be seeing, then, would be a rendering of some type. Quite literally, our "ghost" would need to be causing specific electrons at specific locations in space to spontaneously (from our point of view, since we know the ghost isn't "physically" there) emit (or reflect) photons of specific and exact colors that'll "look like" real (or mostly real) objects, complete with shading that is appropriate for the lighting angle(s), which includes any shading that results from any folds that are present in the clothing, and also includes any positional changes in the light sources. As you can tell, I've written a couple of ray tracers in my time It ain't an easy set of calculations, I can tell ya, if only because of the sheer volume of them. Our ghost would have to be really bored, or be one helluva lot smarter dead than it was when alive. And perhaps that's the case, I can't say.
Or as said earlier, they're easier to pick out due to less background/foreground noise.
Or as said earlier, they're easier to pick out due to less background/foreground noise.
I think the same goes for physical interaction since this would be rarely possible being an interaction of virtual photons which result in "force".
Excellent point... but don't tie yourself too much to VPs. We can just as easily create a "wink in, wink out" effect with a funky spin fermion.
Other problem, as a sidebar, with "appearing" like real people - the bulk of images I've seen are nothing of the sort. Instead, they'll tend to be a circular region a few inches across, or occasionally a distributed fog (again, assuming the images aren't hogwash; this entire discussion would get very boring very fast unless we keep asserting that. Thank god we're allowed to neglect friction and assume photos are real, heh.) There are anecdotal stories of people "seeing" ghost-like people, however... and I even have a couple that are somewhat authoritative - not 3rd person to me, but 2nd person from a source I'd view as "credible". I'll tell ya the story later if ya like, it's a good one - and difficult to refute if you know the players involved, simply on their credibility alone.
Regardless, though, there's a problem. There's several, in fact.
- Ghosts that look like people are always wearing clothes. I know that fashions die, but that's stupid. You cannot take it with you.
- At least good portion of our memories are chemically stored. Perhaps not all, but certainly most. You cannot take those with you, either... includes things like speech, perception of spoken language (what the words mean), and math, along with what clothes I'm freakin wearing today. Perhaps some things could be "learned" by the core-ghost entity and persist - but not most things, not by a longshot.
- Since clothes don't die, our ghost cannot actually be wearing any, and we cannot actually be "seeing" the real ghost. What we'd be seeing, then, would be a rendering of some type. Quite literally, our "ghost" would need to be causing specific electrons at specific locations in space to spontaneously (from our point of view, since we know the ghost isn't "physically" there) emit (or reflect) photons of specific and exact colors that'll "look like" real (or mostly real) objects, complete with shading that is appropriate for the lighting angle(s), which includes any shading that results from any folds that are present in the clothing, and also includes any positional changes in the light sources. As you can tell, I've written a couple of ray tracers in my time
It ain't an easy set of calculations, I can tell ya, if only because of the sheer volume of them. Our ghost would have to be really bored, or be one helluva lot smarter dead than it was when alive. And perhaps that's the case, I can't say.QUOTE
To be seen they usually hang out in shadows or low light.
Or as said earlier, they're easier to pick out due to less background/foreground noise.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To be seen they usually hang out in shadows or low light. |
Or as said earlier, they're easier to pick out due to less background/foreground noise.
I think the same goes for physical interaction since this would be rarely possible being an interaction of virtual photons which result in "force".
Excellent point... but don't tie yourself too much to VPs. We can just as easily create a "wink in, wink out" effect with a funky spin fermion.
QUOTE
All the pictures we have of people are by reflected light so I think it is the same.
You need to buy a thermal imager QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All the pictures we have of people are by reflected light so I think it is the same. |
You need to buy a thermal imager
My conjecture is that ghosts are from a parallel dimension linked to our Universe very loosely
My conjecture is that ghosts are from a parallel dimension linked to our Universe very loosely
Ok, repeat after me: "Dimensions cannot be parallel. Dimensions are definitions, and are defined as being orthogonal to each other. Always. No exceptions." If you need a little help with why this phrase cannot be, recall that we should be able to demonstrate this effect in 2space. Pick a direction - and now, pick another direction that is orthogonal to it, and parallel. You can't. Next, pick a new, unique direction that is parallel to it. You'll discover that the only direction that works is the one you started with.
That out of the way, (and before you get defensive) I think I know your meaning! And I tend to agree that it's a great model - but you're using the wrong words. What if we rephrase it a little - let's assert that there's more than 4 space (3 space + time). We'll do this because we can - we're making assertions, after all. Instead, let's make... something fun, let's make a 7-space. Our usual X, Y, Z that we perceive, along with A, B, and C that are just as ortagonal to X, and Y, and Z (and each other), and time. See how it's quite simple for an object to have volume in the A-B-C subspace, while only "occupying" a singularity's volume in X, and/or Y, and/or Z? In fact, we see this effect all the time - we call these things "planes" and "lines". Lines have no width or height - in concept, at least, we can see how something can have a volume along one dimension and not another.
So! Let's take our object, which has volume in ABC space, and quite literally, physically rotate it into ABX space. Exactly as I can take an object in the XY plane and (really!) rotate it into XZ. Our perception of the result would be pretty interesting, eh? And, no fancy "outer-universe" or "parallel" anything is needed.
What's nicer about this game (model) is that it allows for some "black box" ghost type of thing to be right here - but not in our view, since all of it's volume (for lack of a better word) is along our ABC axes. Axises. Axera? Bleh. It still intersects with X, and Y, and Z, and time - it's very real, and has presence in those... (dammit) axisera, but just like our "line" example having no height nor width, it'd have no depth either. Still there, though... go ahead and make an XYZ space with a couple sheets of paper, and plot a position on the X axis that isn't covered by both Y and Z. If you get one, you get all.
So, we can have our ghost thing right here with us - in fact, my "future ghost" can be physcially attached to me right now if I'm so inclined. My body some day dies off, great! What happens to the rest of me that's in the ABC space... who knows. It's a fun game to think about, regardless.
You rock
You rock
I know what you are all going to say that this all has something
Actually, the more mundane ghost stories you hear, especially dealing with junk like ouija boards et-al - there's no freakin way. Even if the events are real - literally, a bunch of dead guys are making us move this puck around to spell out words - there's still no freakin way. Between wearing clothes, knowing how to spell, and having memories - no freakin way. I've seen alzheimer patients. No freakin way.
No, I'd say it's something more insidious. And as rediculous a joke as this is, it's actually a lot more plausible. No, if I had my choice of "picking" an explaination, the one I'd pick would be...
Space Aliens. It makes perfect sense - they've got the little hologram projectors that can render clothing, and they've got hidden cameras everywhere so they know when people die. What better way to walk right-on-in to a place and observe? Just assume the identity of a dead guy!
And yes, my tongue was firmly inserted into my cheek for that. But still - I like it. As far as solutions go, it contains just enough spite to give it the highest probability of being real. Heh. "The waveform collapses". Bull$#@. It's all governed by spite (the fundamental premise of Murphy's Law), I tell ya...
That out of the way, (and before you get defensive) I think I know your meaning! And I tend to agree that it's a great model - but you're using the wrong words. What if we rephrase it a little - let's assert that there's more than 4 space (3 space + time). We'll do this because we can - we're making assertions, after all. Instead, let's make... something fun, let's make a 7-space. Our usual X, Y, Z that we perceive, along with A, B, and C that are just as ortagonal to X, and Y, and Z (and each other), and time. See how it's quite simple for an object to have volume in the A-B-C subspace, while only "occupying" a singularity's volume in X, and/or Y, and/or Z? In fact, we see this effect all the time - we call these things "planes" and "lines". Lines have no width or height - in concept, at least, we can see how something can have a volume along one dimension and not another.
So! Let's take our object, which has volume in ABC space, and quite literally, physically rotate it into ABX space. Exactly as I can take an object in the XY plane and (really!) rotate it into XZ. Our perception of the result would be pretty interesting, eh? And, no fancy "outer-universe" or "parallel" anything is needed.
What's nicer about this game (model) is that it allows for some "black box" ghost type of thing to be right here - but not in our view, since all of it's volume (for lack of a better word) is along our ABC axes. Axises. Axera? Bleh. It still intersects with X, and Y, and Z, and time - it's very real, and has presence in those... (dammit) axisera, but just like our "line" example having no height nor width, it'd have no depth either. Still there, though... go ahead and make an XYZ space with a couple sheets of paper, and plot a position on the X axis that isn't covered by both Y and Z. If you get one, you get all.
So, we can have our ghost thing right here with us - in fact, my "future ghost" can be physcially attached to me right now if I'm so inclined. My body some day dies off, great! What happens to the rest of me that's in the ABC space... who knows. It's a fun game to think about, regardless.
QUOTE
This is good since that this then provides the Universe with "stored" experience. If I were a Universe that is exactly what I would evolve!
You rock
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is good since that this then provides the Universe with "stored" experience. If I were a Universe that is exactly what I would evolve! |
You rock
I know what you are all going to say that this all has something
Actually, the more mundane ghost stories you hear, especially dealing with junk like ouija boards et-al - there's no freakin way. Even if the events are real - literally, a bunch of dead guys are making us move this puck around to spell out words - there's still no freakin way. Between wearing clothes, knowing how to spell, and having memories - no freakin way. I've seen alzheimer patients. No freakin way.
No, I'd say it's something more insidious. And as rediculous a joke as this is, it's actually a lot more plausible. No, if I had my choice of "picking" an explaination, the one I'd pick would be...
Space Aliens. It makes perfect sense - they've got the little hologram projectors that can render clothing, and they've got hidden cameras everywhere so they know when people die. What better way to walk right-on-in to a place and observe? Just assume the identity of a dead guy!
And yes, my tongue was firmly inserted into my cheek for that. But still - I like it. As far as solutions go, it contains just enough spite to give it the highest probability of being real. Heh. "The waveform collapses". Bull$#@. It's all governed by spite (the fundamental premise of Murphy's Law), I tell ya...
Hi Steve,
I will not try to get too technical as this is not true science but science speculation only. I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light.
When I said "ghosts" work best in near dark conditions that does not mean that cameras are best there either.
The aspect of fuzzy ghosts... I think they are fuzzy because they are not mapping well into our "3 + 1 spaces" from where or when they are from. Yes... I didn't go into that aspect of the issue. Whenever you see a ghost we see them usually alive. There are many "creepy" stories about headless spooks and such but it is all rubbish. There is not one picture to back this up to my knowledge. Not every ghost you are ever likely to see is currently "alive" but when you see them I think at that point they really are "alive". Now interpret that as you like and that has to fit with all the other data I have already said. The mere fact that time lines for "apparitions" do not match our time lines is an indication of "something". I am not saying what at this stage.
I will give you a 2nd hand experience from someone who would not tell me crap... of a "interesting" and maybe "instructional" experience. My "friend" who lives near a great southern capital city was in the Air Force during World War 2 (toward the end of the conflict) as an Allied Airframe Fitter in the Gaza. In that period they had a number of shower blocks set up for the troops and they became a very familiar part of their lives. The areas were often more like steam baths what with all the hot water welling around. Well this chap, just a couple of years ago... circa 2000, was taking a shower in his own bathroom here in Australia and steam was everywhere. In this almost dreamlike state he decided that he wanted to have a shave. Immediately as if it were in his minds eye he was swept back to the Gaza in 1945 and those shower rooms of his youth where he and his mates were all having a real good hot shower together - steam everywhere. He reached across to one of his closer mates occupied cubicle and "pinched" or "borrowed" his cut-throat razor off the cement block and began to shave. This "vision" passed and he was back in Australia... only now he still has the cut-throat razor. To this day he still has that razor in almost mint condition. Until he "swiped" that razor he had not owned a "cut-throat" since the war years, he is now a safety razor fella.
This is a "reverse" ghost where someone "alive" in 1945 is missing a razor and someone "alive" in 2000 now has it. As far as I can determine this is a true story. My point is no one is dead yet but this could have been a ghostly visitation. It is very possible at the period in 1945 when he swiped the razor "he" may have been possibly in the same room having a 1945 shower as a young soldier. Admittedly no clothes were involved but I am very sure that visibility was apparently very poor.
Was this in our "Universe"? You tell me! What I would say is this... there is a "connection" with the time and the place and it acted like "memory". Beyond that I would not speculate any further since there are no really good theories to "connect the dots". It fits the 2nd person category story you believe is "good"...and I feel the character of the witness is high especially in the special context of personal relationships.
I know of several 2nd person events and even a couple of 1st hand ones that I feel very embarrassed about ... so I am pretty biased on the side of this "stuff" happening. The difference between myself and most others is I am not convinced that there is any religious connection but there are "personal" connections to places and times for the "visitor" but not necessarily the "visitee". I might even say "entanglement". Other factors are darkness or poor visibility and sometimes "stone" and moisture. I agree that in many cases the "actors" are like sleepwalkers and in other cases they appear to interact very strongly (as in this case).
I am not telling any more of these "strange tales" but I do not crave any attention on this matter... my interest is in Physics and Science and I just tell it as I see it without embellishment. What I would say is that maybe there are still a couple of things waiting for us to tease from the fabric of our history. Your problem is weather to believe me or not. Do as you please on this one. I will say this one story is not an "outlier". I've seen a lot of "stuff" over the years and it leaves you with an open mind (if you want it to). I am pretty sure that I may have "scratched a couple of your itches" out there too.
PS: This is no April fools joke....
Cheers
I will not try to get too technical as this is not true science but science speculation only. I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light.
When I said "ghosts" work best in near dark conditions that does not mean that cameras are best there either.
The aspect of fuzzy ghosts... I think they are fuzzy because they are not mapping well into our "3 + 1 spaces" from where or when they are from. Yes... I didn't go into that aspect of the issue. Whenever you see a ghost we see them usually alive. There are many "creepy" stories about headless spooks and such but it is all rubbish. There is not one picture to back this up to my knowledge. Not every ghost you are ever likely to see is currently "alive" but when you see them I think at that point they really are "alive". Now interpret that as you like and that has to fit with all the other data I have already said. The mere fact that time lines for "apparitions" do not match our time lines is an indication of "something". I am not saying what at this stage.
I will give you a 2nd hand experience from someone who would not tell me crap... of a "interesting" and maybe "instructional" experience. My "friend" who lives near a great southern capital city was in the Air Force during World War 2 (toward the end of the conflict) as an Allied Airframe Fitter in the Gaza. In that period they had a number of shower blocks set up for the troops and they became a very familiar part of their lives. The areas were often more like steam baths what with all the hot water welling around. Well this chap, just a couple of years ago... circa 2000, was taking a shower in his own bathroom here in Australia and steam was everywhere. In this almost dreamlike state he decided that he wanted to have a shave. Immediately as if it were in his minds eye he was swept back to the Gaza in 1945 and those shower rooms of his youth where he and his mates were all having a real good hot shower together - steam everywhere. He reached across to one of his closer mates occupied cubicle and "pinched" or "borrowed" his cut-throat razor off the cement block and began to shave. This "vision" passed and he was back in Australia... only now he still has the cut-throat razor. To this day he still has that razor in almost mint condition. Until he "swiped" that razor he had not owned a "cut-throat" since the war years, he is now a safety razor fella.
This is a "reverse" ghost where someone "alive" in 1945 is missing a razor and someone "alive" in 2000 now has it. As far as I can determine this is a true story. My point is no one is dead yet but this could have been a ghostly visitation. It is very possible at the period in 1945 when he swiped the razor "he" may have been possibly in the same room having a 1945 shower as a young soldier. Admittedly no clothes were involved but I am very sure that visibility was apparently very poor.
Was this in our "Universe"? You tell me! What I would say is this... there is a "connection" with the time and the place and it acted like "memory". Beyond that I would not speculate any further since there are no really good theories to "connect the dots". It fits the 2nd person category story you believe is "good"...and I feel the character of the witness is high especially in the special context of personal relationships.
I know of several 2nd person events and even a couple of 1st hand ones that I feel very embarrassed about
... so I am pretty biased on the side of this "stuff" happening. The difference between myself and most others is I am not convinced that there is any religious connection but there are "personal" connections to places and times for the "visitor" but not necessarily the "visitee". I might even say "entanglement". Other factors are darkness or poor visibility and sometimes "stone" and moisture. I agree that in many cases the "actors" are like sleepwalkers and in other cases they appear to interact very strongly (as in this case).I am not telling any more of these "strange tales" but I do not crave any attention on this matter... my interest is in Physics and Science and I just tell it as I see it without embellishment. What I would say is that maybe there are still a couple of things waiting for us to tease from the fabric of our history. Your problem is weather to believe me or not. Do as you please on this one. I will say this one story is not an "outlier". I've seen a lot of "stuff" over the years and it leaves you with an open mind (if you want it to).
I am pretty sure that I may have "scratched a couple of your itches" out there too.PS: This is no April fools joke....
Cheers
HI Good Elf - Steve,
In the world of QM, It would be a poor thing to be an atom in a universe without physicists, and physicists are made of atoms. A physicist is an atom?s way of knowing about atoms.
~George Wald~
Good Elf, I have heard the same kind of experiences from people and they cannot explain it, and I know they are telling me the truth. But it makes you wonder what is "REALITY ", is?
Best Regards,
y
In the world of QM, It would be a poor thing to be an atom in a universe without physicists, and physicists are made of atoms. A physicist is an atom?s way of knowing about atoms.
~George Wald~
Good Elf, I have heard the same kind of experiences from people and they cannot explain it, and I know they are telling me the truth. But it makes you wonder what is "REALITY ", is?
Best Regards,
y
Hi yquantum and Steve,
I won't kid you because I can't put a "box" around this one... so I won't try. All I know is "stuff" doesn't necessarily stay in it's own little box. Got to leave some things for future generations. As Physicists we take advice from people like AE and move on. It is a lot bigger than "just" the one story being told and it should not be used to narrow our focus but to widen it. Unfortunately it usually has an opposite effect.
If you want "magic" don't look at me. There is no magic. If you want miracles then real miracles offer more to us than common "magic".
"Tricks" are for "children"... to get their attention.
Cheers
I won't kid you because I can't put a "box" around this one... so I won't try. All I know is "stuff" doesn't necessarily stay in it's own little box. Got to leave some things for future generations.
As Physicists we take advice from people like AE and move on. It is a lot bigger than "just" the one story being told and it should not be used to narrow our focus but to widen it. Unfortunately it usually has an opposite effect.If you want "magic" don't look at me. There is no magic. If you want miracles then real miracles offer more to us than common "magic".
"Tricks" are for "children"... to get their attention.
Cheers
Good Elf,
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.
~Albert Einstein
Best regards,
y
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.
~Albert Einstein
Best regards,
y
Hi yquantum,
Don't you ever sleep? He he he...
Though it was part of a narrative between the three of us... this is a public forum and I was speaking to "all" of us. That is probably at least four or five eh! I was not trying to give the impression I knew any stage magicians.
Perhaps I got it wrong and it should not be under "Perceptions and Probability Waves" but under "Wackos and Christian Fundamentalist Religious Beliefs". He he he. This is a Physics Forum.
Cheers
Don't you ever sleep? He he he...
Though it was part of a narrative between the three of us... this is a public forum and I was speaking to "all" of us. That is probably at least four or five eh! I was not trying to give the impression I knew any stage magicians.
Perhaps I got it wrong and it should not be under "Perceptions and Probability Waves" but under "Wackos and Christian Fundamentalist Religious Beliefs". He he he. This is a Physics Forum.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Your no wacko, and what I have read your comments, SOUND, you have a lot to say. Keep up the good work, you never know on this Forum, who you really might be helping and needs just a nudge to get them over the problem that is right in front of them.
Do not stop throwing out ideas and solving problems. But you and I know theories are sometimes stumbled on by accident, so keep them coming. Deal! I do, and some times I am rewarded well, and then other times I become the blunt of the joke. Ouch!!!!!
This is funny to me, Feynman was riding with J. Schwarz (SS theorists) who jokingly said to him, ( "Well, John, and how many dimensions do you live in today? "). Everyone has to deal with it, Heh! A very long time ago it seems, but turn up the heat. Right?
Best regards,
yquantum
Your no wacko, and what I have read your comments, SOUND, you have a lot to say. Keep up the good work, you never know on this Forum, who you really might be helping and needs just a nudge to get them over the problem that is right in front of them.
Do not stop throwing out ideas and solving problems. But you and I know theories are sometimes stumbled on by accident, so keep them coming. Deal! I do, and some times I am rewarded well, and then other times I become the blunt of the joke. Ouch!!!!!
This is funny to me, Feynman was riding with J. Schwarz (SS theorists) who jokingly said to him, ( "Well, John, and how many dimensions do you live in today? "). Everyone has to deal with it, Heh! A very long time ago it seems, but turn up the heat. Right?
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE (beckerist+Jan 19 2005, 05:04 AM)
He's saying that every quantum "decision" basically is a probability wave. Once a concious observer notices a feature of the probability wave indicating a decision made ... the wave collapses and the entity is finalized.
The problem with the conscious observer theory is that the universe existed for billions of years before there was a conscious observer to collapse the probability wave. I find that to be absurd. At what point did evolving life get conscious enough to collapse it?
You might argue that God was the conscious observer, but if there were an omniscient being, there could be no such thing as an unobserved probability wave. (Has quantum physics disproved an omniscient God?)
It is not the consciousness that collapses the probability wave. It is the interaction with another object that does it. Unobserved probability waves collapse everytime they hit something.
In the case of Shroedinger's cat, it most certainly was dead as soon as the sensor (the unconscious observer) determined the radioactive particle had decayed.
The problem with the conscious observer theory is that the universe existed for billions of years before there was a conscious observer to collapse the probability wave. I find that to be absurd. At what point did evolving life get conscious enough to collapse it?
You might argue that God was the conscious observer, but if there were an omniscient being, there could be no such thing as an unobserved probability wave. (Has quantum physics disproved an omniscient God?)
It is not the consciousness that collapses the probability wave. It is the interaction with another object that does it. Unobserved probability waves collapse everytime they hit something.
In the case of Shroedinger's cat, it most certainly was dead as soon as the sensor (the unconscious observer) determined the radioactive particle had decayed.
Greetings fausinator,
QUOTE (beckerist @ Jan 19 2005, 05:04 AM)
He's saying that every quantum "decision" basically is a probability wave. Once a concious observer notices a feature of the probability wave indicating a decision made ... the wave collapses and the entity is finalize
You might argue that God was the conscious observer, but if there were an omniscient being, there could be no such thing as an unobserved probability wave. (Has quantum physics disproved an omniscient God?)
Not sure I want to touch this subject, we need a genius here, I think (Rodin) !
Your point reminds me of EPR, Schrodinger, Bell's, Alain Aspect, etc., but you know this. I love to talk about it, but tell me, how can we test this hypothesis? No trap here, just wondering, are you coming from the Copenhagen interpretation?
Put another way if an experimenter sets out to prove one thing and ends up proving the opposite, you can be pretty sure that the experiment is being run honestly. (check out Millikan experiment). I just wonder, how do we know what we want to prove?
This collapse of the wave function, is on everyone's mind, but then maybe it is just on my mind, and this personal computer to reply to you from work, is just what I want (so I collapse a preconceived idea in my nervous system that is enclosed within my cranium so my synapses fire off, so it appears), because I have not been able to resolve the problem. Not trying to be a wise @#%, this just causes my head to spin 360, or is that 720 due to (t) and the Lorentz equation and Special Relativity?
Trust me, I would love to have closure on this, but how do I know this is real?
Good question fausinator, best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE
QUOTE (beckerist @ Jan 19 2005, 05:04 AM)
He's saying that every quantum "decision" basically is a probability wave. Once a concious observer notices a feature of the probability wave indicating a decision made ... the wave collapses and the entity is finalize
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE (beckerist @ Jan 19 2005, 05:04 AM) He's saying that every quantum "decision" basically is a probability wave. Once a concious observer notices a feature of the probability wave indicating a decision made ... the wave collapses and the entity is finalize |
You might argue that God was the conscious observer, but if there were an omniscient being, there could be no such thing as an unobserved probability wave. (Has quantum physics disproved an omniscient God?)
Not sure I want to touch this subject, we need a genius here, I think (Rodin) !
Your point reminds me of EPR, Schrodinger, Bell's, Alain Aspect, etc., but you know this. I love to talk about it, but tell me, how can we test this hypothesis? No trap here, just wondering, are you coming from the Copenhagen interpretation?
Put another way if an experimenter sets out to prove one thing and ends up proving the opposite, you can be pretty sure that the experiment is being run honestly. (check out Millikan experiment). I just wonder, how do we know what we want to prove?
This collapse of the wave function, is on everyone's mind, but then maybe it is just on my mind, and this personal computer to reply to you from work, is just what I want (so I collapse a preconceived idea in my nervous system that is enclosed within my cranium so my synapses fire off, so it appears), because I have not been able to resolve the problem. Not trying to be a wise @#%, this just causes my head to spin 360, or is that 720 due to (t) and the Lorentz equation and Special Relativity?
Trust me, I would love to have closure on this, but how do I know this is real?
Good question fausinator, best regards,
yquantum
Hey, all this sounds remarkably familiar. I was just reading about this on wikipedia the other day. I stumbled on the page about the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics.
I thought it was quite interesting to find the roots of the idea, as I had originally just thought it was a totally philosophical viewpoint. It starts with the idea that there is no distinction between a conscious observer and an unconscious one (which I was very happy about, as I had found the distinction to be a rather unfounded assumption in the first place). When one quantum "entity" interacts with another, their wave functions interact, and they become a "system". From there forward, to completely describe the system as a result of the interaction, you must superimpose the wave functions of both entities. In other words, there is no fully-descriptive state equation that doesn't take into account the wave function of both entities. Which is an interesting sort of "entanglement".
In any case, this dictated that even conscious observers are represented by a wave-function. Obviously many people had a problem with this. How could each of us be represented by a wave quantum wave function when we only experience one possibility that the wave represents? From hence came the many-worlds interpretation, that each different possible situation does indeed exist in a "branch" universe, in which we experience the other situations represented by the wave-function.
In any case, the general idea is that there is no mysterious process of "collapse". The many-worlds interpretation suggests rather that our conscious interpretation "splits" into the many possibilities of the superimposed wave-functions of ourselves and the observed entity.
But one might argue that, for all intents and purposes, the two explanations are equivalent. =) I've personlaly always found it a little distasteful as well, because it still branches off into unverifiable philosophical conjectures, and they seem to be more complex than they would need to be. I've generally preferred to think that we don't "split". I have no problem with the superimposed state of ourselves, because it would take a mighty system to produce the type of interaction with us that would create separate possibilities that were so different from one another that we could actually perceive that difference. Although I sometimes think that the two-slit experiment results might actually be just the evidence to support this idea.
As usual, I insert my disclaimer that I am not a physicist. Just an insatiable reader with an insatiable curiosity.
I thought it was quite interesting to find the roots of the idea, as I had originally just thought it was a totally philosophical viewpoint. It starts with the idea that there is no distinction between a conscious observer and an unconscious one (which I was very happy about, as I had found the distinction to be a rather unfounded assumption in the first place). When one quantum "entity" interacts with another, their wave functions interact, and they become a "system". From there forward, to completely describe the system as a result of the interaction, you must superimpose the wave functions of both entities. In other words, there is no fully-descriptive state equation that doesn't take into account the wave function of both entities. Which is an interesting sort of "entanglement".
In any case, this dictated that even conscious observers are represented by a wave-function. Obviously many people had a problem with this. How could each of us be represented by a wave quantum wave function when we only experience one possibility that the wave represents? From hence came the many-worlds interpretation, that each different possible situation does indeed exist in a "branch" universe, in which we experience the other situations represented by the wave-function.
In any case, the general idea is that there is no mysterious process of "collapse". The many-worlds interpretation suggests rather that our conscious interpretation "splits" into the many possibilities of the superimposed wave-functions of ourselves and the observed entity.
But one might argue that, for all intents and purposes, the two explanations are equivalent. =) I've personlaly always found it a little distasteful as well, because it still branches off into unverifiable philosophical conjectures, and they seem to be more complex than they would need to be. I've generally preferred to think that we don't "split". I have no problem with the superimposed state of ourselves, because it would take a mighty system to produce the type of interaction with us that would create separate possibilities that were so different from one another that we could actually perceive that difference. Although I sometimes think that the two-slit experiment results might actually be just the evidence to support this idea.
As usual, I insert my disclaimer that I am not a physicist. Just an insatiable reader with an insatiable curiosity.
Hi WaterBreath,
I was just reading what was being said on " Electromagnetic Waves may not exist!"
I guess it was a wave packet about to be collapsed, (FTL) future running into present! Eh!
I would think as exhausted that the subject has been covered, you could read it about anywhere, true!
I really do not want to follow this one, but just wanted to reply, because I like someone to reply to me and give there point of reference and what they think on the question , the more I read the less I know.
On my personal computer I am allow to use at work I will check into your site on your comment. When I get the chance.
QUESTION?
Have you looked into the one on quantum teleportation. I do not want to transport into it, but there seems to be some flaws, like spin, U/R quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you on this thread and then maybe I will be a James Kirk (SP?) HA, does it not sound like a touch of EPR, and trying to copy an unknown quantum state, would you not have to destroy the original and if you did how would you make a copy? I would rather look foolish on this site than stick my neck out on the other. No sure footing over there?
As you can see, this is not my field but that is why I use (yquantum). You can go anywhere, in this Forum for relaxation.
What do you think is there a flaw just need some FYI, before I beam over!
Best regards,
yquantum
I was just reading what was being said on " Electromagnetic Waves may not exist!"
I guess it was a wave packet about to be collapsed, (FTL) future running into present! Eh!
QUOTE
Hey, all this sounds remarkably familiar. I was just reading about this on wikipedia the other day. I stumbled on the page about the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics.
I would think as exhausted that the subject has been covered, you could read it about anywhere, true!
I really do not want to follow this one, but just wanted to reply, because I like someone to reply to me and give there point of reference and what they think on the question , the more I read the less I know.
On my personal computer I am allow to use at work I will check into your site on your comment. When I get the chance.
QUESTION?
Have you looked into the one on quantum teleportation. I do not want to transport into it, but there seems to be some flaws, like spin, U/R quantum mechanics.
Let me ask you on this thread and then maybe I will be a James Kirk (SP?) HA, does it not sound like a touch of EPR, and trying to copy an unknown quantum state, would you not have to destroy the original and if you did how would you make a copy? I would rather look foolish on this site than stick my neck out on the other. No sure footing over there?
As you can see, this is not my field but that is why I use (yquantum). You can go anywhere, in this Forum for relaxation.
What do you think is there a flaw just need some FYI, before I beam over!
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Apr 2 2005, 05:04 PM)
I've generally preferred to think that we don't "split".
I personnally like the idea of the all-possible worlds theory, because somewhere, at this moment, I am making love to Petra Nemcova
, assuming she is within my probability wave!
I personnally like the idea of the all-possible worlds theory, because somewhere, at this moment, I am making love to Petra Nemcova
, assuming she is within my probability wave!
Hi dreamer, sorry fausinator,
What can I say to that one! Not a darn thing!
BR,
y
What can I say to that one! Not a darn thing!
BR,
y
QUOTE (fausinator+Apr 2 2005, 09:07 PM)
I personnally like the idea of the all-possible worlds theory, because somewhere, at this moment, I am making love to Petra Nemcova , assuming she is within my probability wave!
Oh, she is, Faus... assuming that Hell is exothermic.
, assuming she is within my probability wave!Oh, she is, Faus... assuming that Hell is exothermic.
Argh, been busy... but I had a fun rope rescue class today. Took me the rest of the day to get untied
Not in the case of a TIC (thermal imaging camera). TICs are based solely on what's emitted, and is why they function when there's no ambient light. Interestingly (and flatly contradicting what I said earlier about "white" and "bright" emissions), TICs are becoming a favorite way of finding "cold spot" ghosts - ambient, well defined pockets of rather cold air. Find the cold spot, so goes the theory, you've found the ghost. Or something. Of course, noone who actually does this ever seems to have a hairdryer handy...
Not in the case of a TIC (thermal imaging camera). TICs are based solely on what's emitted, and is why they function when there's no ambient light. Interestingly (and flatly contradicting what I said earlier about "white" and "bright" emissions), TICs are becoming a favorite way of finding "cold spot" ghosts - ambient, well defined pockets of rather cold air. Find the cold spot, so goes the theory, you've found the ghost. Or something. Of course, noone who actually does this ever seems to have a hairdryer handy...
Was this in our "Universe"? You tell me! What I would say is this... there is a "connection" with the time and the place and it acted like "memory". Beyond that I would not speculate any further since there are no really good theories to "connect the dots". It fits the 2nd person category story you believe is "good"...and I feel the character of the witness is high especially in the special context of personal relationships.
It wouldn't be a connection with time and space. It'd be a connection with him, and time. 3Space has little to do with it - Earth's rotation, orbit, and the sun's movement pretty much assure that we are *very* far away from whereever the hell that shower was. You must remember - we're moving at 100 gazillion miles per hour on our seemingly stationary clump of dirt (hence my earlier thought on "ghosts" being dragged along with us... good luck keeping up with us if they aren't.) The only... uh, "magnet" to that army shower (if that's where he was) is *him*, when he was originally there.
On the good side, I'm glad you put "universe" in quotes. Whatever the heck happened, it was certainly in our universe. It might require that we expand our definition of universe, but whatever the hell it is, this was in it. It'd be neat if we could someday figure out if this event was actually real, the implications would answer a lot of questions about us. It would certainly go a long way toward actually defining what an "observer" is from our perspective.
Sleepwalkers, as you call them (good term!) are tough to figure out because we have little to work with. On the good side, "interactives" are not - we have plenty to work with. Again taking the luxury of assuming at least one "interactive" event was real, (and I'm talking classic ghosts, not your friend's reverse-thingy) - I'd have to assert that the interactives are a much more general case, and are the ones to deserve study. The sleepwalkers would most likely be a subset case of them.
And with that... where to start. If a "ghost" is going to interact somehow, what do we already know that *must* be true?
QUOTE
I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light.
Not in the case of a TIC (thermal imaging camera). TICs are based solely on what's emitted, and is why they function when there's no ambient light. Interestingly (and flatly contradicting what I said earlier about "white" and "bright" emissions), TICs are becoming a favorite way of finding "cold spot" ghosts - ambient, well defined pockets of rather cold air. Find the cold spot, so goes the theory, you've found the ghost. Or something. Of course, noone who actually does this ever seems to have a hairdryer handy...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light. |
Not in the case of a TIC (thermal imaging camera). TICs are based solely on what's emitted, and is why they function when there's no ambient light. Interestingly (and flatly contradicting what I said earlier about "white" and "bright" emissions), TICs are becoming a favorite way of finding "cold spot" ghosts - ambient, well defined pockets of rather cold air. Find the cold spot, so goes the theory, you've found the ghost. Or something. Of course, noone who actually does this ever seems to have a hairdryer handy...
Was this in our "Universe"? You tell me! What I would say is this... there is a "connection" with the time and the place and it acted like "memory". Beyond that I would not speculate any further since there are no really good theories to "connect the dots". It fits the 2nd person category story you believe is "good"...and I feel the character of the witness is high especially in the special context of personal relationships.
It wouldn't be a connection with time and space. It'd be a connection with him, and time. 3Space has little to do with it - Earth's rotation, orbit, and the sun's movement pretty much assure that we are *very* far away from whereever the hell that shower was. You must remember - we're moving at 100 gazillion miles per hour on our seemingly stationary clump of dirt (hence my earlier thought on "ghosts" being dragged along with us... good luck keeping up with us if they aren't.) The only... uh, "magnet" to that army shower (if that's where he was) is *him*, when he was originally there.
On the good side, I'm glad you put "universe" in quotes. Whatever the heck happened, it was certainly in our universe. It might require that we expand our definition of universe, but whatever the hell it is, this was in it. It'd be neat if we could someday figure out if this event was actually real, the implications would answer a lot of questions about us. It would certainly go a long way toward actually defining what an "observer" is from our perspective.
Sleepwalkers, as you call them (good term!) are tough to figure out because we have little to work with. On the good side, "interactives" are not - we have plenty to work with. Again taking the luxury of assuming at least one "interactive" event was real, (and I'm talking classic ghosts, not your friend's reverse-thingy) - I'd have to assert that the interactives are a much more general case, and are the ones to deserve study. The sleepwalkers would most likely be a subset case of them.
And with that... where to start. If a "ghost" is going to interact somehow, what do we already know that *must* be true?
Hi Steve,
Steve Posted on Apr 3 2005, 05:54 AM
Steve Posted on Apr 3 2005, 05:54 AM
QUOTE
I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light.
I concede that one... You are correct. Messed it up with IR Photography. I think that you would call a TIC a sensor though and most ghost pictures are taken with conventional film. I often see those "ghost hunters" using all that military equipment and I think that it seems to be not that "universally" effective. I have never seen anything convincing on those "shows". How can you find a "cold" spot? Correct me if I am wrong. An IR sensor detects energy (hot spots) and the absence of energy (cold spots) is not detectable using such devices (you end up with background). I think its just like a lot of that other "tecchy" equipment that intermittently goes "bing"... just props.
You are right...I don't think that I implied that because I do not think I know where all those past events are (certainly outside the light cone). I think I was referring to the "colloquial use" of the word "space". I wouldn't get too technical since it is meaningless to discuss what "Universe" means or what "space" he was in, since even relativity has no skykooks into "absolute" space. I would keep all that "fast" and "loose". As I said this is all science "speculation" even if it was 100% true as a story.
You are right...I don't think that I implied that because I do not think I know where all those past events are (certainly outside the light cone). I think I was referring to the "colloquial use" of the word "space". I wouldn't get too technical since it is meaningless to discuss what "Universe" means or what "space" he was in, since even relativity has no skykooks into "absolute" space. I would keep all that "fast" and "loose". As I said this is all science "speculation" even if it was 100% true as a story.
that the interactives are a much more general case, and are the ones to deserve study.
Yes... No criticism intended ....But I think that this "Universe" of phenomena might be more wider and varied than just what people call "ghosts" and that is why I caution anyone on this stuff because so little is known for "sure" (actually "nothing" is known for sure - at least scientifically). The story I told I believe is "instructive" because it tells us something I think we have preferentially "ignored" in this phenomena and it is my opinion that it is human nature to do just that because of our innate preferences for personal interpretations. It is like Physics and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect... You could learn more about the Universe from a single unexplained fact than from a mass of selective documentation of a phenomenon in general. It also depends on the moral caliber of the "experimenters" to ensure that they are not influencing the data especially when it is not able to be called up to order by an experiment.
If the answer was so simple why have we not got a handle on it over the centuries? I suggest that culturally we have a "blind spot" because of taboos. True science works without taboos and religious beliefs and a crucifix and holy water.
Cheers
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I agree with a lot of what you say but images of people on film are "usually" reflected light. That would also include an IR Imager. Its still light. Not in the case of a TIC (thermal imaging camera). TICs are based solely on what's emitted, and is why they function when there's no ambient light. |
I concede that one... You are correct. Messed it up with IR Photography. I think that you would call a TIC a sensor though and most ghost pictures are taken with conventional film. I often see those "ghost hunters" using all that military equipment and I think that it seems to be not that "universally" effective. I have never seen anything convincing on those "shows". How can you find a "cold" spot? Correct me if I am wrong. An IR sensor detects energy (hot spots) and the absence of energy (cold spots) is not detectable using such devices (you end up with background). I think its just like a lot of that other "tecchy" equipment that intermittently goes "bing"... just props.
QUOTE
3Space has little to do with it - Earth's rotation, orbit, and the sun's movement pretty much assure that we are *very* far away from wherever the hell that shower was
You are right...I don't think that I implied that because I do not think I know where all those past events are (certainly outside the light cone). I think I was referring to the "colloquial use" of the word "space". I wouldn't get too technical since it is meaningless to discuss what "Universe" means or what "space" he was in, since even relativity has no skykooks into "absolute" space. I would keep all that "fast" and "loose". As I said this is all science "speculation" even if it was 100% true as a story.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3Space has little to do with it - Earth's rotation, orbit, and the sun's movement pretty much assure that we are *very* far away from wherever the hell that shower was |
You are right...I don't think that I implied that because I do not think I know where all those past events are (certainly outside the light cone). I think I was referring to the "colloquial use" of the word "space". I wouldn't get too technical since it is meaningless to discuss what "Universe" means or what "space" he was in, since even relativity has no skykooks into "absolute" space. I would keep all that "fast" and "loose". As I said this is all science "speculation" even if it was 100% true as a story.
that the interactives are a much more general case, and are the ones to deserve study.
Yes... No criticism intended ....But I think that this "Universe" of phenomena might be more wider and varied than just what people call "ghosts" and that is why I caution anyone on this stuff because so little is known for "sure" (actually "nothing" is known for sure - at least scientifically). The story I told I believe is "instructive" because it tells us something I think we have preferentially "ignored" in this phenomena and it is my opinion that it is human nature to do just that because of our innate preferences for personal interpretations. It is like Physics and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect... You could learn more about the Universe from a single unexplained fact than from a mass of selective documentation of a phenomenon in general. It also depends on the moral caliber of the "experimenters" to ensure that they are not influencing the data especially when it is not able to be called up to order by an experiment.
If the answer was so simple why have we not got a handle on it over the centuries? I suggest that culturally we have a "blind spot" because of taboos. True science works without taboos and religious beliefs and a crucifix and holy water.
Cheers
Hi Good elf,
Here's some more thought on basic fields.
The space/time continuum has an underlying basis in a scaler/vector/spin field potential. This potential field probably is dynamic exhibiting random or quantum fluctuations, and has a basic structure and symmetry at all scales.
This basic field is what is responsible for most, if not all, of the SR effects. It may also be involved in dark matter and dark energy effects. Light itself could just be seen as a propagated set of changes in this basic field, thus connecting light with the basis field of space/time. Then could just be seen as an inherent property of the field.
The presence of matter (which I believe is itself just a certain modified field structure and symmetry around a convergence point in space/time) with its properties of charge, mass, spin, color, etc. modifies the structure and symmetry of the basic field configuration ( this effect may be different at different scales). This could produce the effects attributed to the four forces, in both quantum and macro world scenarios, and also be able to explain anomalous effects not contained in present theories.
In this theoretical scenario gravity need not be seen as a warping or curvature of space/time. It need only be seen as a result of the modification of the underlying potential scaler/vector/spin field. The bending of light could here be seen as a continuous refraction of light from field modifications due to matter.
QM effects could be seen as the result of modifications of the basic field at the smaller end of the scale.
z
Here's some more thought on basic fields.
The space/time continuum has an underlying basis in a scaler/vector/spin field potential. This potential field probably is dynamic exhibiting random or quantum fluctuations, and has a basic structure and symmetry at all scales.
This basic field is what is responsible for most, if not all, of the SR effects. It may also be involved in dark matter and dark energy effects. Light itself could just be seen as a propagated set of changes in this basic field, thus connecting light with the basis field of space/time. Then could just be seen as an inherent property of the field.
The presence of matter (which I believe is itself just a certain modified field structure and symmetry around a convergence point in space/time) with its properties of charge, mass, spin, color, etc. modifies the structure and symmetry of the basic field configuration ( this effect may be different at different scales). This could produce the effects attributed to the four forces, in both quantum and macro world scenarios, and also be able to explain anomalous effects not contained in present theories.
In this theoretical scenario gravity need not be seen as a warping or curvature of space/time. It need only be seen as a result of the modification of the underlying potential scaler/vector/spin field. The bending of light could here be seen as a continuous refraction of light from field modifications due to matter.
QM effects could be seen as the result of modifications of the basic field at the smaller end of the scale.
z
Hi thezman,
QM and ©, (hbar), we all look into a very unintuitive & spooky phenomena and we call it strange and justly so.
QM and ©, (hbar), we all look into a very unintuitive & spooky phenomena and we call it strange and justly so.
It may also be involved in dark matter and dark energy effects. Light itself could just be seen as a propagated set of changes in this basic field.
Just something that came across my desk, sometimes taking a step back and working your way in, could give you a different point of reference, what you said is very accurate, thezman thank you I know you were talking to, Good Elf, but many are reading I am sure.
Fields is what we work with, but maybe enlarging the structure,( no need to be redundant here.) I do not have a Web. Site, to give you as reference to check, but I know many Physics articles have been written and you can access them from your work.
Check into the data on the new satellite WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) and read what is being said about dark matter! I found it very intriguing what it had to say about dark energy, dark matter and computations plus space/time. Just a FYI, if not file 13.
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE
The space/time continuum has an underlying basis in a scaler/vector/spin field potential. This potential field probably is dynamic exhibiting random or quantum fluctuations, and has a basic structure and symmetry at all scales.
QM and ©, (hbar), we all look into a very unintuitive & spooky phenomena and we call it strange and justly so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The space/time continuum has an underlying basis in a scaler/vector/spin field potential. This potential field probably is dynamic exhibiting random or quantum fluctuations, and has a basic structure and symmetry at all scales. |
QM and ©, (hbar), we all look into a very unintuitive & spooky phenomena and we call it strange and justly so.
It may also be involved in dark matter and dark energy effects. Light itself could just be seen as a propagated set of changes in this basic field.
Just something that came across my desk, sometimes taking a step back and working your way in, could give you a different point of reference, what you said is very accurate, thezman thank you I know you were talking to, Good Elf, but many are reading I am sure.
Fields is what we work with, but maybe enlarging the structure,( no need to be redundant here.) I do not have a Web. Site, to give you as reference to check, but I know many Physics articles have been written and you can access them from your work.
Check into the data on the new satellite WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) and read what is being said about dark matter! I found it very intriguing what it had to say about dark energy, dark matter and computations plus space/time. Just a FYI, if not file 13.
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 3 2005, 09:27 AM)
How can you find a "cold" spot? Correct me if I am wrong. An IR sensor detects energy (hot spots) and the absence of energy (cold spots) is not detectable using such devices (you end up with background). I think its just like a lot of that other "tecchy" equipment that intermittently goes "bing"... just props.
In practice, a typical fireman's bolometer-based imager is configured to show differences within its view. Take a display with 256 shades. Take a software-based variable width, floating notch filter. The software will put the low notch on the coldest pixel, the high notch on the hottest. The 256 shades will be distributed proportionately across the resulting temperature range that is in view. If the temp difference (coldest vs hotest) in view is small, the "sensativity" of the imager is huge. You can see your footprints on the ground, whatever. If the difference is high (throw an ice-cube into a room that's free-burning at 2000 degrees), well, that's 1970 degrees being represented across 256 shades. It'll help us find the fire, though, so we don't care.
TICs don't do well "seeing" air temperature, typically. They can do it, but more often you'll see the interfaces between temperature strata in the room. There won't be any unless it's on fire, though, and by "strata" I'm talking about going from 200 degrees at 3 feet off the floor to 700 degrees at 3' 1", 1200 degrees at 4 feet, 1800 at 5 feet, etc. Not many of us ever get to see such strata in our imagers outside of a controlled training environment, though, because when you start to see them in real life your gear is usually about to become part of the fire as the room flashes over. The smarter ones are typically too busy running like hell at that point.
Cold spot events *can* be found in ambient air if the difference is great enough. You'd see it as a colder patch on the wall (or object) behind the event - however, as you move - you'd notice that there's a parallax involved with that cold spot. Again, we're talking about a single display device, so there's no depth perception unless you shift the imager left & right while keeping a target in-center. Generally speaking, however, I suspect you might be hard-pressed to pull this off unless the temperature difference had some significance. In a cold house, I can sometimes catch waftings out of a heat duct - but it's gotta be hot air, not warm. In the case of our "ghost", it'd have to be cold air - not just "cool". Otherwise you'd simply be holding a rather expensive prop, as you so eloquently put it
Check into the data on the new satellite WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) and read what is being said about dark matter! I found it very intriguing what it had to say about dark energy, dark matter and computations plus space/time. Just a FYI, if not file 13.
Very interesting, yquantum:
Content of the Universe:
* 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.
* The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
* Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.
Most of the universe is not the stuff we understand. So, what if dark energy is anti-gravity, which it seems to act like? I would think anti-gravity matter would separate out and cause the early clumping of gas.
Maybe?
Hi fausinator,
Having a cup of java, I am in a superposition state (HA!) right now, they want me to work out some,?.
Typing as fast as © here. I will get back with you, want to be polite so please excuse me for the moment, and I will do my best to answer your question.
There at the door, got to run. Good questions fausinator. Sorry I do not have more time.
Best regards,
y
In practice, a typical fireman's bolometer-based imager is configured to show differences within its view. Take a display with 256 shades. Take a software-based variable width, floating notch filter. The software will put the low notch on the coldest pixel, the high notch on the hottest. The 256 shades will be distributed proportionately across the resulting temperature range that is in view. If the temp difference (coldest vs hotest) in view is small, the "sensativity" of the imager is huge. You can see your footprints on the ground, whatever. If the difference is high (throw an ice-cube into a room that's free-burning at 2000 degrees), well, that's 1970 degrees being represented across 256 shades. It'll help us find the fire, though, so we don't care.
TICs don't do well "seeing" air temperature, typically. They can do it, but more often you'll see the interfaces between temperature strata in the room. There won't be any unless it's on fire, though, and by "strata" I'm talking about going from 200 degrees at 3 feet off the floor to 700 degrees at 3' 1", 1200 degrees at 4 feet, 1800 at 5 feet, etc. Not many of us ever get to see such strata in our imagers outside of a controlled training environment, though, because when you start to see them in real life your gear is usually about to become part of the fire as the room flashes over. The smarter ones are typically too busy running like hell at that point.
Cold spot events *can* be found in ambient air if the difference is great enough. You'd see it as a colder patch on the wall (or object) behind the event - however, as you move - you'd notice that there's a parallax involved with that cold spot. Again, we're talking about a single display device, so there's no depth perception unless you shift the imager left & right while keeping a target in-center. Generally speaking, however, I suspect you might be hard-pressed to pull this off unless the temperature difference had some significance. In a cold house, I can sometimes catch waftings out of a heat duct - but it's gotta be hot air, not warm. In the case of our "ghost", it'd have to be cold air - not just "cool". Otherwise you'd simply be holding a rather expensive prop, as you so eloquently put it
QUOTE (Good Elf+Apr 3 2005, 09:27 AM)
If the answer was so simple why have we not got a handle on it over the centuries? I suggest that culturally we have a "blind spot" because of taboos.
Oddly, I'd say it's more than just "us" that suffer such a spot. If such interactivity is possible, why is it so limited in occurance? If the concept of "ghosts" is real, then there *are* two parties involved here.
My little anecdote is... well, impossible. Picture the AT&T L3 transcon. A nice fat cable full of military communications. Picture a station along it where the signals are switched. On the outside, it's a tin shack. On the inside, it's a desk, and some stairs leading down to a hydrolic steel door. A nice secured facility, several floors underground and designed to take a few megatons directly on top of it, blah blah blah.
My neighbor, "Bob", was the line supervisor back during the strike in the 80s. Of course, it's strike time - so, only a few people are on-shift in this structure. In fact at this time, the number was two - Bob, and another supervisor. They're in the break room grabbing coffee, and both hear a female laughing from an adjoining room. Not a little, but more like 3 to 4 seconds worth. Very odd, they think - they're supposed to be alone and the sole female (that is not on strike) isn't due back for 18 hours. They sweep the structure, nothing found. Check door entry/exit logs, all are accounted for. Very odd. There *was* a strike on, and some employees were pissed - so, they did a *very* thorough check of the structure. Very odd, indeed. Even more odd that Bob would tell me this story a few days later - he has no respect for ghost stories and offered no conclusions - to this day, offers no conclusions. However, he insists that it was certainly a laugh and was not caused by any device, and no one except the two people who heard it were in the structure. No, there was no such thing as a "sound card" or "wav file" in those days. Heh.
The strike eventually ends, and staff are back to work. A lineman walking up the stairs from the -4th floor to the -3rd floor meets a woman in the stairwell, doesn't recognize her and asks if she needs assistance. "No, I'm fine." He then continues his trek, and mentions the visitor to Bob. "Uhm, we have no visitors today." Secure the facility, sweep it, and... nada. Very, very odd... suddenly we have stories of a "ghost" that is capable of modulating accoustics in two cases, and presenting a "realistic" realtime image in one. Assuming that both Bob and the lineman weren't full of $%^#, that is. As the story plays out, a little research yielded that the structure was built on the site of an old quarry, and some chick was murdered in it back in the early 20s. And of course, no story would be complete unless she exactly matched the physical description of the woman in the stairwell, etc. Same height, same hair color and style, and same yellow sundress. That, or the lineman was a very convincing joker who'd done a little research, first.
---
It seems obvious that, if something intelligent is able to interact, then it should be able to communicate. *Especially* if it's a dead-guy, who's aware of the concept of communication. Interaction with our environment demands perception of our environment; we are able to modify that environment, as are they (be it by "speaking", which would be bizzarre, or more likely by projecting images which seems to be their bread-n-butter). We should trivially be able to communicate by such modifications. It is quite strange that (to date) none seem to have actually tried a "real" communication method using the simple tools they already have demonstrated, especially these "ghosts". If they can project "dead clothing" on their body, then they can project words. "Eat At Joes", or something. Or, even just set up a "blink on demand" system. One blink No, two blink Yes. Trivial... and glaringly missing from what's supposed to be dead people who were highly "socialized". The inconsistencies are... well, there's going to be a major bull#$% factor somewhere. It might just be this entire subject, who knows
Or, there's a social enforcement on the "ghost" side that limits such behavior. That'd be an interesting track to follow - I'd be curious to see how such rules would be enforced in such a case. If there was such a thing, the rules would appear to be enforced generally (since interaction isn't widespread), but not in specific cases for some reason. On the other hand, I suspect that such a track would be rapidly diverted by irrelevent and unproductive biblical anecdotes, if I dare to say that any of this can be considered "productive" in the first place
The joys (and hazards) of "junk science"... the most fun though, I think.
Oddly, I'd say it's more than just "us" that suffer such a spot. If such interactivity is possible, why is it so limited in occurance? If the concept of "ghosts" is real, then there *are* two parties involved here.
My little anecdote is... well, impossible. Picture the AT&T L3 transcon. A nice fat cable full of military communications. Picture a station along it where the signals are switched. On the outside, it's a tin shack. On the inside, it's a desk, and some stairs leading down to a hydrolic steel door. A nice secured facility, several floors underground and designed to take a few megatons directly on top of it, blah blah blah.
My neighbor, "Bob", was the line supervisor back during the strike in the 80s. Of course, it's strike time - so, only a few people are on-shift in this structure. In fact at this time, the number was two - Bob, and another supervisor. They're in the break room grabbing coffee, and both hear a female laughing from an adjoining room. Not a little, but more like 3 to 4 seconds worth. Very odd, they think - they're supposed to be alone and the sole female (that is not on strike) isn't due back for 18 hours. They sweep the structure, nothing found. Check door entry/exit logs, all are accounted for. Very odd. There *was* a strike on, and some employees were pissed - so, they did a *very* thorough check of the structure. Very odd, indeed. Even more odd that Bob would tell me this story a few days later - he has no respect for ghost stories and offered no conclusions - to this day, offers no conclusions. However, he insists that it was certainly a laugh and was not caused by any device, and no one except the two people who heard it were in the structure. No, there was no such thing as a "sound card" or "wav file" in those days. Heh.
The strike eventually ends, and staff are back to work. A lineman walking up the stairs from the -4th floor to the -3rd floor meets a woman in the stairwell, doesn't recognize her and asks if she needs assistance. "No, I'm fine." He then continues his trek, and mentions the visitor to Bob. "Uhm, we have no visitors today." Secure the facility, sweep it, and... nada. Very, very odd... suddenly we have stories of a "ghost" that is capable of modulating accoustics in two cases, and presenting a "realistic" realtime image in one. Assuming that both Bob and the lineman weren't full of $%^#, that is. As the story plays out, a little research yielded that the structure was built on the site of an old quarry, and some chick was murdered in it back in the early 20s. And of course, no story would be complete unless she exactly matched the physical description of the woman in the stairwell, etc. Same height, same hair color and style, and same yellow sundress. That, or the lineman was a very convincing joker who'd done a little research, first.
---
It seems obvious that, if something intelligent is able to interact, then it should be able to communicate. *Especially* if it's a dead-guy, who's aware of the concept of communication. Interaction with our environment demands perception of our environment; we are able to modify that environment, as are they (be it by "speaking", which would be bizzarre, or more likely by projecting images which seems to be their bread-n-butter). We should trivially be able to communicate by such modifications. It is quite strange that (to date) none seem to have actually tried a "real" communication method using the simple tools they already have demonstrated, especially these "ghosts". If they can project "dead clothing" on their body, then they can project words. "Eat At Joes", or something. Or, even just set up a "blink on demand" system. One blink No, two blink Yes. Trivial... and glaringly missing from what's supposed to be dead people who were highly "socialized". The inconsistencies are... well, there's going to be a major bull#$% factor somewhere. It might just be this entire subject, who knows
Or, there's a social enforcement on the "ghost" side that limits such behavior. That'd be an interesting track to follow - I'd be curious to see how such rules would be enforced in such a case. If there was such a thing, the rules would appear to be enforced generally (since interaction isn't widespread), but not in specific cases for some reason. On the other hand, I suspect that such a track would be rapidly diverted by irrelevent and unproductive biblical anecdotes, if I dare to say that any of this can be considered "productive" in the first place
The joys (and hazards) of "junk science"... the most fun though, I think.
Hi Steve,
I am a little slow, where is this going?
y-just a second, like time out..
"Rather than have it the principal thing in my son's mind, I would gladly have him think that the sun went round the earth, and that the stars were so many spangles set in the bright blue firmament. Than to think that there might be ghost." (darn, cannot remember who said that)
Your right this world is spooky, but not here, let us just worry with PHYSICS! I cannot handle anymore spooky phenomena! SR, QM, SS, PW, ect., is more than my mind can hold!
Best regards,
yquantum
I am a little slow, where is this going?
QUOTE
What terrible questions we are learning to ask! The former men believed in magic, by which temples, cities, and men were swallowed up, and all trace of them gone. We are coming on the secret of a magic which sweeps out of men's minds all vestige of theism and beliefs which they and their fathers held and were framed upon.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
y-just a second, like time out..
"Rather than have it the principal thing in my son's mind, I would gladly have him think that the sun went round the earth, and that the stars were so many spangles set in the bright blue firmament. Than to think that there might be ghost." (darn, cannot remember who said that)
Your right this world is spooky, but not here, let us just worry with PHYSICS! I cannot handle anymore spooky phenomena! SR, QM, SS, PW, ect., is more than my mind can hold!
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE (yquantum+Apr 4 2005, 01:21 AM)
Your right this world is spooky, but not here, let us just worry with PHYSICS! I cannot handle anymore spooky phenomena! SR, QM, SS, PW, ect., is more than my mind can hold!
Ah, but if there *were* such a thing as ghosts, then they'd be *part* of that physics, wouldn't they?
It's a big "If", granted.
But, I do relate it to physics in some sense. In pretty much all models proposed, there always remains one little unidentified thing - "the observer". I can create a flat universe in which space appears and behaves curved. I can even create a universe in which time is an illusion, merely the result of our incomplete perspective. Others create games with "bubbles" and "M-Branes" that have "holographic edges" (or boundaries, or surfaces), with concepts offered that our perception is in the region of that "holographic" area. And I seem to follow what they say, I can mostly envision some of these concepts that are offered.
Except for that one thing. None of the models ever really delve into the nature of the (conscious) observer. They cannot even postulate why such an observer is capable of observing (as a consciousness). It doesn't even matter if the "core" of that conscious observer is sluffed off as religious magic and voodoo, sooner or later even that observer model would need to interface with our 'physics', and that physical interface (think "PCI card") would still need to work somehow. Or if you're a physicalist, you've still got the same question - how (and why) does it work? In that sense, it's kind of a pretty big thing to ignore when you consider that it's at least half of the equation. I guess "ghosts" (or whatnot) are about as close as we'll get to addressing it, despite it being an anecdotle trainwreck. In any case, it's almost begging to have data gathered on it, to perhaps find some case or behaviour that can be reproduced on-demand. If they ( a ) are real, and ( b ) are actually remnants of "dead things", that's a perfect case to study - a peek at a "more pure" definition of "observer", without all the clutter of a brain, per-se. It'd be the Razor's dream, I think. And after all... sooner or later, it has to work somehow.
Ah, but if there *were* such a thing as ghosts, then they'd be *part* of that physics, wouldn't they?
It's a big "If", granted.
But, I do relate it to physics in some sense. In pretty much all models proposed, there always remains one little unidentified thing - "the observer". I can create a flat universe in which space appears and behaves curved. I can even create a universe in which time is an illusion, merely the result of our incomplete perspective. Others create games with "bubbles" and "M-Branes" that have "holographic edges" (or boundaries, or surfaces), with concepts offered that our perception is in the region of that "holographic" area. And I seem to follow what they say, I can mostly envision some of these concepts that are offered.
Except for that one thing. None of the models ever really delve into the nature of the (conscious) observer. They cannot even postulate why such an observer is capable of observing (as a consciousness). It doesn't even matter if the "core" of that conscious observer is sluffed off as religious magic and voodoo, sooner or later even that observer model would need to interface with our 'physics', and that physical interface (think "PCI card") would still need to work somehow. Or if you're a physicalist, you've still got the same question - how (and why) does it work? In that sense, it's kind of a pretty big thing to ignore when you consider that it's at least half of the equation. I guess "ghosts" (or whatnot) are about as close as we'll get to addressing it, despite it being an anecdotle trainwreck. In any case, it's almost begging to have data gathered on it, to perhaps find some case or behaviour that can be reproduced on-demand. If they ( a ) are real, and ( b ) are actually remnants of "dead things", that's a perfect case to study - a peek at a "more pure" definition of "observer", without all the clutter of a brain, per-se. It'd be the Razor's dream, I think. And after all... sooner or later, it has to work somehow.
Hi Steve,
Your are right, in Classical physics, Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, etc. You do have to prove so much. And we have!
Just the technology you are using right now is proof.
But I do see your point. So before we go on, do me a favor. Check on "Frame-dragging, it is one of the last predictions of general relativity " you can find the source in a library or some Physics Journal that is available to the public. Come to think about it NASA might have some public records on the subject. After you read on it, check on which was mention early on, WMAP satellite and the information coming back! You might find it awesome!
Point is, we have come a long ways, and maybe we are not in the dark as much as you might think! Check into it OK.
It was not an insult Steve, just a question! Remember it is a Forum and you should have the right to ask anything you want.
Best regards truly,
yquantum
Your are right, in Classical physics, Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, etc. You do have to prove so much. And we have!
QUOTE
Or if you're a physicalist, you've still got the same question - how (and why) does it work?
Just the technology you are using right now is proof.
But I do see your point. So before we go on, do me a favor. Check on "Frame-dragging, it is one of the last predictions of general relativity " you can find the source in a library or some Physics Journal that is available to the public. Come to think about it NASA might have some public records on the subject. After you read on it, check on which was mention early on, WMAP satellite and the information coming back! You might find it awesome!
Point is, we have come a long ways, and maybe we are not in the dark as much as you might think! Check into it OK.
It was not an insult Steve, just a question! Remember it is a Forum and you should have the right to ask anything you want.
Best regards truly,
yquantum
I happen to believe that the probability can NEVER collapse and it can NEVER go to zero. You may wonder how that's possible, but there is evidence of people forming events in their minds when they have a hole for event x. If you don't remember something unconsciously, your brain will fill something in. This facet of perception is important in terms of my opinion, because in order for the probability to collapse to a certain event, it must be certain that the even happens. In effect, I'm saying that there is the possibility that an event catalogued may not have happened even though it appears as such. In this way, we can never say the outcome is the outcome...as stated earlier, there is no answer in terms of a definitive outcome.
QUOTE (yquantum+Apr 3 2005, 08:29 PM)
Check into the data on the new satellite WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) and read what is being said about dark matter! I found it very intriguing what it had to say about dark energy, dark matter and computations plus space/time. Just a FYI, if not file 13.
Very interesting, yquantum:
QUOTE (http://map.gsfc.nasa.cov/m_mm/mr_limits.html+)
Content of the Universe:
* 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.
* The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
* Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.
Most of the universe is not the stuff we understand. So, what if dark energy is anti-gravity, which it seems to act like? I would think anti-gravity matter would separate out and cause the early clumping of gas.
Maybe?
Hi fausinator,Having a cup of java, I am in a superposition state (HA!) right now, they want me to work out some,?.
Typing as fast as © here. I will get back with you, want to be polite so please excuse me for the moment, and I will do my best to answer your question.
There at the door, got to run. Good questions fausinator. Sorry I do not have more time.
Best regards,
y
Hi Steve,
QUOTE (http://map.gsfc.nasa.cov/m_mm/mr_limits.html)
Content of the Universe:
* 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.
* The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
* Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.
Steve you are right, 4 percent is made of hydrogen and helium and 0.03 heavy elements. We can read this about anywhere. But your question, for relaxation is a way out of this office and lab for me. QM is great but the Universe sometimes I wish, just kidding.
To me after we launched WMAP, it has truly been a work of technology, so superior to COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer satellite).
The problem it has in a very ironic way has caused us to rethink and look at our calculations again. And when you looked at the pictures you saw a gigantic halo that surrounds the galaxies - right? It is (dark matter) and it has mass and as you read just in our Milky way galaxy, it out weights all our stars by 10. Cool - sorry had to say that, I know that was bad.
What I like is that and when you looked into the Journals or what ever source you used, you found out that it bends light! (dark matter)
What is ironic is Einstein in 1917, called it a blunder, we now call it a discovery of a driving force in the universe?
This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the very opposite Steve. It is the engine that is driving the galaxies apart. This stuff, so cued I apologize but it has us in it's field if I may be so bold and what will happen to us (4 percent of matter we see), depends on this dark matter. Talk about being kept in the dark. There I go again?
You read this on the sources I ask you to read, but knowing that they tell us we are just in awe to what the heck it is, this dark matter, knowing it has a driving effect to what we know as the UNIVERSE.
I did not tell you anything you do not already know, but I believe the person who can create a way to test it will win the Big One. So good luck!
I will go out on a limb here, jumping off the edge here, but I have given this much thought for relaxation and I truly believe like so many do, dangerous to make assumptions, but multi dimensional.
But let me ask you Steve, why is light never at rest, gravity waves not found -soon I hope- yes Kaluza Klein theory could very well be true, I think there are more than 5, but that is another subject, we do not see the ( DM ),( G ),(c does not rest or slow down in it's natural state), so why not?
I would love for you to give this some thought and then get back if possible, I am just a (y) and I love the adventure of the Quantum World.
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE
QUOTE (http://map.gsfc.nasa.cov/m_mm/mr_limits.html)
Content of the Universe:
* 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.
* The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
* Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.
Steve you are right, 4 percent is made of hydrogen and helium and 0.03 heavy elements. We can read this about anywhere. But your question, for relaxation is a way out of this office and lab for me. QM is great but the Universe sometimes I wish, just kidding.
To me after we launched WMAP, it has truly been a work of technology, so superior to COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer satellite).
The problem it has in a very ironic way has caused us to rethink and look at our calculations again. And when you looked at the pictures you saw a gigantic halo that surrounds the galaxies - right? It is (dark matter) and it has mass and as you read just in our Milky way galaxy, it out weights all our stars by 10. Cool - sorry had to say that, I know that was bad.
What I like is that and when you looked into the Journals or what ever source you used, you found out that it bends light! (dark matter)
What is ironic is Einstein in 1917, called it a blunder, we now call it a discovery of a driving force in the universe?
This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the very opposite Steve. It is the engine that is driving the galaxies apart. This stuff, so cued I apologize but it has us in it's field if I may be so bold and what will happen to us (4 percent of matter we see), depends on this dark matter. Talk about being kept in the dark. There I go again?
You read this on the sources I ask you to read, but knowing that they tell us we are just in awe to what the heck it is, this dark matter, knowing it has a driving effect to what we know as the UNIVERSE.
I did not tell you anything you do not already know, but I believe the person who can create a way to test it will win the Big One. So good luck!
I will go out on a limb here, jumping off the edge here, but I have given this much thought for relaxation and I truly believe like so many do, dangerous to make assumptions, but multi dimensional.
But let me ask you Steve, why is light never at rest, gravity waves not found -soon I hope- yes Kaluza Klein theory could very well be true, I think there are more than 5, but that is another subject, we do not see the ( DM ),( G ),(c does not rest or slow down in it's natural state), so why not?
I would love for you to give this some thought and then get back if possible, I am just a (y) and I love the adventure of the Quantum World.
Best regards,
yquantum
Me? Or Faus?
If me then Boy, I really stepped in it, didn't I This'll take some thought. If I can come up with something not too rediculous, I'll post it lol.
If me then Boy, I really stepped in it, didn't I
This'll take some thought. If I can come up with something not too rediculous, I'll post it lol.
QUOTE (yquantum+Apr 9 2005, 06:50 PM)
What is ironic is Einstein in 1917, called it a blunder, we now call it a discovery of a driving force in the universe?
Irony, or social commentary - the result of people "vesting" in a position for the sake of social status. When the position is later questioned, the status is threatened.
I'd think that in an arena where you have an initially homogenous goo of AGMass (that exhibits this anti-grav force) and GMass (that exhibits grav force) - well, we've got lots of models to relate to. You know the GMass is a clumping material. You know the AGMass will get as far away as it can - and it might push things along as it goes. Use the analogy of having an impurity in a structure - like a nice stainless steel knife blade. Add a few billion tons of pressure into the system and you've got a good analogy for your AGMass - Normal GMass would be your impurities and defects in this analog, and the "pressure" would squash them, cause them to migrate, and eventually shrink. Meanwhile the "structure" away from these defects would normalize. The result *is* a blade that has an edge like no other, and that'll hold an edge like no other.
It's a rough analog, but it's all I've got ATM Your high-pressure regions will naturally cause displacements to flow into a lower-pressure region - exactly why "air bubbles" in water float up to the surface. Meanwhile, your AGMass effectively repells itself - no different, in some sense, than electrons in their various shell configurations. Left to it's own devices, the AGMass will eventually resolve into a system where "no respulsion" exists. And that means distance.
QUOTE
This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the very opposite Steve.
Careful with this wording - you neglect to include what scale you're talking about. The Earth happened, for example.I'd think that in an arena where you have an initially homogenous goo of AGMass (that exhibits this anti-grav force) and GMass (that exhibits grav force) - well, we've got lots of models to relate to. You know the GMass is a clumping material. You know the AGMass will get as far away as it can - and it might push things along as it goes. Use the analogy of having an impurity in a structure - like a nice stainless steel knife blade. Add a few billion tons of pressure into the system and you've got a good analogy for your AGMass - Normal GMass would be your impurities and defects in this analog, and the "pressure" would squash them, cause them to migrate, and eventually shrink. Meanwhile the "structure" away from these defects would normalize. The result *is* a blade that has an edge like no other, and that'll hold an edge like no other.
It's a rough analog, but it's all I've got ATM
Your high-pressure regions will naturally cause displacements to flow into a lower-pressure region - exactly why "air bubbles" in water float up to the surface. Meanwhile, your AGMass effectively repells itself - no different, in some sense, than electrons in their various shell configurations. Left to it's own devices, the AGMass will eventually resolve into a system where "no respulsion" exists. And that means distance.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the very opposite Steve. |
Careful with this wording - you neglect to include what scale you're talking about. The Earth happened, for example.
I'd think that in an arena where you have an initially homogenous goo of AGMass (that exhibits this anti-grav force) and GMass (that exhibits grav force) - well, we've got lots of models to relate to. You know the GMass is a clumping material. You know the AGMass will get as far away as it can - and it might push things along as it goes. Use the analogy of having an impurity in a structure - like a nice stainless steel knife blade. Add a few billion tons of pressure into the system and you've got a good analogy for your AGMass - Normal GMass would be your impurities and defects in this analog, and the "pressure" would squash them, cause them to migrate, and eventually shrink. Meanwhile the "structure" away from these defects would normalize. The result *is* a blade that has an edge like no other, and that'll hold an edge like no other.
It's a rough analog, but it's all I've got ATM Your high-pressure regions will naturally cause displacements to flow into a lower-pressure region - exactly why "air bubbles" in water float up to the surface. Meanwhile, your AGMass effectively repells itself - no different, in some sense, than electrons in their various shell configurations. Left to it's own devices, the AGMass will eventually resolve into a system where "no respulsion" exists. And that means distance.
it has us in it's field if I may be so bold
I'd think that in an arena where you have an initially homogenous goo of AGMass (that exhibits this anti-grav force) and GMass (that exhibits grav force) - well, we've got lots of models to relate to. You know the GMass is a clumping material. You know the AGMass will get as far away as it can - and it might push things along as it goes. Use the analogy of having an impurity in a structure - like a nice stainless steel knife blade. Add a few billion tons of pressure into the system and you've got a good analogy for your AGMass - Normal GMass would be your impurities and defects in this analog, and the "pressure" would squash them, cause them to migrate, and eventually shrink. Meanwhile the "structure" away from these defects would normalize. The result *is* a blade that has an edge like no other, and that'll hold an edge like no other.
It's a rough analog, but it's all I've got ATM
Your high-pressure regions will naturally cause displacements to flow into a lower-pressure region - exactly why "air bubbles" in water float up to the surface. Meanwhile, your AGMass effectively repells itself - no different, in some sense, than electrons in their various shell configurations. Left to it's own devices, the AGMass will eventually resolve into a system where "no respulsion" exists. And that means distance.it has us in it's field if I may be so bold
Lol, fields have infinite radius. They just get very weak as you get far away, silly! So, don't couch those types of statements.
QUOTE
we are just in awe to what the heck it is, this dark matter, knowing it has a driving effect to what we know as the UNIVERSE.
This stuff, whatever it is, has been around for a damned long time. It doesn't deserve any more "awe" than anything else does - or, everything else deserves the same "awe" it does. Either way, heh.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we are just in awe to what the heck it is, this dark matter, knowing it has a driving effect to what we know as the UNIVERSE. |
This stuff, whatever it is, has been around for a damned long time. It doesn't deserve any more "awe" than anything else does - or, everything else deserves the same "awe" it does. Either way, heh.
...multi dimensional.
...multi dimensional.
Pretty much everything is multidimensional, so that's hardly a limb you should be afraid of exploring. The trick, though, is that we (for good reason) wish to limit the number of dimensions that'll exist. We do this, I expect, so that we'll be able to manage them. Physics would be rather pointless if someone suddenly demonstrated that we live in a Billion-space, think about it - how the hell would we solve any equations So, the challenge is to create a model with limited dimensions, as few as possible. It is not necessarily a *requirement*, however - the final model will have what it needs if it's going to be accurate, be it 5 or 50, or infiniite.
There's an old joke, now updated for modern times - The typical group of nerds is cruising through Scottland, and comes across a black sheep at the top of a hill.
The chemist says, ""Look! There's black sheep on that hill!" The physicist says, "No, there's at least one black sheep on that hill!" The math-head says "No, there's at least one sheep on that hill that is at least half-black." The software guy says, "No, there's a potential for an infinite number of hills that have at least none, but possibly an infinite number hollow, black sheep-halves on them!"
And of course, everyone in that group was completely correct - it's all about the techniques you use.
I stopped here, and threw together a quick game to explain a concept of "never at rest", and I'd be thrilled if you tried / commented on it. Here. Obviously, now I'm back from writing it. And yes, standard disclaimers apply; it is merely a concept to describe one way in which such a behavior could emerge.
So, the challenge is to create a model with limited dimensions, as few as possible. It is not necessarily a *requirement*, however - the final model will have what it needs if it's going to be accurate, be it 5 or 50, or infiniite.There's an old joke, now updated for modern times - The typical group of nerds is cruising through Scottland, and comes across a black sheep at the top of a hill.
The chemist says, ""Look! There's black sheep on that hill!" The physicist says, "No, there's at least one black sheep on that hill!" The math-head says "No, there's at least one sheep on that hill that is at least half-black." The software guy says, "No, there's a potential for an infinite number of hills that have at least none, but possibly an infinite number hollow, black sheep-halves on them!"
And of course, everyone in that group was completely correct - it's all about the techniques you use.
QUOTE
why is light never at rest
You're working under two assumptions. First, you assume that light is a thing that moves. You're also assuming that it has a physical position(s) at some point in time, which must exist if it moves. (And, I'm not saying there's a flaw; merely pointing out what must be true). The challenge is that we haven't fully described light. We have partial descriptions, that conveniently (and flatly) contradict each other - and we accept them both, complete with contradictions, as gospel. It's a particle. No, it's a wave. No, it's both - and here's a pile of "probability" mumbo-jumbo to excuse the contradiction. Wrong, it cannot be both. Particles and Waves both have definitions - and those definitions are not arbitrary, and the are exclusive of each other. Perhaps it's something else, that when projected into 3-space, can give the appearance of both. Until someone comes up with such a shape, though, we're stuck with a self-contradicting model. Or, perhaps those definitions are grossly wrong. On the good side, the model mostly works... provided you're drunk enough to understand all the probability mumbo-jumbo.I stopped here, and threw together a quick game to explain a concept of "never at rest", and I'd be thrilled if you tried / commented on it. Here. Obviously, now I'm back from writing it. And yes, standard disclaimers apply; it is merely a concept to describe one way in which such a behavior could emerge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| why is light never at rest |
You're working under two assumptions. First, you assume that light is a thing that moves. You're also assuming that it has a physical position(s) at some point in time, which must exist if it moves. (And, I'm not saying there's a flaw; merely pointing out what must be true). The challenge is that we haven't fully described light. We have partial descriptions, that conveniently (and flatly) contradict each other - and we accept them both, complete with contradictions, as gospel. It's a particle. No, it's a wave. No, it's both - and here's a pile of "probability" mumbo-jumbo to excuse the contradiction. Wrong, it cannot be both. Particles and Waves both have definitions - and those definitions are not arbitrary, and the are exclusive of each other. Perhaps it's something else, that when projected into 3-space, can give the appearance of both. Until someone comes up with such a shape, though, we're stuck with a self-contradicting model. Or, perhaps those definitions are grossly wrong. On the good side, the model mostly works... provided you're drunk enough to understand all the probability mumbo-jumbo.
I stopped here, and threw together a quick game to explain a concept of "never at rest", and I'd be thrilled if you tried / commented on it. Here. Obviously, now I'm back from writing it. And yes, standard disclaimers apply; it is merely a concept to describe one way in which such a behavior could emerge.
gravity waves not found
I stopped here, and threw together a quick game to explain a concept of "never at rest", and I'd be thrilled if you tried / commented on it. Here. Obviously, now I'm back from writing it. And yes, standard disclaimers apply; it is merely a concept to describe one way in which such a behavior could emerge.
gravity waves not found
That's assuming that gravity exists within space (as a property / state). If they do, it'll be cool. My gut tells me it doesn't at this time, and that gravity is an operator on the interaction between space and those properties/states.
Anthropics. (Presuming those models are correct) Those are just as real as X, Y, Z - we just didn't need to directly perceive them as "part of space" in order to survive. After all, if you're a caveman about to be eaten by a velociraptor, do you really care about its mageto-flux quantum modulation variance? No, you'll be too busy getting the hell out of there
Phew! How's that for a shot. That'll teach me to open my mouth, for sure. And to those unfortunates who actually read through all of this drivel, that'll teach you to ask me a freakin question
QUOTE
we do not see the ( DM ),( G ),(c ), so why not?
Anthropics. (Presuming those models are correct) Those are just as real as X, Y, Z - we just didn't need to directly perceive them as "part of space" in order to survive. After all, if you're a caveman about to be eaten by a velociraptor, do you really care about its mageto-flux quantum modulation variance? No, you'll be too busy getting the hell out of there
Phew! How's that for a shot. That'll teach me to open my mouth, for sure. And to those unfortunates who actually read through all of this drivel, that'll teach you to ask me a freakin question
Hi Steve,
I did not turn the sound down, and the wave packet went off. (you have mail) HA!
I have a guest in the office, and calculations to implement, did not want you to feel that I would not respond.
Do not know how long this meeting is going to last, then my wife wants me, well give me a few and I will try to the best of my ability, remember I am not a Cosmologist, but I believe you have some interesting questions, that we all ask.
Did a quick read but I believe I can a least tell you were the information is on the subject?
Get back as soon as I can fit an extra in the 24 given.
Best regards,
yquantum excuse the typo's please!
I did not turn the sound down, and the wave packet went off. (you have mail) HA!
I have a guest in the office, and calculations to implement, did not want you to feel that I would not respond.
Do not know how long this meeting is going to last, then my wife wants me, well give me a few and I will try to the best of my ability, remember I am not a Cosmologist, but I believe you have some interesting questions, that we all ask.
Did a quick read but I believe I can a least tell you were the information is on the subject?
Get back as soon as I can fit an extra in the 24 given.
Best regards,
yquantum
excuse the typo's please!
Hi Steve,
This is going to be fast, and that is when I screw up the most! Overlook typo's, errors correct me, and I guess we will go from here. I need to write it out but I just do not have the time!
Need more than a 24-hour day. However, I do not want to be rude, I like what this Forum does for me; it keeps me out of the box. I also know I am not into Cosmology, but it has helped me these many years in the field that I do pursue! Nevertheless, I have no delusions and I quote & use, it is in my office.
1.QUOTE (yquantum @ Apr 9 2005, 06:50 PM)
What is ironic is Einstein in 1917, called it a blunder, we now call it a discovery of a driving force in the universe?
Steve I believe and I know you will correct me, but 1917 A.E. stated a cosmological constant. You can find it in any undergrad textbook on the subject, short version, (universe is ever expanding) but the technology was not adequate to prove his theory. A chapter could explain it much better than I could in a few sentences. Take the time to find the information; I believe you will find it very interesting. I will touch on it latter on down.
2. We know that matter, gravity is a force. You have (G) attraction due to matter that we know of. Then there is (energy) dark matter that gives a PUSH/PULL force. In addition, this is the engine visible matter and dark matter. (It is a force), yes in the solar system (clump together, like that) but we just do not see it in our stars, so where is it?
We live in a system where the sun keeps the planets in motion using Keller?s Law, right. (Elliptical orbits). Moreover, as you said from COBE, WMAP and data that will come from (SNAP) superNova Acceleration Probe does and will show we are homogenous in the radiation readings we have now. Running out of time, anyway we have read all this in so many resources or Journals.
You made some good points; I am open to all research as we should be. Quintessence, not as important today but "Anthropics" not going there if that is OK. ©
Remember it is the photons that trigger off the detector. Not the state of the photon, energy causes the ping. (Particle and wave - De Broglie) and yes I see your point, pun intended, but that is intimately bound up with quantum uncertainty. You can find information here on the Forum dealing with this.
POINT: As we know today, as was stated indirectly 1917 we do have a cosmological constant. (Not static like A.E. had envisioned, but with what we know now constant. Four percent of what we see in our world view, 26 percent what we do not see, and 70 percent of something? Steve it is homogeneous on a large scale. Does this not hold true to what you have read?
Dimension?s, -&*^#- yes, and just like that movie, darn I need to get out more often. However, I believe it had to do with life on other planets, but I will say to x^four, if this is it, and then there seem to me a lot of wasted energy & possibility's out there.
A great start I think would be, and I just read it very fast but darn again, oh History of Time (?). Then I would be very surprised if he did not recommend outside reading on the subject. This is what he lives for, and he would be so much more qualified to help you on this than (y). Penrose has a great book that he coauthors authors with him, just cannot think of it. I like Roger Penrose very much, he is not afraid to go out of the BOX.
I just love to ponder on the unknown, Steve far more qualified men and women could answer your questions, but I just wanted to respond and hope I have not given disinformation or incorrect because of lack of wisdom or knowledge. And please correct me if there is a mistake?
Anything new comes up, please put it on the thread, well there goes my lunch break but it was fun. Take care; oh, (Gravity) is a very important force in physics, and you do not have to trust me on that, but check out some threads on the subject as well. ON another day, another thread. OK?
Best regards,
yquantum
This is going to be fast, and that is when I screw up the most! Overlook typo's, errors correct me, and I guess we will go from here. I need to write it out but I just do not have the time!
Need more than a 24-hour day. However, I do not want to be rude, I like what this Forum does for me; it keeps me out of the box. I also know I am not into Cosmology, but it has helped me these many years in the field that I do pursue! Nevertheless, I have no delusions and I quote & use, it is in my office.
QUOTE
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr-
-Niels Bohr-
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field. -Niels Bohr- |
1.QUOTE (yquantum @ Apr 9 2005, 06:50 PM)
What is ironic is Einstein in 1917, called it a blunder, we now call it a discovery of a driving force in the universe?
Steve I believe and I know you will correct me, but 1917 A.E. stated a cosmological constant. You can find it in any undergrad textbook on the subject, short version, (universe is ever expanding) but the technology was not adequate to prove his theory. A chapter could explain it much better than I could in a few sentences. Take the time to find the information; I believe you will find it very interesting. I will touch on it latter on down.
QUOTE
QUOTE
This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the opposite Steve
This antigravity dark matter is not causing clumping but the opposite Steve
2. We know that matter, gravity is a force. You have (G) attraction due to matter that we know of. Then there is (energy) dark matter that gives a PUSH/PULL force. In addition, this is the engine visible matter and dark matter. (It is a force), yes in the solar system (clump together, like that) but we just do not see it in our stars, so where is it?
We live in a system where the sun keeps the planets in motion using Keller?s Law, right. (Elliptical orbits). Moreover, as you said from COBE, WMAP and data that will come from (SNAP) superNova Acceleration Probe does and will show we are homogenous in the radiation readings we have now. Running out of time, anyway we have read all this in so many resources or Journals.
You made some good points; I am open to all research as we should be. Quintessence, not as important today but "Anthropics" not going there if that is OK. ©
Remember it is the photons that trigger off the detector. Not the state of the photon, energy causes the ping. (Particle and wave - De Broglie) and yes I see your point, pun intended, but that is intimately bound up with quantum uncertainty. You can find information here on the Forum dealing with this.
POINT: As we know today, as was stated indirectly 1917 we do have a cosmological constant. (Not static like A.E. had envisioned, but with what we know now constant. Four percent of what we see in our world view, 26 percent what we do not see, and 70 percent of something? Steve it is homogeneous on a large scale. Does this not hold true to what you have read?
Dimension?s, -&*^#- yes, and just like that movie, darn I need to get out more often. However, I believe it had to do with life on other planets, but I will say to x^four, if this is it, and then there seem to me a lot of wasted energy & possibility's out there.
A great start I think would be, and I just read it very fast but darn again, oh History of Time (?). Then I would be very surprised if he did not recommend outside reading on the subject. This is what he lives for, and he would be so much more qualified to help you on this than (y). Penrose has a great book that he coauthors authors with him, just cannot think of it. I like Roger Penrose very much, he is not afraid to go out of the BOX.
I just love to ponder on the unknown, Steve far more qualified men and women could answer your questions, but I just wanted to respond and hope I have not given disinformation or incorrect because of lack of wisdom or knowledge. And please correct me if there is a mistake?
Anything new comes up, please put it on the thread, well there goes my lunch break but it was fun. Take care; oh, (Gravity) is a very important force in physics, and you do not have to trust me on that, but check out some threads on the subject as well. ON another day, another thread. OK?
Best regards,
yquantum
Hi guys,
It would appear to me that the best models for the nature of the universe are those with the least number of dimensions. Any model that can keep it to 3s/1t would be best, however certain anomalies may require more than this.
There are certain theories today which replace the idea of extra dimensions with fractalized descriptions in 3s/1t, where different forces can operate on different subsets of the entire fractal.
z
It would appear to me that the best models for the nature of the universe are those with the least number of dimensions. Any model that can keep it to 3s/1t would be best, however certain anomalies may require more than this.
There are certain theories today which replace the idea of extra dimensions with fractalized descriptions in 3s/1t, where different forces can operate on different subsets of the entire fractal.
z
Hi Steve,
Your very intuitive and have a great perspective, and yes x^3 + (t) = x^4. And I like what Feynman said at a lecture on campus, and I am so very sure it is in some record of his life, and if I find it, you would get a kick out of it I am sure. "I have enough trouble keeping up with three dimensions [+t]." He was not a fan of String Theory, but at one meeting, he did admit he might be very skeptical, but the point gave him thought?
All math aside, because it becomes so cumbersome and if you are a master of the art, you can almost and I stress almost, make it perform as you please, within Axiom, Laws, Concepts, Mathematical proofs, etc., to prove a point.
Question, You and I know that we have so much to explain and we are doing so, is there is something you feel, that is just out of our reach?
I have so much respect for the 'Great pioneers of years past," but do you not think we must go beyond our reason, like Edwin A. Abbott, 'Flatland,' no trap here just a question and a very sincere one.
Very best of regards,
yquantum
t
Your very intuitive and have a great perspective, and yes x^3 + (t) = x^4. And I like what Feynman said at a lecture on campus, and I am so very sure it is in some record of his life, and if I find it, you would get a kick out of it I am sure. "I have enough trouble keeping up with three dimensions [+t]." He was not a fan of String Theory, but at one meeting, he did admit he might be very skeptical, but the point gave him thought?
All math aside, because it becomes so cumbersome and if you are a master of the art, you can almost and I stress almost, make it perform as you please, within Axiom, Laws, Concepts, Mathematical proofs, etc., to prove a point.
Question, You and I know that we have so much to explain and we are doing so, is there is something you feel, that is just out of our reach?
I have so much respect for the 'Great pioneers of years past," but do you not think we must go beyond our reason, like Edwin A. Abbott, 'Flatland,' no trap here just a question and a very sincere one.
Very best of regards,
yquantum
t
QUOTE (yquantum+Apr 10 2005, 02:06 PM)
1917 A.E. stated a cosmological constant.
Yes - and he clearly states that it was added for political reasons. While his implementation of the Cos-Const was wonderful, it was still an unfounded kludge intended to avoid deviating from... uh, what was "correct" at the time. Note that it doesn't matter if the concept is later shown to have merit - at the time, it's sole reason for development was social. His reasons to justify it, therefore, should not exactly be given a strong credibility.
QUOTE
2. We know that matter, gravity is a force. You have (G) attraction due to matter that we know of. Then there is (energy) dark matter that gives a PUSH/PULL force. In addition, this is the engine visible matter and dark matter. (It is a force), yes in the solar system (clump together, like that) but we just do not see it in our stars, so where is it?
Not sure what you're asking. An object that repells everything will do so, and move to the point where the repelling force is minimized. That typically means distance. Of course you'd not see it in proximity to something that tends to clump, heh.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. We know that matter, gravity is a force. You have (G) attraction due to matter that we know of. Then there is (energy) dark matter that gives a PUSH/PULL force. In addition, this is the engine visible matter and dark matter. (It is a force), yes in the solar system (clump together, like that) but we just do not see it in our stars, so where is it? |
Not sure what you're asking. An object that repells everything will do so, and move to the point where the repelling force is minimized. That typically means distance. Of course you'd not see it in proximity to something that tends to clump, heh.
"Anthropics" not going there if that is OK.
"Anthropics" not going there if that is OK.
Perhaps, but the anthropic principle has merit - we cannot ignore the impact of arrogance in our observations. We are very "ME-centric" creatures, after all, and it *does* jade our views. "Why do we only see 3, and not all dimensions?" The silent implication of that question is that somehow, the universe gives a $%#^ as to what we can or cannot see. It doesn't. The question itself begs the assertion that somehow, we're relevent to the actual solution, as if the universe would "avoid" having more than three in order avoid offending us, or making us feel bad. Or something. (And note: It's not a fault to have such a mindset - by definition, we all must have it. Just be aware of it, and learn to recognize the "silent assertions" that go along with it. Arrogant (aka self-centered) perception carries a lot of baggage along with it.)
Consider the following evolution:
A photon comes through a gate. Bob wants to model the results so he can predict what'll happen. He studies it, can cannot determine the root causes of the behaviors he sees.
So, Bob decides to tackle it using statistical modelling. He pumps a million photons in and looks at his results. He discovers that 20% of the time, A happens. 5% of the time, B happens. 50% of the time, C happens. 25% of the time, D happens. He also discovers that by performing certain actions, he can steer the probabilities towards a specific one. He then provides calculations to predict the shift towards a specific outcome based on those actions.
We have a phrase to describe the technique of using probabilities to predict things: it's called "Market Research". That should pretty much nail the coffin shut on those who think a "probability model" is an actual reality; in truth, it is merely a tool used when the specifics of a situation are beyond your ability to measure. Trust me - when a photon "spontaneously" decides to decompose into a pair, there is a very legitimate reason for it, and a very real mechanism behind it. We just aren't able to figure out what any of it is - so we treat it statistically, to abstract the process into something we can work with. There'd be nothing "spontaneous" about it, if we could see the truth. Meanwhile, people see the new "spontaneous" model and confuse something - instead of "we see it as spontaneous because of our inability to measure", it becomes "it is spontaneous." There is a BIG difference between the two statements, the difference in implications are staggering.
QUOTE
but that is intimately bound up with quantum uncertainty.
One must remember that QM uncertainty is a game used to model the behavior, brilliantly devised to incorporate our inability to observe and predict. It is not an authoritative description of the truth, at this time. Over the decades, sadly, people have again confused a tool intended to compensate for error with an actual reality.Consider the following evolution:
A photon comes through a gate. Bob wants to model the results so he can predict what'll happen. He studies it, can cannot determine the root causes of the behaviors he sees.
So, Bob decides to tackle it using statistical modelling. He pumps a million photons in and looks at his results. He discovers that 20% of the time, A happens. 5% of the time, B happens. 50% of the time, C happens. 25% of the time, D happens. He also discovers that by performing certain actions, he can steer the probabilities towards a specific one. He then provides calculations to predict the shift towards a specific outcome based on those actions.
We have a phrase to describe the technique of using probabilities to predict things: it's called "Market Research". That should pretty much nail the coffin shut on those who think a "probability model" is an actual reality; in truth, it is merely a tool used when the specifics of a situation are beyond your ability to measure. Trust me - when a photon "spontaneously" decides to decompose into a pair, there is a very legitimate reason for it, and a very real mechanism behind it. We just aren't able to figure out what any of it is - so we treat it statistically, to abstract the process into something we can work with. There'd be nothing "spontaneous" about it, if we could see the truth. Meanwhile, people see the new "spontaneous" model and confuse something - instead of "we see it as spontaneous because of our inability to measure", it becomes "it is spontaneous." There is a BIG difference between the two statements, the difference in implications are staggering.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| but that is intimately bound up with quantum uncertainty. |
One must remember that QM uncertainty is a game used to model the behavior, brilliantly devised to incorporate our inability to observe and predict. It is not an authoritative description of the truth, at this time. Over the decades, sadly, people have again confused a tool intended to compensate for error with an actual reality.
Consider the following evolution:
A photon comes through a gate. Bob wants to model the results so he can predict what'll happen. He studies it, can cannot determine the root causes of the behaviors he sees.
So, Bob decides to tackle it using statistical modelling. He pumps a million photons in and looks at his results. He discovers that 20% of the time, A happens. 5% of the time, B happens. 50% of the time, C happens. 25% of the time, D happens. He also discovers that by performing certain actions, he can steer the probabilities towards a specific one. He then provides calculations to predict the shift towards a specific outcome based on those actions.
We have a phrase to describe the technique of using probabilities to predict things: it's called "Market Research". That should pretty much nail the coffin shut on those who think a "probability model" is an actual reality; in truth, it is merely a tool used when the specifics of a situation are beyond your ability to measure. Trust me - when a photon "spontaneously" decides to decompose into a pair, there is a very legitimate reason for it, and a very real mechanism behind it. We just aren't able to figure out what any of it is - so we treat it statistically, to abstract the process into something we can work with. There'd be nothing "spontaneous" about it, if we could see the truth. Meanwhile, people see the new "spontaneous" model and confuse something - instead of "we see it as spontaneous because of our inability to measure", it becomes "it is spontaneous." There is a BIG difference between the two statements, the difference in implications are staggering.
as was stated indirectly 1917 we do have a cosmological constant. (Not static like A.E. had envisioned
Consider the following evolution:
A photon comes through a gate. Bob wants to model the results so he can predict what'll happen. He studies it, can cannot determine the root causes of the behaviors he sees.
So, Bob decides to tackle it using statistical modelling. He pumps a million photons in and looks at his results. He discovers that 20% of the time, A happens. 5% of the time, B happens. 50% of the time, C happens. 25% of the time, D happens. He also discovers that by performing certain actions, he can steer the probabilities towards a specific one. He then provides calculations to predict the shift towards a specific outcome based on those actions.
We have a phrase to describe the technique of using probabilities to predict things: it's called "Market Research". That should pretty much nail the coffin shut on those who think a "probability model" is an actual reality; in truth, it is merely a tool used when the specifics of a situation are beyond your ability to measure. Trust me - when a photon "spontaneously" decides to decompose into a pair, there is a very legitimate reason for it, and a very real mechanism behind it. We just aren't able to figure out what any of it is - so we treat it statistically, to abstract the process into something we can work with. There'd be nothing "spontaneous" about it, if we could see the truth. Meanwhile, people see the new "spontaneous" model and confuse something - instead of "we see it as spontaneous because of our inability to measure", it becomes "it is spontaneous." There is a BIG difference between the two statements, the difference in implications are staggering.
as was stated indirectly 1917 we do have a cosmological constant. (Not static like A.E. had envisioned
If not as AE had envisioned, then it wasn't as stated, silly Also if not static, then it isn't a constant. And no, what I'm saying has no bearing on "anti-grav" being correct or not; I'm just pointing out that you gotta be careful with your wording, and where you look for "backing up" a concept.
As for what I've read - well, an infinite universe means that somewhere out there is a planet where Ratchet Screwdrivers grow on Trees. There's also a planet populated exclusively by three-headed Elvis clones. Clearly, some ideas are better than others. All we can hope is that none of us get lynched "for being a smartass". ^^
Also if not static, then it isn't a constant. And no, what I'm saying has no bearing on "anti-grav" being correct or not; I'm just pointing out that you gotta be careful with your wording, and where you look for "backing up" a concept.QUOTE
Steve it is homogeneous on a large scale. Does this not hold true to what you have read?
No, it is not homogenous on a large scale, any more than it is homogenous on a small scale. There are islands present, on the small, medium, large, and grand scales. That is not a homogenous situation. Not perfectly, that is, which means NOT. On the good side, these "islands" may very well serve as the indicator needed to introduce some type of repulsive condition. As for what I've read - well, an infinite universe means that somewhere out there is a planet where Ratchet Screwdrivers grow on Trees. There's also a planet populated exclusively by three-headed Elvis clones. Clearly, some ideas are better than others. All we can hope is that none of us get lynched "for being a smartass". ^
^QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steve it is homogeneous on a large scale. Does this not hold true to what you have read? |
No, it is not homogenous on a large scale, any more than it is homogenous on a small scale. There are islands present, on the small, medium, large, and grand scales. That is not a homogenous situation. Not perfectly, that is, which means NOT. On the good side, these "islands" may very well serve as the indicator needed to introduce some type of repulsive condition.
As for what I've read - well, an infinite universe means that somewhere out there is a planet where Ratchet Screwdrivers grow on Trees. There's also a planet populated exclusively by three-headed Elvis clones. Clearly, some ideas are better than others. All we can hope is that none of us get lynched "for being a smartass". ^^
Dimension?s, -&*^#- yes, and just like that movie, darn I need to get out more often. However, I believe it had to do with life on other planets, but I will say to x^four, if this is it, and then there seem to me a lot of wasted energy & possibility's out there.
As for what I've read - well, an infinite universe means that somewhere out there is a planet where Ratchet Screwdrivers grow on Trees. There's also a planet populated exclusively by three-headed Elvis clones. Clearly, some ideas are better than others. All we can hope is that none of us get lynched "for being a smartass". ^
^Dimension?s, -&*^#- yes, and just like that movie, darn I need to get out more often. However, I believe it had to do with life on other planets, but I will say to x^four, if this is it, and then there seem to me a lot of wasted energy & possibility's out there.
Slow it down, Tiger... restate this using smaller steps so's I can follow you You've got some pretty great ideas and views, so give them their due - spell 'em out!
Yep... ZMan, as usual, hit it right on the head -
Yep... ZMan, as usual, hit it right on the head -
It would appear to me that the best models for the nature of the universe are those with the least number of dimensions. Any model that can keep it to 3s/1t would be best, however certain anomalies may require more than this.
"Would be best" because then we'd have a prayer of working with it. Amen.
However, I'm a software guy - and I have different rules. Inductive reasoning, for example, is completely backwards from what a physicist or math-head would use.
A physicist must be limited to his observations. He sees three dimensions, and is not allowed to add any more unless he can demonstrate a cause.
Me, however - I need to work the following way - because I work it from the "eventuality" point of view.
I discover one dimension. I model it.
I then discover a second. Uh oh. The general case is now that there's more than one. I'd better abstract this model to handle an infinite number of them, because my induction technique says "if there's more than one, you need to show me why the count would eventually stop." And then I discover a 3rd. No problem, this time... just two clicks to change a setting and I'm done... and I don't even have to reboot anything. The result is a more accurate model, because it incorporates the modelling process. Physics must not do that.
So to me, when I'm wearing my SWE hat, stopping at 3 is a complete trainwreck. There's no reason to just stop at that number. By "discovering" the 2nd dimension, and then the third - all I've done is twice prove that my "general case" needs to allow for "more" dimensions to be discovered. And obviously, Eventualities demand that those goddamned freakin END USERS will want more added the day I roll this program out. Bastards.
I look at physics models of 5, 10, or 12 dimensions and it only proves my point, further. "Show my why it'd stop." And I can assure you - any physicists or math-heads reading that statement are probably ripping their hair out at the abomination I've just stated - but that's why they aren't good software guys. They're physicists and mathematicians, and must not think that way. The results would not be manageable, and would probably end up being gibberish. Meanwhile, we have an expression to describe people who think their way - we call them "Java" and "VB" programmers. "With a VB manual on your dashboard, you can park in handicap spaces. With a Java LRM on your dash, they'll bring you out a wheelchair." Heh. And please note that it's not that they're wrong - but their methodologies are not appropriate for my environment, just as mine is not appropriate for theirs.
So, things out of reach? Within a specific methodology, yes. Also, our limited ability to perceive will be a strong hinderance. Put poor communication on top of that, where people confidently attach personal baggage to a misinterpreted (or inadequately described) statement, and things get hard to reach, very quickly. Still, between the disciplines - I don't see any fences we cannot cross. All we need is a real, big-assed chainsaw to cut through it
Hi Steve & fausinator,
First lesson never and I mean never ask an Astrophysicists a question before, during or after dinner. Might as well order paper, water and a mechanical pencil because the food will be cold.
I will not do the math, and putting into words, Omega, etc., well, this is the short version which is all I wanted because of my wife, BUT did not get. My wife or child are still not talking to me.
Steve and fausinator, I went in expecting to be corrected, this is something and I believe you will find it odd, but I do not mind. If you can help me not make the same mistake, then you have done me a huge favor.
Einstein, was a man before his time that should go really without saying. They at, and I stress as of NOW, have a model or fundamental cosmological principle. I defended what you both said, and I questioned the data myself. Bottom line, because like always I must hurry, (typo's) expect.
You were looking at the frame of the UNIVERSE, & you were correct, but if you just took a teaspoon, or ice-cream scooper, it would be in clumps and that is where I believe you were coming from. Good Job-Besides if we did not have clumps there would be no life, and I would not be typing at the speed of?
But if you used a large scooper WMAP, you would fine out it is isotropy and homogeneity to dramatically hold. The math is clearer, but it is cumbersome and boring I am sure, but things can change gentlemen as more data comes in, I was told not to hold my breath, because it seem the UNIVERSE is FLAT and expanding very fast, m (Doppler effect). I do not believe I can do it justice to all that was said, even if I am being judged by my wife and child. HA!
Here is a something that was aired on the tele in America, and I will try to keep it short. You will find the sources below in the paragraph, names, and from the Frontline Web site, sure they one.
'This black body nature of CMBR its [Homogeneity and Isotropy] was dramatically verified in 1992 by the all-sky map of the relic radiation prepared by the NASA spacecraft Cosmic Background Explorer [COBE], flown in 1989, which gave a tremendous boost to Big Bang cosmology.
While the Standard Cosmological Model based on the Big Bang has now come to dominate mainstream discourses in physics almost to the point of dogma, Narlikar and associates have carried with them their conviction of the basic idea of a steady state universe and have sought to explain the 3K CMBR as resulting from the starlight in the universe that is scattered by interstellar metallic grains and attains thermal equilibrium.
In the wake of the COBE results, a modified steady state scenario was put forward by Hoyle, Narlikar and Geoffrey Burbidge a decade ago, called Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC). In February this year, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (Frontline, September 14, 2001) as a follow-up to COBE with an order of magnitude better resolution, returned data which the Big Bang theorists believe have conclusively ruled out all cosmological models except the standard model based on the Big Bang. Indeed, according to it, it is claimed that with WMAP data all cosmological parameters have been more or less determined with precision and only some details remain to be filled.'
I know, if you look up the NAMES & ACRONYMS, you will find the resources. I did the best I could do with the little time I had. Hope it helps all of us. I have highlighted the sources to help you on your journey!
Best regards,
yquantum, I did my best if there is a typo please over look and resources can be found in the above. Good luck. I am out of here!
Hi Steve,
I believe we are really talking about the same, yet because we are so insignificant in the big picture, it is hard to visualize the enormous grand scale of the universe, so I do understand what you are saying and agree to a point, but remember and I can make this short because I just do not have to time like I wish.
VIEW FROM OBSERVATION OF SATELLITES (listed in above threads)
Teaspoon = 40 to 65 million light-years.
Tablespoon = 90 to 110 million light-years.
Scoop = around 280 to 330 million light-years.
Short distance it would be non-homogeneous and isotropic, we both agree on this.
But on the large scale, and remember we see about four percent, and figure with the model, dark to be around twenty-three percent give or take, this is such a crude way of explaining, and for that I apologize, but total has been estimated to be anywhere from twenty-six to thirty percent what we know and then dark matter.
So we have about seventy to seventy-four total dark energy density, the attraction or paradox here for all of us (pun intended) we have this energy mass of dark energy in the seventy percentile. I will throw this in if you want to look into it, very simple for the model E/c^2 to find the energy of the mass, seen and not seen. This is so fast, I hope it adds up.
The over all picture of WMAP, mathematically you have this homogeneity and isotropy. Remember the universe is about thirteen to fourteen billions years. Give or take and expanding Steve. HA! So you are looking in large pieces of the universal pie, of this model.
I am not doing a very good explanation, because I am limited in time and I am not an astrophysicist for sure.
Best regards,
yquantum
This is so bad, but now that I have typed it, going to seen it. Call this, a cued draft. Eh! No sleep, tired, and I am out of here! bye typo's too be expected?!
You've got some pretty great ideas and views, so give them their due - spell 'em out!QUOTE
...History of Time
Yep, very good. I recommend the "book on tape" version, however. The extra workload of reading-comprehension tends to screw people up, whereas they can catch it on the first try when actually "hearing" it. You're also free to ponder random stuff while listening.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...History of Time |
Yep, very good. I recommend the "book on tape" version, however. The extra workload of reading-comprehension tends to screw people up, whereas they can catch it on the first try when actually "hearing" it. You're also free to ponder random stuff while listening.
I just love to ponder on the unknown
I just love to ponder on the unknown
Heck yeah, Brother
And don't forget to try that thought-game in the upper post, lemme know where it does or doesn't work (if it works at all).
And don't forget to try that thought-game in the upper post, lemme know where it does or doesn't work (if it works at all).
Hey Steve,
Good points. Let me just take a few points at a time, OK?
We could spend a life time on just one I think. See if I try and answer you, on tea time. HA!
Let me take time here, like start over, if I may? AE did state one model would be static, but there was another one, remember very different value, it stated that the universe will expand forever at an ever increasing rate. (that is constant)
I am going to leave the market statistical strategies, up to the experts. Deal?
Leaving a lot out here, but I do see where your going I think.
Slowing down, We have four forces that we know of for sure, EM, SNF, WNF, and Gravity. We can tie three of them together but gravity is the problem right now.
Yes, solar system do not fly apart (clump), correct but the universe is growing at a tremendous speed, at this point who cares how fast, but it is not a universe, clumping up Steve. It is expanding just read the data one more time.
I responded very honestly to thezman, we need to get out of the box. His point like yours is well taken but maybe I am just a die hard but I believe there is more than the four dimensions we live in. Not just by doing the math, but the universe is if you look at it in a very intuitive way, there is quantum mechanics at work which is unintuitive, like it or not Steve. I really believe this.
I am going to check you on this one, yes the universe is homogenous. I did not create the data, and I am not the experts who have claimed this, but the data is overwhelming, Steve. (I will not even go into the BIG BANG theory?) I am not to claim to be a expert on this subject, heck on any subject for that matter. Always learning something new.................
I will, when time permits, go and read the data for myself, if I am wrong heck I will be the first to raise my hand, you never have to worry about that, but we are learning so much about the universe just as I type this out. So I never say 100 percent, the best you will here form me is maybe 90 and then that would be a paradox within itself.
I know I missed a lot of question, but these are issues we cannot ignore!
Best regards,
yquantum
Good points. Let me just take a few points at a time, OK?
We could spend a life time on just one I think. See if I try and answer you, on tea time. HA!
Let me take time here, like start over, if I may? AE did state one model would be static, but there was another one, remember very different value, it stated that the universe will expand forever at an ever increasing rate. (that is constant)
I am going to leave the market statistical strategies, up to the experts. Deal?
Leaving a lot out here, but I do see where your going I think.
Slowing down, We have four forces that we know of for sure, EM, SNF, WNF, and Gravity. We can tie three of them together but gravity is the problem right now.
Yes, solar system do not fly apart (clump), correct but the universe is growing at a tremendous speed, at this point who cares how fast, but it is not a universe, clumping up Steve. It is expanding just read the data one more time.
I responded very honestly to thezman, we need to get out of the box. His point like yours is well taken but maybe I am just a die hard but I believe there is more than the four dimensions we live in. Not just by doing the math, but the universe is if you look at it in a very intuitive way, there is quantum mechanics at work which is unintuitive, like it or not Steve. I really believe this.
I am going to check you on this one, yes the universe is homogenous. I did not create the data, and I am not the experts who have claimed this, but the data is overwhelming, Steve. (I will not even go into the BIG BANG theory?) I am not to claim to be a expert on this subject, heck on any subject for that matter. Always learning something new.................
I will, when time permits, go and read the data for myself, if I am wrong heck I will be the first to raise my hand, you never have to worry about that, but we are learning so much about the universe just as I type this out. So I never say 100 percent, the best you will here form me is maybe 90 and then that would be a paradox within itself.
I know I missed a lot of question, but these are issues we cannot ignore!
Best regards,
yquantum
QUOTE
You and I know that we have so much to explain and we are doing so, is there is something you feel, that is just out of our reach?
Yep... ZMan, as usual, hit it right on the head -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You and I know that we have so much to explain and we are doing so, is there is something you feel, that is just out of our reach? |
Yep... ZMan, as usual, hit it right on the head -
It would appear to me that the best models for the nature of the universe are those with the least number of dimensions. Any model that can keep it to 3s/1t would be best, however certain anomalies may require more than this.
"Would be best" because then we'd have a prayer of working with it. Amen.
However, I'm a software guy - and I have different rules. Inductive reasoning, for example, is completely backwards from what a physicist or math-head would use.
A physicist must be limited to his observations. He sees three dimensions, and is not allowed to add any more unless he can demonstrate a cause.
Me, however - I need to work the following way - because I work it from the "eventuality" point of view.
I discover one dimension. I model it.
I then discover a second. Uh oh. The general case is now that there's more than one. I'd better abstract this model to handle an infinite number of them, because my induction technique says "if there's more than one, you need to show me why the count would eventually stop." And then I discover a 3rd. No problem, this time... just two clicks to change a setting and I'm done... and I don't even have to reboot anything. The result is a more accurate model, because it incorporates the modelling process. Physics must not do that.
So to me, when I'm wearing my SWE hat, stopping at 3 is a complete trainwreck. There's no reason to just stop at that number. By "discovering" the 2nd dimension, and then the third - all I've done is twice prove that my "general case" needs to allow for "more" dimensions to be discovered. And obviously, Eventualities demand that those goddamned freakin END USERS will want more added the day I roll this program out. Bastards.
I look at physics models of 5, 10, or 12 dimensions and it only proves my point, further. "Show my why it'd stop." And I can assure you - any physicists or math-heads reading that statement are probably ripping their hair out at the abomination I've just stated - but that's why they aren't good software guys. They're physicists and mathematicians, and must not think that way. The results would not be manageable, and would probably end up being gibberish. Meanwhile, we have an expression to describe people who think their way - we call them "Java" and "VB" programmers. "With a VB manual on your dashboard, you can park in handicap spaces. With a Java LRM on your dash, they'll bring you out a wheelchair." Heh. And please note that it's not that they're wrong - but their methodologies are not appropriate for my environment, just as mine is not appropriate for theirs.
So, things out of reach? Within a specific methodology, yes. Also, our limited ability to perceive will be a strong hinderance. Put poor communication on top of that, where people confidently attach personal baggage to a misinterpreted (or inadequately described) statement, and things get hard to reach, very quickly. Still, between the disciplines - I don't see any fences we cannot cross. All we need is a real, big-assed chainsaw to cut through it
Oh hell, our posts are crossing each other on the network lol.
I think I'm failing to communicate. My bad....
Yep, I agree. However, matter clumps up. I think that's where I wasn't clear. I view those clumps of matter as breaks in the homogeneity - islands, if you will.
On the good side, the distribution of those islands does appear to be homogeneous, but that's on a different scale in which gravity / antigrav aren't of great interest. Within the scale where those two things are of great interest, the universe is non-uniform.
So, I think we're saying the same thing.
Dammit, review that silly game! You're killing me! heh.
I think I'm failing to communicate. My bad....
QUOTE
but it is not a universe, clumping up Steve. It is expanding just read the data one more time.
Yep, I agree. However, matter clumps up. I think that's where I wasn't clear. I view those clumps of matter as breaks in the homogeneity - islands, if you will.
On the good side, the distribution of those islands does appear to be homogeneous, but that's on a different scale in which gravity / antigrav aren't of great interest. Within the scale where those two things are of great interest, the universe is non-uniform.
So, I think we're saying the same thing.
Dammit, review that silly game! You're killing me! heh.
QUOTE (Steve+Apr 11 2005, 02:28 AM)
On the good side, the distribution of those islands does appear to be homogeneous, but that's on a different scale in which gravity / antigrav aren't of great interest. Within the scale where those two things are of great interest, the universe is non-uniform.
I agree, Steve.
Galaxy maps show large structures, or walls, of galaxies, almost strung together like pearls on a string, with vast voids of apparently empty space like bubbles. I think that if there were a large percentage of anti-gravity stuff in the universe, it would be dispersed in those voids, pushing the galaxies together along lines of least resistance just like molecular bubble theory. I think it would also explain why the early universe moments after the big bang did not form more black holes- because the net gravitational sum of any given region of very dense space would be zero or negative.
After a few billion years, the antigravity matter would be well separated from the gravity matter, AG growing ever cooler and more sparse, while G matter would continue to clump and grow hotter in the pockets where they form galaxies, pushed together tighter by the 'pressure' of the AG. In other words, running the computer simulation through the 486 chip in my head, I see AG increasing the clumping of visible matter, and may be the primary agent of that clumping.
I agree, Steve.
Galaxy maps show large structures, or walls, of galaxies, almost strung together like pearls on a string, with vast voids of apparently empty space like bubbles. I think that if there were a large percentage of anti-gravity stuff in the universe, it would be dispersed in those voids, pushing the galaxies together along lines of least resistance just like molecular bubble theory. I think it would also explain why the early universe moments after the big bang did not form more black holes- because the net gravitational sum of any given region of very dense space would be zero or negative.
After a few billion years, the antigravity matter would be well separated from the gravity matter, AG growing ever cooler and more sparse, while G matter would continue to clump and grow hotter in the pockets where they form galaxies, pushed together tighter by the 'pressure' of the AG. In other words, running the computer simulation through the 486 chip in my head, I see AG increasing the clumping of visible matter, and may be the primary agent of that clumping.
Hi Steve & fausinator,First lesson never and I mean never ask an Astrophysicists a question before, during or after dinner. Might as well order paper, water and a mechanical pencil because the food will be cold.
I will not do the math, and putting into words, Omega, etc., well, this is the short version which is all I wanted because of my wife, BUT did not get. My wife or child are still not talking to me.
Steve and fausinator, I went in expecting to be corrected, this is something and I believe you will find it odd, but I do not mind. If you can help me not make the same mistake, then you have done me a huge favor.
Einstein, was a man before his time that should go really without saying. They at, and I stress as of NOW, have a model or fundamental cosmological principle. I defended what you both said, and I questioned the data myself. Bottom line, because like always I must hurry, (typo's) expect.
You were looking at the frame of the UNIVERSE, & you were correct, but if you just took a teaspoon, or ice-cream scooper, it would be in clumps and that is where I believe you were coming from. Good Job-Besides if we did not have clumps there would be no life, and I would not be typing at the speed of?
But if you used a large scooper WMAP, you would fine out it is isotropy and homogeneity to dramatically hold. The math is clearer, but it is cumbersome and boring I am sure, but things can change gentlemen as more data comes in, I was told not to hold my breath, because it seem the UNIVERSE is FLAT and expanding very fast, m (Doppler effect). I do not believe I can do it justice to all that was said, even if I am being judged by my wife and child. HA!
Here is a something that was aired on the tele in America, and I will try to keep it short. You will find the sources below in the paragraph, names, and from the Frontline Web site, sure they one.
'This black body nature of CMBR its [Homogeneity and Isotropy] was dramatically verified in 1992 by the all-sky map of the relic radiation prepared by the NASA spacecraft Cosmic Background Explorer [COBE], flown in 1989, which gave a tremendous boost to Big Bang cosmology.
While the Standard Cosmological Model based on the Big Bang has now come to dominate mainstream discourses in physics almost to the point of dogma, Narlikar and associates have carried with them their conviction of the basic idea of a steady state universe and have sought to explain the 3K CMBR as resulting from the starlight in the universe that is scattered by interstellar metallic grains and attains thermal equilibrium.
In the wake of the COBE results, a modified steady state scenario was put forward by Hoyle, Narlikar and Geoffrey Burbidge a decade ago, called Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC). In February this year, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (Frontline, September 14, 2001) as a follow-up to COBE with an order of magnitude better resolution, returned data which the Big Bang theorists believe have conclusively ruled out all cosmological models except the standard model based on the Big Bang. Indeed, according to it, it is claimed that with WMAP data all cosmological parameters have been more or less determined with precision and only some details remain to be filled.'
I know, if you look up the NAMES & ACRONYMS, you will find the resources. I did the best I could do with the little time I had. Hope it helps all of us. I have highlighted the sources to help you on your journey!
Best regards,
yquantum, I did my best if there is a typo please over look and resources can be found in the above. Good luck. I am out of here!
QUOTE (fausinator+Apr 12 2005, 06:28 AM)
After a few billion years, the antigravity matter would be well separated from the gravity matter, AG growing ever cooler and more sparse, while G matter would continue to clump and grow hotter in the pockets where they form galaxies, pushed together tighter by the 'pressure' of the AG. In other words, running the computer simulation through the 486 chip in my head, I see AG increasing the clumping of visible matter, and may be the primary agent of that clumping.
I concur. Neglecting caveats like "escape velocities" et al - the long term interaction of G matter and AG matter is to, literally, assist each other.
AG will naturally flow out of the way if it is stuck between two G clumps. While it may initially push them apart, it'll soon move to the point of least repulsion - leaving them unimpeded in their Quest for Clumping.
Likewise, two G clumps will do their best to squish together - and as they do so, they reduce the number of solutions for that point of least repulsion that'll exist between them.
Again, neglecting caveats - the pure system of G mass and AG mass will eventually end up segregated - with one big happy clump-fest in the middle, and the AG "running away" in all directions to an infinite distance.
It's little different than filling a rubber ballon with Helium. The Balloon wants to contract; the helium wants out. By luck, the helium is small enough to "fit" through the balloon fabric, and over time will do so. Yes, it's a rough analogy, but the balloon ends up as a concentrated clump on the floor, and the helium eventually escapes on it's way to infinity. And yes, we're neglecting friction, "omega", and everything else. This is physics, after all
YQuantum - Your "first question" rocks.
I'm not sure we have the same definition of homogeneity. To me, it means that all features are uniformly distributed at a given scale... but you must define what you mean by features, and you must keep that definition consistent between scales. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The universe is not homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the small scale of you and me; it is not homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of solar systems; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of star clusters; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of galaxies; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of galactic clusters. It can't be - it wouldn't be called a galactic cluster without a big void around it. Even the name implies a non-uniformity. Clearly it is not homogeneous in respect to matter distribution; there are clumps of matter, and there are gaps.
The universe does appear homogeneous in respect to the distribution of those clumps and gaps on the larger scales. This would not be the same as matter distribution being homogenous, if I'm making any sense. In the one case, you're measuring absolute density. In the other, you're measuring the variations in that density.
And promise me you'll keep your wife away from mine; you and I would not survive it, heh... there's be a couple of "CLUMPS", for sure... and it'd be us
AG will naturally flow out of the way if it is stuck between two G clumps. While it may initially push them apart, it'll soon move to the point of least repulsion - leaving them unimpeded in their Quest for Clumping.
Likewise, two G clumps will do their best to squish together - and as they do so, they reduce the number of solutions for that point of least repulsion that'll exist between them.
Again, neglecting caveats - the pure system of G mass and AG mass will eventually end up segregated - with one big happy clump-fest in the middle, and the AG "running away" in all directions to an infinite distance.
It's little different than filling a rubber ballon with Helium. The Balloon wants to contract; the helium wants out. By luck, the helium is small enough to "fit" through the balloon fabric, and over time will do so. Yes, it's a rough analogy, but the balloon ends up as a concentrated clump on the floor, and the helium eventually escapes on it's way to infinity. And yes, we're neglecting friction, "omega", and everything else. This is physics, after all
YQuantum - Your "first question" rocks.
I'm not sure we have the same definition of homogeneity. To me, it means that all features are uniformly distributed at a given scale... but you must define what you mean by features, and you must keep that definition consistent between scales. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The universe is not homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the small scale of you and me; it is not homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of solar systems; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of star clusters; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of galaxies; homogeneous in respect to mass distribution on the scale of galactic clusters. It can't be - it wouldn't be called a galactic cluster without a big void around it. Even the name implies a non-uniformity. Clearly it is not homogeneous in respect to matter distribution; there are clumps of matter, and there are gaps.
The universe does appear homogeneous in respect to the distribution of those clumps and gaps on the larger scales. This would not be the same as matter distribution being homogenous, if I'm making any sense. In the one case, you're measuring absolute density. In the other, you're measuring the variations in that density.
QUOTE
But if you used a large scooper WMAP
... you'd not see uniform matter distribution. You'd see uniform distribution of clumps and gaps. Apples, and oranges.And promise me you'll keep your wife away from mine; you and I would not survive it, heh... there's be a couple of "CLUMPS", for sure... and it'd be us
Hi Steve,I believe we are really talking about the same, yet because we are so insignificant in the big picture, it is hard to visualize the enormous grand scale of the universe, so I do understand what you are saying and agree to a point, but remember and I can make this short because I just do not have to time like I wish.
VIEW FROM OBSERVATION OF SATELLITES (listed in above threads)
Teaspoon = 40 to 65 million light-years.
Tablespoon = 90 to 110 million light-years.
Scoop = around 280 to 330 million light-years.
Short distance it would be non-homogeneous and isotropic, we both agree on this.
But on the large scale, and remember we see about four percent, and figure with the model, dark to be around twenty-three percent give or take, this is such a crude way of explaining, and for that I apologize, but total has been estimated to be anywhere from twenty-six to thirty percent what we know and then dark matter.
So we have about seventy to seventy-four total dark energy density, the attraction or paradox here for all of us (pun intended) we have this energy mass of dark energy in the seventy percentile. I will throw this in if you want to look into it, very simple for the model E/c^2 to find the energy of the mass, seen and not seen. This is so fast, I hope it adds up.
The over all picture of WMAP, mathematically you have this homogeneity and isotropy. Remember the universe is about thirteen to fourteen billions years. Give or take and expanding Steve. HA! So you are looking in large pieces of the universal pie, of this model.
I am not doing a very good explanation, because I am limited in time and I am not an astrophysicist for sure.
Best regards,
yquantum
This is so bad, but now that I have typed it, going to seen it. Call this, a cued draft. Eh!
No sleep, tired, and I am out of here! bye typo's too be expected?!
Hi Steve,
I would be OK to have a math formulation using any number of conceptual orthogonal axes as long as there were only three of space and one of time. The rest could just be value axes as functions of (x,y,z,t).
z
I would be OK to have a math formulation using any number of conceptual orthogonal axes as long as there were only three of space and one of time. The rest could just be value axes as functions of (x,y,z,t).
z
Hi Good elf,
To me, one of the major implications of the AB effect is that the basic EM interactions take place on the level of the scaler and vector potentials and not on the level of the E and B fields. In other words the phi, A, and magnetic scaler potentials are more causual than the E and B field formulations.
I think this can be seen in the spiralling of electrons around a magnetic line of force. The interaction appears to be a potential/potential field interaction at its more basic level, rather than a charge/B field interaction.
z
To me, one of the major implications of the AB effect is that the basic EM interactions take place on the level of the scaler and vector potentials and not on the level of the E and B fields. In other words the phi, A, and magnetic scaler potentials are more causual than the E and B field formulations.
I think this can be seen in the spiralling of electrons around a magnetic line of force. The interaction appears to be a potential/potential field interaction at its more basic level, rather than a charge/B field interaction.
z
Hi thezman,
thezman Posted on Apr 13 2005, 10:03 PM
Yes... I agree with the first bit, I need you to help me with that "extension" and how you got there. I understand that "magnetic field lines" are a conventional idea. They are easy to see (in one way) using iron filings etc. They have no formal status since they are not "lines" at all, just the directions that electromagnetic force acts (through the virtual photon field). The force on the electron is the Poynting Vector Force (eVXB). Please join the dots for me.... You probably have something there. It is very Bohmian!
PS: I hope you (and yquantum) look at that other post on photons too (or is that two photons... He he he ). I really appreciate your input.
Cheers
thezman Posted on Apr 13 2005, 10:03 PM
QUOTE
major implications of the AB effect is that the basic EM interactions take place on the level of the scaler and vector potentials and not on the level of the E and B fields ... can be seen in the spiraling of electrons around a magnetic line of force. The interaction appears to be a potential/potential field interaction at its more basic level, rather than a charge/B field interaction.
Yes... I agree with the first bit, I need you to help me with that "extension" and how you got there. I understand that "magnetic field lines" are a conventional idea. They are easy to see (in one way) using iron filings etc. They have no formal status since they are not "lines" at all, just the directions that electromagnetic force acts (through the virtual photon field). The force on the electron is the Poynting Vector Force (eVXB). Please join the dots for me.... You probably have something there. It is very Bohmian!
PS: I hope you (and yquantum) look at that other post on photons too (or is that two photons... He he he
). I really appreciate your input.Cheers
Hi Good elf,
The A field can be looked at as a circular type field enfolding the magnetic line of force. This creates the illusion of a B field (B = del cross A)
The electron must be moving to experience a force here.
The moving electron itself creates an A field of its own as a function of charge and velocity.(or even scaler electric potential and velocity to keep all on the potential field basis)
The two A fields interact causing the electron path to spiral.
z
The A field can be looked at as a circular type field enfolding the magnetic line of force. This creates the illusion of a B field (B = del cross A)
The electron must be moving to experience a force here.
The moving electron itself creates an A field of its own as a function of charge and velocity.(or even scaler electric potential and velocity to keep all on the potential field basis)
The two A fields interact causing the electron path to spiral.
z
Are you still talking about ghosts?
Ta-ta
Ta-ta
Um...I don't remember why I am posting this.
O well
Ta-ta
O well
Ta-ta
Hi Joshua555,
Ur... was this related to that comment about a friend of mine and the cut-throat razor? My friend is not actually dead yet!
Cheers
Ur... was this related to that comment about a friend of mine and the cut-throat razor? My friend is not actually dead yet!
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.