Hi Martillo, Zephir. Good Elf, Solidspin, Yquantum et al.
GOOD ELF: what would you say to a TOE that not only identifies the ‘true bulk’, but also ‘naturally’ comes up ‘almost from the start’ with the ‘correct’ and uncomplicated ‘string’ substance/structures?
MARTILLO (as you see, I’ve accepted your challenge!): what would you say to a TOE that, immediately following on from the ‘string’ descriptions, it ‘corrects’/’adds to’ your ‘quantum loop’ concepts and model so that they become a consistent ‘stepping stone’ to the aether-type theories?
ZEPHIR: what would you say to a TOE that not only provides the ‘background’ concepts/contexts for the ‘correct’ ‘fixed-aether’/’motile-media’ model, and in so doing ‘adds to’ and ‘modifies’ your own (super)gravity processes and model so as to make it a properly ‘complete’ model?
SOLIDSPIN/YQUANTUM: what would you two say to a TOE where the ‘mathematical’ modelling of its ‘system(s)’ require only ‘classical’ physics equations ‘modified’ to include terms for ‘globalised source’ and ‘localised sinks’ for energy/matter/gravity; all of it ‘driven’/’realised’ by well-known ‘unsettled’ relativities (PI etc.) in Euclidian ‘spatial geometry’ of the ‘true’ bulk that we shall identify almost from the outset?
and EVERYONE: what would you say to a TOE which naturally and consistently produces ALL the observed phenomena/particles/forces, including Relativistic ones?
Right guys...by now, based on both my nom de plume and my posts, you will have gathered that I have my feet planted firmly on the ground and do not make rash statements; and that when I assert something, I am well prepared to support it with ‘cold’ logical analysis, and as disinterestedly as humanly possible. This being the case, I would ask you to take the above rhetorical questions seriously, since I guarantee that all the implications therein will be supported in turn as we proceed with the proposed on-line TOE ’construction’ project.
****NOTE WELL: FOR VARIOUS REASONS, I HAVE DECIDED TO USE ONLY THIS ONE THREAD FOR ARRIVING AT THE ENVISAGED T.O.E....of course, all are free to start/use other threads for general/specific discussions...HOWEVER, they will not be ‘officially’ referred to/used by this process...meaning that anyone on those other threads who has any material comment/contribution to make re this project should eventually post in THIS thread to be taken into ongoing/finalising consideration.****
Now, before we get to the first question in this Q & A process, a brief Introduction to the question is in order:
To arrive at a COMPLETE cosmological theory, one must BACKTRACK in the logical scheme of things until one has identified some absolutely independent PHYSICAL (NOT metaphysical etc.) concept that EVERYONE can agree on. Only then can one be safe in pursuing to its conclusion the train of logic indicated by that starting point. This is the only way we will EVER extricate ourselves from that ever growing morass of relative and bounded ‘partial’ theories that tend more to confuse than enlighten even professional cosmologist, let alone the average person. Such ubiquitous confusion is one of the reasons why it has often been said that if a cosmological theory cannot be sensibly explained to a person of average education then that theory is most probably wrong. And such a theory is doubly damned if its author can only put things in such a way as to also make the average person feel stupid if they don’t understand it, especially if it’s not their fault. So let’s now take our own advice and show how PROPER theorising about the objective physical universe should go. Let’s try to come up with a sensible theory that all of us can both trust and understand because WE will have arrived at it OURSELVES with only the barest minimum of no-nonsense guidance/hints from yours truly.
HINT: Wherever you happen to be while contemplating the first question (below), take time out to look about you. OK? Now, as you may or may not know, all concepts in our physical scheme of properties, characteristics and measurements, as well as all our mathematical/geometrical relativities and so on, are DERIVED ‘things’. So, EXCEPT for whatever will be identified as a result of answers to this first question, all the things that we use in physics are NOT absolute things in themselves, but depend ultimately on something else ‘further up the list’ of physical concepts. THE CONCEPT WE SEEK MUST EMBODY ALL POTENTIAL OF ANY SORT/EXTENT, AND HENCE MUST BE BOTH LEAST & MOST DIVISIBLE...SIMULTANEOUSLY.
So the question is:
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Good Elf, Martillo, Zephir, Solidspin, Yquantum and all...once this phase is complete, things will progress rather rapidly...so we can spend a few days on this first step in the process (in order for everyone to get into the swing of things, and because it is the most important step...since all else will ‘fall out’ smoothly and naturally once a ‘true’ starting point for our theorising has been identified). Good luck to everyone involved...and enjoy, too!...for we are making history here!
Best quizzmaster’s regards from: RealityCheck.
.
1. Weed
Hi RealityCheck, Martillo, Zephir. Solidspin, Yquantum et al.
Sounds like it is off to a start. I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify. My worry is that we could be trying to solve too much at once... he he he!
This is the hard part... I don't want to start an argument. I just have had no feedback. I could be wrong "everywhere"... thats fine. I will be listening.
1. Is this to be a “String Theory” as this is the only approach at present that is capable of such a rational unification? Are we all agreed that the older quantization approach is not going to work? When I refer to "string" I really mean "brane". The idea I am using is a wave drawn on paper is a one dimensional line but we know it is far more than that. It is much easier to deal with the one dimensional line mathematically than the attempt to mathematically deal with the big concept of a "brane".
2. Is this to be a ‘totally geometric” theory of everything based on Special and General Relativity, energy, time and probably extra spatial dimensions? You could be starting with particles for instance. I am unhappy with that approach but others may be unwilling to adopt a "matterless" solution.
3. How is the quantum to be incorporated into a “classical” theory? I guess that I would be plugging for some way to adopt a classical approach to the quantum in extra dimensions. Others will possibly insist on "operational" quantum physics. I think in order to understand the quantum it will be necessary to discuss existing models that are non-classical and point out the limitations and why we need to change.
4. Is this to be epistemological or ontological theory? I think that you are saying that this is an ontological approach, starting from the simplest "atoms" (concepts) to build the model.
5. I confess here that there are a number of "holes" that I have with my ideas and I am sure that others have similar holes if they would admit them... he he he! This is because I really have not looked deeply enough into those points. The hope is that any holes each of us have are in areas that others have no holes and can still fit the theory that suits us all. That is a big "ask".
6. Do others agree that electromagnetism is string phenomena. I have had no feedback from the forum on this aspect. From the fundamental arguments string theory dealt with strings vibrating "below" the quantum limit. I am unable to understand a Theory based on such assumptions without T-Duality of Whitten.
7. Much of "string theory" is not evident in Spacetime 3D + T "Bulk". It is mostly happening in those higher spaces?? What does everyone think? What we are seeing is the "trace" of this activity on our Spacetime if we see anything at all. This is all hidden from view by the "quantum" phenomenon until we force an interaction which then interacts in spacetime where we can see it.
8. Accept the ideas of a wave theory.
9.What is gravity??? What is mass??? I have put forward a "theory" can anyone come up with a "particle-less" theory that "consistently" deals with this?
9. What are "electric" and "magnetic" fields "made of? (see below)
10. What is the link between matter waves (de Broglie waves) and electromagnetic waves... they are related phenomena aren't they? Did anyone catch my explanation of why EM waves spread and particles do not? ... He he he! Probably not eh?
The "atoms" of any theory should have geometry as a given... if this is to deal with "string theory" it should be sufficiently rich to incorporate the minimum number of dimensions need to describe a self consistent theory. Including time this is 10 but if you wish to deal with aspects of the Witten Manifold you may need 11. My "feelings" are that extra dimension will make the maths very difficult without any extra insight.
We need to understand "energy" as the capacity for doing work not a metaphysical "fluid". Energy can move from point to point but there really is only two forms of energy... kinetic and potential.
The string is embodied by the concept of vibration. Something is vibrating in order to have strings. These vibrations can have a number of dimensions, even more than 11 dimensions. Some theories have about 24 dimensions but these are highly curled up and for practical purposes we can virtually ignore them except for about 10 (or 11) of them. Tis something is "probably" the stuff that Spacetime is made up of but Spacetime is too "high tension" to deform in the way we may like. While all branes are in the higher manifold or too small in fermions to "play with" humans have harnessed them in some novel ways such as radio. The branes in an atom are hard to examine using present technology. We can see bigger ones associated with larger fermionic structures as antenna. Or possibility the magnetic field around a iron or ceramic permanent magnet.
Does everyone agree that Einstein's Theories are "correct" or is this a contentious issue? I know Martillo does have some bones to pick with this. Probably others.
Anyone else want to make a few points... this is not etched in stone... and I am not ever going to use "the finger of God" here. I want to hear what you all think.
I also have a question that might be interesting... where does that electric field in an electromagnetic wave "come from"? Once you have that you can "construct" particles but as a fundamental concept... where is it coming from? I assume that it is a non-linear effect in "Uberspace"... but what? It must be related to the fluctuating energy somehow. Has anyone got a classical idea about the origin of this precisely and without much ambiguity. Please do not use charges to explain it. Remember "energy" does not carry charge, yet "uncharged" photons propagating exhibit this plus ... minus phenomenon. Note also you need to simultaneously explain what is magnetism somehow too.
The other aspect of this question you may think about is what about the virtual photon? What about that strong unseen ineraction (think of the forces in a bar magnet)... What do you think causes it and where is it "really" coming from? Yeah I know about "moving electrons" but what about that "force"?
What I would like is "apeman" to come up with a paper on this...
Cheers
Sounds like it is off to a start. I would like to ask a couple of questions to clarify. My worry is that we could be trying to solve too much at once... he he he!
This is the hard part... I don't want to start an argument. I just have had no feedback. I could be wrong "everywhere"... thats fine. I will be listening.
1. Is this to be a “String Theory” as this is the only approach at present that is capable of such a rational unification? Are we all agreed that the older quantization approach is not going to work? When I refer to "string" I really mean "brane". The idea I am using is a wave drawn on paper is a one dimensional line but we know it is far more than that. It is much easier to deal with the one dimensional line mathematically than the attempt to mathematically deal with the big concept of a "brane".
2. Is this to be a ‘totally geometric” theory of everything based on Special and General Relativity, energy, time and probably extra spatial dimensions? You could be starting with particles for instance. I am unhappy with that approach but others may be unwilling to adopt a "matterless" solution.
3. How is the quantum to be incorporated into a “classical” theory? I guess that I would be plugging for some way to adopt a classical approach to the quantum in extra dimensions. Others will possibly insist on "operational" quantum physics. I think in order to understand the quantum it will be necessary to discuss existing models that are non-classical and point out the limitations and why we need to change.
4. Is this to be epistemological or ontological theory? I think that you are saying that this is an ontological approach, starting from the simplest "atoms" (concepts) to build the model.
5. I confess here that there are a number of "holes" that I have with my ideas and I am sure that others have similar holes if they would admit them... he he he! This is because I really have not looked deeply enough into those points. The hope is that any holes each of us have are in areas that others have no holes and can still fit the theory that suits us all. That is a big "ask".
6. Do others agree that electromagnetism is string phenomena. I have had no feedback from the forum on this aspect. From the fundamental arguments string theory dealt with strings vibrating "below" the quantum limit. I am unable to understand a Theory based on such assumptions without T-Duality of Whitten.
7. Much of "string theory" is not evident in Spacetime 3D + T "Bulk". It is mostly happening in those higher spaces?? What does everyone think? What we are seeing is the "trace" of this activity on our Spacetime if we see anything at all. This is all hidden from view by the "quantum" phenomenon until we force an interaction which then interacts in spacetime where we can see it.
8. Accept the ideas of a wave theory.
9.What is gravity??? What is mass??? I have put forward a "theory" can anyone come up with a "particle-less" theory that "consistently" deals with this?
9. What are "electric" and "magnetic" fields "made of? (see below)
10. What is the link between matter waves (de Broglie waves) and electromagnetic waves... they are related phenomena aren't they? Did anyone catch my explanation of why EM waves spread and particles do not? ... He he he! Probably not eh?
The "atoms" of any theory should have geometry as a given... if this is to deal with "string theory" it should be sufficiently rich to incorporate the minimum number of dimensions need to describe a self consistent theory. Including time this is 10 but if you wish to deal with aspects of the Witten Manifold you may need 11. My "feelings" are that extra dimension will make the maths very difficult without any extra insight.
We need to understand "energy" as the capacity for doing work not a metaphysical "fluid". Energy can move from point to point but there really is only two forms of energy... kinetic and potential.
The string is embodied by the concept of vibration. Something is vibrating in order to have strings. These vibrations can have a number of dimensions, even more than 11 dimensions. Some theories have about 24 dimensions but these are highly curled up and for practical purposes we can virtually ignore them except for about 10 (or 11) of them. Tis something is "probably" the stuff that Spacetime is made up of but Spacetime is too "high tension" to deform in the way we may like. While all branes are in the higher manifold or too small in fermions to "play with" humans have harnessed them in some novel ways such as radio. The branes in an atom are hard to examine using present technology. We can see bigger ones associated with larger fermionic structures as antenna. Or possibility the magnetic field around a iron or ceramic permanent magnet.
Does everyone agree that Einstein's Theories are "correct" or is this a contentious issue? I know Martillo does have some bones to pick with this. Probably others.
Anyone else want to make a few points... this is not etched in stone... and I am not ever going to use "the finger of God" here. I want to hear what you all think.
I also have a question that might be interesting... where does that electric field in an electromagnetic wave "come from"? Once you have that you can "construct" particles but as a fundamental concept... where is it coming from? I assume that it is a non-linear effect in "Uberspace"... but what? It must be related to the fluctuating energy somehow. Has anyone got a classical idea about the origin of this precisely and without much ambiguity.
Please do not use charges to explain it. Remember "energy" does not carry charge, yet "uncharged" photons propagating exhibit this plus ... minus phenomenon. Note also you need to simultaneously explain what is magnetism somehow too. The other aspect of this question you may think about is what about the virtual photon? What about that strong unseen ineraction (think of the forces in a bar magnet)... What do you think causes it and where is it "really" coming from? Yeah I know about "moving electrons" but what about that "force"?
What I would like is "apeman" to come up with a paper on this...
Cheers
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
The first concept needed is to define Referentials and their properties as frames of observation/measuring physical magnitudes and where the laws of Physics will be expressed.
Here you already have a big problem: Does an Absolute Referential where all the laws of nature are valid exist (In my theories it is shown as NEEDED. See Section 1.2) or the laws must be independent of the referential choosed (the relativistic first principle).
The first concept needed is to define Referentials and their properties as frames of observation/measuring physical magnitudes and where the laws of Physics will be expressed.
Here you already have a big problem: Does an Absolute Referential where all the laws of nature are valid exist (In my theories it is shown as NEEDED. See Section 1.2) or the laws must be independent of the referential choosed (the relativistic first principle).
Hi RealityCheck, Martillo, Zephir. Solidspin, Yquantum et al.
Only too happy with the idea. I guess I was just expressing just how big the problem really is.
The first question asks everyone to identify some absolutely independent PHYSICAL "CONCEPT" only.
OK... intellectually I am having a little difficulty in identifying any absolutely independent PHYSICAL "CONCEPT"'s. Everything I know is based on interpretation of the understanding of others. Nothing is truly "absolute" since that would infer some "divine" knowledge. Our theories cannot hope to have that level of "Absolute Truth". We do not actually need it do we? Being a Scientist (at heart) I would then next ask to see the proof that this asserted "fact" can be "proven" as absolute. We can try but there will always need to be "faith" in that assertion. I would not like to go there.
As the first response... how about this...
As an absolute... all I would ask is that every asserted Theory have a "gedanken experiment", that all agree, "proves" to the present level of our understanding... a "relative" truth. This theory would then be on the basis of a Science and not a belief system. It should also be "simple" to understand. I am restating the Scientific Principle. All else must have this at it's base.
The "gedanken experiment" should be the extracted wisdom of an existing physical experiment, mathematical proof or a thought experiment similar to the one used to "prove" or crystallize the quantum uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was good enough to set the course of science history until this present day. I was no fan of the outcome of that debate but the debate itself was important and should be reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge. This is why "absolutes" are a difficult concept for me. I doubt if this original idea could hold up today. What does hold up is the need to test all the theories (at least in principle). This is something all true Scientists should agree upon. It may not need to be testible with current experimental science but advances may be required for the test. A "Postulate" that is "forever" untestible cannot have the status of a Theory. It is a belief or a conjecture (even the latter is probably too strong). This form should not be used to to build new theories.
Is that submission OK? Others now need to put their own submissions.
Cheers
Only too happy with the idea. I guess I was just expressing just how big the problem really is.QUOTE (RealityCheck Posted on Sep 19 2005+ 12:08 PM)
The first question asks everyone to identify some absolutely independent PHYSICAL "CONCEPT" only.
OK... intellectually I am having a little difficulty in identifying any absolutely independent PHYSICAL "CONCEPT"'s. Everything I know is based on interpretation of the understanding of others. Nothing is truly "absolute" since that would infer some "divine" knowledge.
Our theories cannot hope to have that level of "Absolute Truth". We do not actually need it do we? Being a Scientist (at heart) I would then next ask to see the proof that this asserted "fact" can be "proven" as absolute. We can try but there will always need to be "faith" in that assertion. I would not like to go there.As the first response... how about this...
As an absolute... all I would ask is that every asserted Theory have a "gedanken experiment", that all agree, "proves" to the present level of our understanding... a "relative" truth. This theory would then be on the basis of a Science and not a belief system. It should also be "simple" to understand. I am restating the Scientific Principle. All else must have this at it's base.
The "gedanken experiment" should be the extracted wisdom of an existing physical experiment, mathematical proof or a thought experiment similar to the one used to "prove" or crystallize the quantum uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was good enough to set the course of science history until this present day. I was no fan of the outcome of that debate but the debate itself was important and should be reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge. This is why "absolutes" are a difficult concept for me. I doubt if this original idea could hold up today. What does hold up is the need to test all the theories (at least in principle). This is something all true Scientists should agree upon. It may not need to be testible with current experimental science but advances may be required for the test. A "Postulate" that is "forever" untestible cannot have the status of a Theory. It is a belief or a conjecture (even the latter is probably too strong). This form should not be used to to build new theories.
Is that submission OK? Others now need to put their own submissions.
Cheers
hello, all -
There's an excellent book I'm reading called "A First Course in String Theory" by Barton Zwieback - something I recommend everybody on the planet read. At any rate, I believe its on the first page of chapter 2, p 27, where Zwieback asserts that ALL units are derived from Mass, Length and Time, where length is defined as c*dt, which I thought was very clever.
So, I would say, start from quantum and go to classical. The reason is that when a wavefunction collapses, it produces a classical result, so classical vector space seems to be a subspace of quantum vector space, which works out mathematically, as I alluded to above.
Also, Euclidian geometry doesn't apply very much at all when you get into cool realms. For example, spherical coordinates are much handier in which to work. Many field, including my little world of spinning nuclei, prefer spherical over linear (cartesian). So, pi, phi and r are essentially the basis sets. Also, when you are looking into transforms, you sometimes may have to go into affine space, where length is irrelevant. At the very least, spherical may be the best bet.
I'm sure the Goodly Elvish One would prefer Planck lengths, too!
- happily spinning solids
QUOTE
SOLIDSPIN/YQUANTUM: what would you two say to a TOE where the ‘mathematical’ modelling of its ‘system(s)’ require only ‘classical’ physics equations ‘modified’ to include terms for ‘globalised source’ and ‘localised sinks’ for energy/matter/gravity; all of it ‘driven’/’realised’ by well-known ‘unsettled’ relativities (PI etc.) in Euclidian ‘spatial geometry’ of the ‘true’ bulk that we shall identify almost from the outset?
There's an excellent book I'm reading called "A First Course in String Theory" by Barton Zwieback - something I recommend everybody on the planet read. At any rate, I believe its on the first page of chapter 2, p 27, where Zwieback asserts that ALL units are derived from Mass, Length and Time, where length is defined as c*dt, which I thought was very clever.
So, I would say, start from quantum and go to classical. The reason is that when a wavefunction collapses, it produces a classical result, so classical vector space seems to be a subspace of quantum vector space, which works out mathematically, as I alluded to above.
Also, Euclidian geometry doesn't apply very much at all when you get into cool realms. For example, spherical coordinates are much handier in which to work. Many field, including my little world of spinning nuclei, prefer spherical over linear (cartesian). So, pi, phi and r are essentially the basis sets. Also, when you are looking into transforms, you sometimes may have to go into affine space, where length is irrelevant. At the very least, spherical may be the best bet.
I'm sure the Goodly Elvish One would prefer Planck lengths, too!
- happily spinning solids
“A First Course in String Theory” by Barton Zwieback is very readable [well written in English, unsure about other languages] and relatively easy to understand as mentioned by solidspin.
This exercise should allow for readily accessible references so that others may follow the discussion. Internet references may be preferable and may allow others to translate if needed.
Please clarify which four possible Planck lengths, if used -
1] based upon h-bar at 1.6161 * 10 ^(-35) m or 1.6161 * 10 ^(-33) cm
2] based upon h at 4.05096 * 10 ^(-35) m or 4.05096 * 10 ^(-33) cm
This exercise should allow for readily accessible references so that others may follow the discussion. Internet references may be preferable and may allow others to translate if needed.
Please clarify which four possible Planck lengths, if used -
1] based upon h-bar at 1.6161 * 10 ^(-35) m or 1.6161 * 10 ^(-33) cm
2] based upon h at 4.05096 * 10 ^(-35) m or 4.05096 * 10 ^(-33) cm
Is this forum a serious venue for working out a TOE?
I have what I believe to be a radical idea involving charge, space, force, and energy, etc. I have NOT formally published but presented to more than one PhD. physics professional with the rather expected response, "That's not right". This was invariably followed by "That can't be right" (translation: why didn't I think of that). The encouraging end result is "That's very interesting, you may have something there".
As one might imagine, I'm reluctant to discuss this openly at this stage. I would like the opportunity to develop it, however. Can anyone provide sound advice as to how to do this without loosing "control"?
I have what I believe to be a radical idea involving charge, space, force, and energy, etc. I have NOT formally published but presented to more than one PhD. physics professional with the rather expected response, "That's not right". This was invariably followed by "That can't be right" (translation: why didn't I think of that). The encouraging end result is "That's very interesting, you may have something there".
As one might imagine, I'm reluctant to discuss this openly at this stage. I would like the opportunity to develop it, however. Can anyone provide sound advice as to how to do this without loosing "control"?
Hi All,
QUOTE (Solidspin+)
I'm sure the Goodly Elvish One would prefer Planck lengths, too!
Planck Length is a big ask since it is unproven other than it is a "number". I accept Planck's Constant (operational reality eh!) but that 'extra" step needs proof. This is like the Plancks Time... another "interesting" concept I am not happy with. If accepted they would both have "profound" consequences. A lot is riding on the consequence of that... he he he! I am hoping the Planck Length is like the "Speed of Sound" and is no limit in the philosophical sense. On the matter of Spherical Coodinates... Spherical Coodinates are better but how do you couch Special Relativity in spherical coordinates easily? Once you have that you will need to account for the 'accelerations' then you are into General Relativity. Maybe you are right... As elves usually say... I'm all ears.
As to the position of the wavefunction collapsing. You need to ask where was the wavefunction before it collapsed? You can't collapse something that does not exist in a classical sense. Need to choose the interpretation of QM that is consistent.
Power of 3 you should sign on if you think you can contribute. RealityCheck would "probably" welcome you in. This thread has some strict rules though. That does not mean you can't present your ideas in another thread. When the opportunity comes around everyone will be listened to...I hope.
Gadfly... I would think there really is only one h isn't there? The one where the energy of a photon is a linear function of frequency. E = hf ?... h-bar should be a constant multiplier of 1/2pi. Interesting figures you have there if true. Planck's Length is not "fundamental" since it is derived from Planck's Constant. We can measure h, it is a quantum of impulse, whereas the length and time concepts are "beyond" direct human measurement forever.
I think Martillo is right there. Frames of Reference are exceptionaly useful. But only if they are covarient. This would seem to rule out "absolute" frames of reference. No objections to a "global" frame of reference though if you are really careful eh!
Cheers
Planck Length is a big ask since it is unproven other than it is a "number". I accept Planck's Constant (operational reality eh!) but that 'extra" step needs proof. This is like the Plancks Time... another "interesting" concept I am not happy with. If accepted they would both have "profound" consequences. A lot is riding on the consequence of that... he he he! I am hoping the Planck Length is like the "Speed of Sound" and is no limit in the philosophical sense. On the matter of Spherical Coodinates... Spherical Coodinates are better but how do you couch Special Relativity in spherical coordinates easily? Once you have that you will need to account for the 'accelerations' then you are into General Relativity. Maybe you are right... As elves usually say... I'm all ears.
As to the position of the wavefunction collapsing. You need to ask where was the wavefunction before it collapsed? You can't collapse something that does not exist in a classical sense. Need to choose the interpretation of QM that is consistent.
Power of 3 you should sign on if you think you can contribute. RealityCheck would "probably" welcome you in. This thread has some strict rules though. That does not mean you can't present your ideas in another thread. When the opportunity comes around everyone will be listened to...I hope.
Gadfly... I would think there really is only one h isn't there? The one where the energy of a photon is a linear function of frequency. E = hf ?... h-bar should be a constant multiplier of 1/2pi. Interesting figures you have there if true. Planck's Length is not "fundamental" since it is derived from Planck's Constant. We can measure h, it is a quantum of impulse, whereas the length and time concepts are "beyond" direct human measurement forever.
I think Martillo is right there. Frames of Reference are exceptionaly useful. But only if they are covarient. This would seem to rule out "absolute" frames of reference. No objections to a "global" frame of reference though if you are really careful eh!
Cheers
Leave the circle unbroken except for the stranger traveling the roads to and fro,
how else can we get news from afar,
maybe a different place than where we are?
Start here:
arXiv:physics/0506048 v1 6 Jun 2005
Microsolvation of Li+ in small He Clusters. Li+Hen species from Classical
and Quantum Calculations
C. Di Paola, F. Sebastianelli, E. Bodo, I. Baccarelli, and F.A. Gianturco∗
Department of Chemistry, University of Rome “La Sapienza”and INFM,
Piazzale A. Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
M. Yurtsever
Istanbul Technical University, Chemistry Department, 80626 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
A structural study of the smaller Li+Hen clusters with n ≤ 30 has been carried out using different theoretical methods. The structures and the energetics of the clusters have been obtained using both classical energy minimization methods and quantum Diffusion Monte Carlo. The total interaction acting within the clusters has been obtained as a sum of pairwise potentials: Li+-He and He-He. This approximation had
been shown in our earlier study [1] to give substantially correct results for energies and geometries once compared to full ab-initio calculations. The general features of the spatial structures, and their energetics, are discussed in details for the clusters up to n = 30 and the first solvation shell is shown to be essentially completed by the first ten helium atoms.
PACS numbers: 34.20.-b,34.30.+h
[comments:
Authors take Helium liguid droplets that form around impurities, here Lithium ion connected to Helium atom(s) up to 30 of them.
Because the droplets are so close to absolute zero temperature, they form clusters that quantum mechanics can track by measurements of the clusters of crystals.
That is "liguid He" droplet with Li+ ion as "crystal" forming basis, giving some aspects of quantum behaviors because the crysatals are in the liguid He.
A job for William Gibbs' formalizations of phase differences (liguid/~S~/molecule) wherein once can start with equalilibriums at the interface, say equal energies per volumes(?).
The essay confuses me, authors use the term "trimer" to, I quess, describe triplet sets of atoms, Li and two Helium atoms.
The dimer being Li plus He or He plus He.
The Lithium(+charge) bound to He2, forms a triangle, a three linked triplet, and two linked triplets, and plot with bar charts, Figure 4 (p. 22) the equal lateral triangle with three links has the lowest energy diffrence.
Somehow my mind wants also to attach this experimentally correlated model which establishes the equal lateral trimer of the molecule to the nucleus.
The link below claims to have used a "Constrained molecular dynamics (CoDM) that was previously used for nuclear dynamics now extended to atomic structures:
arXiv:physics/0409008 v2 4 Feb 2005
Done for H, Li, Be, and F.
Here nuclear mechanic's math and statistical methods are applied to the elemental atoms.
Constrained Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Atomic Ground-States
Sachie Kimura and Aldo Bonasera
Laboratorio Nazionale del Sud, INFN, via Santa Sofia, 62, 95123 Catania, Italy
(Dated: August 13, 2005)
Constrained molecular dynamics(CoMD) model, previously introduced for nuclear dynamics, has been extended to the atomic structure and collision calculations. Quantum effects corresponding to the Pauli and Heisenberg principle are enforced by constraints, following the idea of the Lagrange multiplier method. Our calculations for small atomic system, H, He, Li, Be, F reproduce the ground- state binding energies reasonably, compared with the experimental data. We discuss also the shell
splitting which is expected as a consequence of the e-e correlation.
PACS numbers: 34.10.+x; 31.15.Qg
So if the QUESTION 1 is about some initial start, the expansion from some Cosmonium Atom (unbreakable) attributed to a mathematical model, the Dehmelt Cosmonium is a triplet wherein each triplet member divides into a triplet still connected to the past, all the past triplet partners.
And assuming today we have percieved different phases requiring different math models that handle the differences. That is we likely experience different levels of the divided, dividing, triplets requiring different mathematical physics.
The authors of each essay have, it seems, met some of the QUESTION 1 requirements proposed by it's initiator.
Have more questions to answer on these essays.
But appears almost like they are converging.
We've all had that feeling, I'm sure.
How can we help that?
After all, connecting the dots is what our brains are supposed to do, are they not?
Whether one has inhaled knowledge or not.
But watch out for the cold Helium droplets, it might make your voice change to a higher pitch due to testosterone lowering as for the brain scattering patterns posted by the initiator.
Best, rmuldavin
how else can we get news from afar,
maybe a different place than where we are?
Start here:
arXiv:physics/0506048 v1 6 Jun 2005
Microsolvation of Li+ in small He Clusters. Li+Hen species from Classical
and Quantum Calculations
C. Di Paola, F. Sebastianelli, E. Bodo, I. Baccarelli, and F.A. Gianturco∗
Department of Chemistry, University of Rome “La Sapienza”and INFM,
Piazzale A. Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
M. Yurtsever
Istanbul Technical University, Chemistry Department, 80626 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
A structural study of the smaller Li+Hen clusters with n ≤ 30 has been carried out using different theoretical methods. The structures and the energetics of the clusters have been obtained using both classical energy minimization methods and quantum Diffusion Monte Carlo. The total interaction acting within the clusters has been obtained as a sum of pairwise potentials: Li+-He and He-He. This approximation had
been shown in our earlier study [1] to give substantially correct results for energies and geometries once compared to full ab-initio calculations. The general features of the spatial structures, and their energetics, are discussed in details for the clusters up to n = 30 and the first solvation shell is shown to be essentially completed by the first ten helium atoms.
PACS numbers: 34.20.-b,34.30.+h
[comments:
Authors take Helium liguid droplets that form around impurities, here Lithium ion connected to Helium atom(s) up to 30 of them.
Because the droplets are so close to absolute zero temperature, they form clusters that quantum mechanics can track by measurements of the clusters of crystals.
That is "liguid He" droplet with Li+ ion as "crystal" forming basis, giving some aspects of quantum behaviors because the crysatals are in the liguid He.
A job for William Gibbs' formalizations of phase differences (liguid/~S~/molecule) wherein once can start with equalilibriums at the interface, say equal energies per volumes(?).
The essay confuses me, authors use the term "trimer" to, I quess, describe triplet sets of atoms, Li and two Helium atoms.
The dimer being Li plus He or He plus He.
The Lithium(+charge) bound to He2, forms a triangle, a three linked triplet, and two linked triplets, and plot with bar charts, Figure 4 (p. 22) the equal lateral triangle with three links has the lowest energy diffrence.
Somehow my mind wants also to attach this experimentally correlated model which establishes the equal lateral trimer of the molecule to the nucleus.
The link below claims to have used a "Constrained molecular dynamics (CoDM) that was previously used for nuclear dynamics now extended to atomic structures:
arXiv:physics/0409008 v2 4 Feb 2005
Done for H, Li, Be, and F.
Here nuclear mechanic's math and statistical methods are applied to the elemental atoms.
Constrained Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Atomic Ground-States
Sachie Kimura and Aldo Bonasera
Laboratorio Nazionale del Sud, INFN, via Santa Sofia, 62, 95123 Catania, Italy
(Dated: August 13, 2005)
Constrained molecular dynamics(CoMD) model, previously introduced for nuclear dynamics, has been extended to the atomic structure and collision calculations. Quantum effects corresponding to the Pauli and Heisenberg principle are enforced by constraints, following the idea of the Lagrange multiplier method. Our calculations for small atomic system, H, He, Li, Be, F reproduce the ground- state binding energies reasonably, compared with the experimental data. We discuss also the shell
splitting which is expected as a consequence of the e-e correlation.
PACS numbers: 34.10.+x; 31.15.Qg
So if the QUESTION 1 is about some initial start, the expansion from some Cosmonium Atom (unbreakable) attributed to a mathematical model, the Dehmelt Cosmonium is a triplet wherein each triplet member divides into a triplet still connected to the past, all the past triplet partners.
And assuming today we have percieved different phases requiring different math models that handle the differences. That is we likely experience different levels of the divided, dividing, triplets requiring different mathematical physics.
The authors of each essay have, it seems, met some of the QUESTION 1 requirements proposed by it's initiator.
Have more questions to answer on these essays.
But appears almost like they are converging.
We've all had that feeling, I'm sure.
How can we help that?
After all, connecting the dots is what our brains are supposed to do, are they not?
Whether one has inhaled knowledge or not.
But watch out for the cold Helium droplets, it might make your voice change to a higher pitch due to testosterone lowering as for the brain scattering patterns posted by the initiator.
Best, rmuldavin
Ummm... rmuldavin I think you are off topic! Delete that and start a new thread.
Cheers
Cheers
Lets start with "time". Everything that happens requires a finite amount of time for "anything" to happen (complete its cycle).
Hi RealityCheck,
I hope you pull through! This thread is too young to die!
Get well soon RC
I hope you pull through!
This thread is too young to die!Get well soon RC
Energy.
Aleph
Reality Check, thinking about your posing your QUESTION 1 for consideration of named chatters and others.
Hope your flu flys away.
I believe there is a relationship between mind altering substances and, yes, even physics.
But I don't take a position on benefits or costs, part because, personally I have my own experience which resists expensive habits, whether good or bad.
The culture, the mainstream economic culture, the one that seems to control a large portion of media, would have us believing what keeps the wealth in the hands of the too few. Keeping the women embracing some "perfect" male god that appears controlled by a few men, thus allowing the controlling men to doubly alienate the women, first because no one can be perfect (if for no other reason it would require others to judge this) and second, a woman cannot become a man (excluding those with sex change operations and those born with a wide variety of gender differences, etc.).
It's the economy, stupid or wise, insulting or complimentary.
It is, here, the apparent fact that is much is left out of most discussion, perhaps because it is time consuming for all participants, and, as related to time consuming, a personal matter with some generalizations. This I leave to the "experts".
Yes, it may be a "One Flu over the Cuck-oo Nest", the idea that you leave your egg in another's nest waitng for it to hatch.
Your proposed idea that we all present our ideas, and as you wrote, then you wait till the ANSWERS to your proposed QUESTIONS to pronounce your contributions may make some feel "cuck-old". Not me.
One of my current heros, Euripidies (circa 385 BCE), one author described as "cuck-old-ed".
Add to this that "evolutionary biology" describes men as tending to practice "serial monogamy" and women "pologamy". Not a value judgement, but a statement on survival, most recently essayed, for women, due to the behavior of males to kill the off spring of there intended mates, I quess they can keep tract of who they mate with. Reported mice do this.
These "facts" perhaps need more inspection than a Theory of Everything that may center only concerning origins some 14 billion years ago (perhpas for a 85 billion year cycle?).
However, since our origins around our births likely relate to physical evolution, such recent orgins as our births do shape our ability to comprehend other origins being our parents have evolved survival skills (well, if your parents are "Gods" that may give you an edge, ... over the edge.
Still not a value judgement, just a Reality Check.
When I try to comprehend the essays that I can get on the Internet, I keep thinking of the context, the hours of work that go into the essays, the teamwork, the teachers and students, the research efforts. And I sense that my own efforts fall short of such efforts to unvail the complexities. Yet surprised that I seem to comprehend in a way that "eggs" me forward to keep reading.
Does not the availability of a big TOE (discussion) and related essays promote a greater number of people engaging in what appears assome very practical solutions to survival (if for no other reason to sustain the teaching and research)?.
I can comprehend this as operating with the essays as well as "publish or perish", grant getting, status maintenance, "presentation of the self", ....
That is just part of the territory, the "brane" of of our lives.
Take a deserved rest.
Best, rmuldavin
Hope your flu flys away.
I believe there is a relationship between mind altering substances and, yes, even physics.
But I don't take a position on benefits or costs, part because, personally I have my own experience which resists expensive habits, whether good or bad.
The culture, the mainstream economic culture, the one that seems to control a large portion of media, would have us believing what keeps the wealth in the hands of the too few. Keeping the women embracing some "perfect" male god that appears controlled by a few men, thus allowing the controlling men to doubly alienate the women, first because no one can be perfect (if for no other reason it would require others to judge this) and second, a woman cannot become a man (excluding those with sex change operations and those born with a wide variety of gender differences, etc.).
It's the economy, stupid or wise, insulting or complimentary.
It is, here, the apparent fact that is much is left out of most discussion, perhaps because it is time consuming for all participants, and, as related to time consuming, a personal matter with some generalizations. This I leave to the "experts".
Yes, it may be a "One Flu over the Cuck-oo Nest", the idea that you leave your egg in another's nest waitng for it to hatch.
Your proposed idea that we all present our ideas, and as you wrote, then you wait till the ANSWERS to your proposed QUESTIONS to pronounce your contributions may make some feel "cuck-old". Not me.
One of my current heros, Euripidies (circa 385 BCE), one author described as "cuck-old-ed".
Add to this that "evolutionary biology" describes men as tending to practice "serial monogamy" and women "pologamy". Not a value judgement, but a statement on survival, most recently essayed, for women, due to the behavior of males to kill the off spring of there intended mates, I quess they can keep tract of who they mate with. Reported mice do this.
These "facts" perhaps need more inspection than a Theory of Everything that may center only concerning origins some 14 billion years ago (perhpas for a 85 billion year cycle?).
However, since our origins around our births likely relate to physical evolution, such recent orgins as our births do shape our ability to comprehend other origins being our parents have evolved survival skills (well, if your parents are "Gods" that may give you an edge, ... over the edge.
Still not a value judgement, just a Reality Check.
When I try to comprehend the essays that I can get on the Internet, I keep thinking of the context, the hours of work that go into the essays, the teamwork, the teachers and students, the research efforts. And I sense that my own efforts fall short of such efforts to unvail the complexities. Yet surprised that I seem to comprehend in a way that "eggs" me forward to keep reading.
Does not the availability of a big TOE (discussion) and related essays promote a greater number of people engaging in what appears assome very practical solutions to survival (if for no other reason to sustain the teaching and research)?.
I can comprehend this as operating with the essays as well as "publish or perish", grant getting, status maintenance, "presentation of the self", ....
That is just part of the territory, the "brane" of of our lives.
Take a deserved rest.
Best, rmuldavin
> In other words, what potential MUST pre-exist in order that ALL OTHER concepts, terms, ‘dimensions’, ‘values’ ‘equations’, ‘relativities’ etc. of ANY sort may be ‘derived’ or even perceived/discussed at all?
energy dissipates~
energy dissipates~
Energy like others have stated (what form or state I do not know) or......and I know this is gonna sound crazy ........ the *mind* ie. conciousness.
...
Reality Check on aisle 4 please!
...
X
Reality Check on aisle 4 please!
...
X
Good Elf
I tend to agree that “there really is only one h isn't there? ... h-bar should be a constant multiplier of 1/2pi.”
Yet there is so much literature using h-bar to calculate Planck length, for example [quick finds using google]:
1 - John Baez uses h-bar with 1.6 * 10 ^(-35) m. [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html]
2 - Wikipedia, which mentions that h-bar is sometimes called Dirac’s constant or reduced Planck‘s constant..
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length]
3 - absolute astronomy
[http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pl/planck_units.htm]
4 - National Institute of Standards and Technology
[http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl]
5 - Although University of Virginia uses cm.
[http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/plancklength.htm]
With only limited literature using h, for example [quick find using google]:
6 - Problem 1 in this practice exam from CAL-State University in m [no cm examples were found quickly]
[http://physics.csusb.edu/~jmcgill/p221_fall_2001/prac_final.pdf]
I tend to agree that “there really is only one h isn't there? ... h-bar should be a constant multiplier of 1/2pi.”
Yet there is so much literature using h-bar to calculate Planck length, for example [quick finds using google]:
1 - John Baez uses h-bar with 1.6 * 10 ^(-35) m. [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html]
2 - Wikipedia, which mentions that h-bar is sometimes called Dirac’s constant or reduced Planck‘s constant..
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length]
3 - absolute astronomy
[http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pl/planck_units.htm]
4 - National Institute of Standards and Technology
[http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl]
5 - Although University of Virginia uses cm.
[http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/plancklength.htm]
With only limited literature using h, for example [quick find using google]:
6 - Problem 1 in this practice exam from CAL-State University in m [no cm examples were found quickly]
[http://physics.csusb.edu/~jmcgill/p221_fall_2001/prac_final.pdf]
Hi Gadfly,
I know. Yet show me one test of this "constant'. The truth is it is too small to directly test ... ever. To test it our civilization will need the energy that the Universe had a couple of seconds after the big bang. Only then will it be possible to confirm the Planck Length. Check it out. A conventional accelerator would need to be the size of our Galaxy. The energy would need to come from the partial "annihilation " of a Universe.
Of course as a pure number it has a certain validity ... but what is it's physical significance? I feel that "bubbles" will form in the more flexible "Uberspace" long before bubbles can form in the "stiff" Spacetime of 3D + T due to the frame of reference we are in. Given the choice nature takes the easy way out. Bubbles will form in the "Uberspace" lowering it's potential energy... defeat the "bulk" quantum foam "conjecture" thus getting "around" the problem rather than going "through" it. Hey... we already make these bubbles. Space in "Uberspace" forms "bubbles" of E = hf a linear function of impulse dependent on frequency. This we already know from "reasonable" experiment. Check out this rather "immature" conjecture of my own...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
It is embarrassing that so much now depends on something for which there is not a scrap of experimental evidence. I understand that though lecturers do not believe in String Theory they will believe in this "conjecture". I would just ask them "show me the money". There is another argument that is to the effect that quantum gravity which involves quantum spacetime is a flawed concept (it is mathematically divergent). That is why String Theory has so much going for it... it should not be trying to quantize spacetime.
This argument does not prove "non-existence". Science works by theory then the proof. The "belief" may still be true. It is not necessary for you to accept what I say though, everyone must make up their own mind.
This is a "side salad" to the "main course" here. I know I am "up against the wall" with this idea.
Cheers
I know. Yet show me one test of this "constant'. The truth is it is too small to directly test ... ever. To test it our civilization will need the energy that the Universe had a couple of seconds after the big bang. Only then will it be possible to confirm the Planck Length. Check it out. A conventional accelerator would need to be the size of our Galaxy. The energy would need to come from the partial "annihilation " of a Universe.
Of course as a pure number it has a certain validity ... but what is it's physical significance? I feel that "bubbles" will form in the more flexible "Uberspace" long before bubbles can form in the "stiff" Spacetime of 3D + T due to the frame of reference we are in. Given the choice nature takes the easy way out. Bubbles will form in the "Uberspace" lowering it's potential energy... defeat the "bulk" quantum foam "conjecture" thus getting "around" the problem rather than going "through" it. Hey... we already make these bubbles. Space in "Uberspace" forms "bubbles" of E = hf a linear function of impulse dependent on frequency. This we already know from "reasonable" experiment. Check out this rather "immature" conjecture of my own...
The nature of "electricity" & "magnetism"
It is embarrassing that so much now depends on something for which there is not a scrap of experimental evidence. I understand that though lecturers do not believe in String Theory they will believe in this "conjecture". I would just ask them "show me the money". There is another argument that is to the effect that quantum gravity which involves quantum spacetime is a flawed concept (it is mathematically divergent). That is why String Theory has so much going for it... it should not be trying to quantize spacetime.
This argument does not prove "non-existence". Science works by theory then the proof. The "belief" may still be true. It is not necessary for you to accept what I say though, everyone must make up their own mind.
This is a "side salad" to the "main course" here. I know I am "up against the wall" with this idea.Cheers
Hi everyone, just stumbled upon your forum here. Very interesting, although I think you guys should try to keep it a bit more simple......too much free time or what?!
An answer to the first question, Reality Check, is .....
space. or dimensions, if you will.
without that basic fundamental we have nothing. no particles, no waves, no time, nada.
An answer to the first question, Reality Check, is .....
space. or dimensions, if you will.
without that basic fundamental we have nothing. no particles, no waves, no time, nada.
QUOTE (TAK+Sep 21 2005, 03:00 PM)
...space. or dimensions, if you will...
I believe, the superstring/Aether theory concept (i.e. space-time = supergravity waves + spatial dimension convolution) seems to be most promising. It enables to explain all the common effect, which are solved by the current physics.
So, the main concept are waves, i.e. space-time fluctuations, which are behaving as a massive particles (so called preons), being of wave pocket of gravity. The collapse of preons leads to the formation of the more complex gravity bounded systems.
The second part of that concept - i.e. convoluted dimension paradigm - is very common in the nature, informatics and human society, in fact. Its based on the minimisation of action quantity law in physic and is part of more broad Hegel's principle of quantity changed into new quality during evolution. I'm explaining this concept using the sexual dimorphism and monetary economic evolution, in my submissions, too.
I believe, the superstring/Aether theory concept (i.e. space-time = supergravity waves + spatial dimension convolution) seems to be most promising. It enables to explain all the common effect, which are solved by the current physics.
So, the main concept are waves, i.e. space-time fluctuations, which are behaving as a massive particles (so called preons), being of wave pocket of gravity. The collapse of preons leads to the formation of the more complex gravity bounded systems.
The second part of that concept - i.e. convoluted dimension paradigm - is very common in the nature, informatics and human society, in fact. Its based on the minimisation of action quantity law in physic and is part of more broad Hegel's principle of quantity changed into new quality during evolution. I'm explaining this concept using the sexual dimorphism and monetary economic evolution, in my submissions, too.
So, what you are really saying is, what is empty space? Once the concept of quantum fields is considered, is there empty space?
Whatever empty space is, that is the relevant condition for the formation of everything else. Everything has to be made of empty space. What possible properties could empty space have that would allow it to conform to the known structures and sub-structures of physics?
Is it possible that the universe formed because of the pressures brought to bear on itself by its own infinite (pre-current incarnation) bulk? These forces caused it to fold in on itself. Thus was formed the electron. What passed through the folding became light. What stayed behind was the electron and the thing closely related to it (its other half) the proton. The neutron being related to the proton the same way that the proton is related to the electron.
All of these structures are made up on the foundation of folded space. The folds that result are the folds of space-time. Light isn't absorbed by the atom. Light is redirected by the folds of space time present in the nuclear bundle. Light bends around the atom. 
So, there is quantum gravity and it is important.
Whatever empty space is, that is the relevant condition for the formation of everything else. Everything has to be made of empty space. What possible properties could empty space have that would allow it to conform to the known structures and sub-structures of physics?
Is it possible that the universe formed because of the pressures brought to bear on itself by its own infinite (pre-current incarnation) bulk? These forces caused it to fold in on itself. Thus was formed the electron. What passed through the folding became light. What stayed behind was the electron and the thing closely related to it (its other half) the proton. The neutron being related to the proton the same way that the proton is related to the electron.
All of these structures are made up on the foundation of folded space. The folds that result are the folds of space-time. Light isn't absorbed by the atom. Light is redirected by the folds of space time present in the nuclear bundle. Light bends around the atom. So, there is quantum gravity and it is important.
QUOTE (Evil Genius+Sep 22 2005, 08:41 AM)
So, what you are really saying is, what is empty space?
Basically, the space never can be empty, if it exists as a space. The nonzero wavelength of space-time oscillations is giving the non-zero dimension to the space!
The nature of space is very material, in fact - the only reason, why it seems to be empty for us is given by the nature of light. For example, from the point of view of waves onto water surface, the water constitutes an "empty space" too. But from the point of view of massive particles, the space isn't empty by any way, because it exhibits an inertia effect, for example:
Whenever you try to move a boat on the water surface, you'll always create small standing waves onto surface of it, resulting to some underwater standing waves in equilibrium - well, all this requires a certain energy, which is released back after stopping the boat.
The surface part of standing wave isn't observable using the surface wave, of course (like all the surface waves). But the underwater part of it constitutes some kind of environment deformation - so it leads to he deformation of the boat shape, which is observable by the surface wave.
It's the base of so called quantum effects - deBroglie wave and the wavy deformations of the particle shape, which are observable during the massive particle motion through the space by the same way, like the deformations of the image of moving fish, which is observed through the water surface deformed by its motion. So its evident, the space isn't empty, just because it's deformable by the same way, as the water surface.
Basically, the space never can be empty, if it exists as a space. The nonzero wavelength of space-time oscillations is giving the non-zero dimension to the space!
The nature of space is very material, in fact - the only reason, why it seems to be empty for us is given by the nature of light. For example, from the point of view of waves onto water surface, the water constitutes an "empty space" too. But from the point of view of massive particles, the space isn't empty by any way, because it exhibits an inertia effect, for example:
Whenever you try to move a boat on the water surface, you'll always create small standing waves onto surface of it, resulting to some underwater standing waves in equilibrium - well, all this requires a certain energy, which is released back after stopping the boat.
The surface part of standing wave isn't observable using the surface wave, of course (like all the surface waves). But the underwater part of it constitutes some kind of environment deformation - so it leads to he deformation of the boat shape, which is observable by the surface wave.
It's the base of so called quantum effects - deBroglie wave and the wavy deformations of the particle shape, which are observable during the massive particle motion through the space by the same way, like the deformations of the image of moving fish, which is observed through the water surface deformed by its motion. So its evident, the space isn't empty, just because it's deformable by the same way, as the water surface.
If space is never empty it would be a soup resisting the motion of everything. It would be a solid of infinite density.
If there is energy outside of the objects occupying space what is it doing? We know matter and light are energy. But how is empty space energy?
If there is energy outside of the objects occupying space what is it doing? We know matter and light are energy. But how is empty space energy?
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 23 2005, 01:16 AM)
If space is never empty it would be a soup resisting the motion of everything. It would be a solid of infinite density.
The water surface is resisting on the place, but prohibiting a motion of anything by any way. The real perception of a motion in water surface is a bit complicated by the fact, the water has non-zero viscosity and rather low density, but if you suppose the so called boson condensate behavior (which is real matter and can be prepared in lab since 1995), then you will obtain a much more realistic model of "fluid", formed by just the spacetime waves of gravity energy.
For example, whenever you drag a rayon band across to air, you can observe a wavy motion, which stops soon, after a drag force disappears. Well, in ideal boson fluid the wavy motion continues and keeps the band in the motion as eel in aspic, because there is no "inner friction" between particles, just waves. Its a principle of inertia force.
The water surface is resisting on the place, but prohibiting a motion of anything by any way. The real perception of a motion in water surface is a bit complicated by the fact, the water has non-zero viscosity and rather low density, but if you suppose the so called boson condensate behavior (which is real matter and can be prepared in lab since 1995), then you will obtain a much more realistic model of "fluid", formed by just the spacetime waves of gravity energy.
For example, whenever you drag a rayon band across to air, you can observe a wavy motion, which stops soon, after a drag force disappears. Well, in ideal boson fluid the wavy motion continues and keeps the band in the motion as eel in aspic, because there is no "inner friction" between particles, just waves. Its a principle of inertia force.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 23 2005, 01:16 AM)
If there is energy outside of the objects occupying space what is it doing? We know matter and light are energy. But how is empty space energy?
It has a lot of consequences. One of most important is the quantum stabilizing aspect. You know, without the massive environments all gravity bounded systems tends to collapse to the infinitesimal space by its own gravity. So the external vacuum energy prohibits that collapse by "buoyancy effect", giving the particle wave to possibility to stabilize by internal resonance effect (so called "quantum effects"). Without it, all the particles would finish quickly in a local singularities. Instead of this, the vacuum collapses as a bulk too, but rather slowly, due to low overall energy exchange speed.
The second important thing is, all the interactions between particles are just gravity mediated, in principle. It simply means, without gravity is no other force and without gravity exchange is no interaction exchange. In truly empty environment no interaction can spread, even gravity force - like sound interaction in air vacuo. So this gravity energy exchange environment serves here as the environment both for the gravity interaction exchange alone, both for the other derived forces exchange. The gravity exchange wave serves as the "path" for exchange of all other derived interactions - its vibrations forms the space/time dimension for such of this derived processes, in fact! Thus, without any gravity space-time motion isn't no derived space-time - like this one, which we are living in, defined by the light spreading spacetime metric.
It has a lot of consequences. One of most important is the quantum stabilizing aspect. You know, without the massive environments all gravity bounded systems tends to collapse to the infinitesimal space by its own gravity. So the external vacuum energy prohibits that collapse by "buoyancy effect", giving the particle wave to possibility to stabilize by internal resonance effect (so called "quantum effects"). Without it, all the particles would finish quickly in a local singularities. Instead of this, the vacuum collapses as a bulk too, but rather slowly, due to low overall energy exchange speed.
The second important thing is, all the interactions between particles are just gravity mediated, in principle. It simply means, without gravity is no other force and without gravity exchange is no interaction exchange. In truly empty environment no interaction can spread, even gravity force - like sound interaction in air vacuo. So this gravity energy exchange environment serves here as the environment both for the gravity interaction exchange alone, both for the other derived forces exchange. The gravity exchange wave serves as the "path" for exchange of all other derived interactions - its vibrations forms the space/time dimension for such of this derived processes, in fact! Thus, without any gravity space-time motion isn't no derived space-time - like this one, which we are living in, defined by the light spreading spacetime metric.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 20 2005, 02:47 AM)
Everybody, let’s see if we can get this first question out of the way without too many more ‘sidetracks’
I try to understand you, but I am afraid, the discussion forum on physorg.com doesn't work this way. I've expected, for example, my own thread will be dedicated just Aether theoryand - as you can see - at the end it contains a lowest amount of on topic submissions, dealing with it. Its stupid, but nobody asks the question which Aether theory explains in my own forum - so I have to explain everywhere again and again... The main reason is, the people are rather lazy to search proper topic and here is no possibility to moderate forum directly.
My answer on the topic leading question ...what would you say to a TOE that not only provides the ‘background’ concepts/contexts for the ‘correct’ ‘fixed-aether’/’motile-media’ model, and in so doing ‘adds to’ and ‘modifies’ your own (super)gravity processes and model so as to make it a properly ‘complete’ model... is
"OK, but it's a unnecessary requirement". You can make your theory so flexible, so it explains its own fundamental problems, of course - but I believe, the TOE must be working' in context of commonly known physical laws without problems, too .
I try to understand you, but I am afraid, the discussion forum on physorg.com doesn't work this way. I've expected, for example, my own thread will be dedicated just Aether theoryand - as you can see - at the end it contains a lowest amount of on topic submissions, dealing with it. Its stupid, but nobody asks the question which Aether theory explains in my own forum - so I have to explain everywhere again and again... The main reason is, the people are rather lazy to search proper topic and here is no possibility to moderate forum directly.
My answer on the topic leading question ...what would you say to a TOE that not only provides the ‘background’ concepts/contexts for the ‘correct’ ‘fixed-aether’/’motile-media’ model, and in so doing ‘adds to’ and ‘modifies’ your own (super)gravity processes and model so as to make it a properly ‘complete’ model... is
"OK, but it's a unnecessary requirement". You can make your theory so flexible, so it explains its own fundamental problems, of course - but I believe, the TOE must be working' in context of commonly known physical laws without problems, too .
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2005, 09:05 AM)
If everyone merely carried on doing what everyone ELSE was doing, is it any wonder nothing will EVER be achieved?
Hello Reality Check,
to be perfectly honest, I don't believe in any progress of TOE theory using the way you have proposed. The TOE development isn't problem of organization, but understanding. You are not able to hinder people for asking, so I've no reason to not answer these interesting questions here.
Try to obtain a moderator rights for the forum here, or to manage such process in your private web - but Iam afraid, there is no possibility to achieve such of this well organized development process on public discussion forum without moderator rights.
Hello Reality Check,
to be perfectly honest, I don't believe in any progress of TOE theory using the way you have proposed. The TOE development isn't problem of organization, but understanding. You are not able to hinder people for asking, so I've no reason to not answer these interesting questions here.
Try to obtain a moderator rights for the forum here, or to manage such process in your private web - but Iam afraid, there is no possibility to achieve such of this well organized development process on public discussion forum without moderator rights.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 23 2005, 01:16 AM)
If space is never empty it would be a soup resisting the motion of everything. It would be a solid of infinite density.
If there is energy outside of the objects occupying space what is it doing? We know matter and light are energy. But how is empty space energy?
okay let us assume space is never empty.. and to be honest.. we dont know what space is. if it is never empty.. how can u conclude it is a soup resisting the motion??
i mean if u try to understand neutrinos, you know that the universe is virtually empty for them, and they can pass light years without hitting anything in their path. Likewise there are many particles for which even the gap between the nucleus of an atom and the electron is as big as the average distance between any 2 stars, if space consist of such small particles even an electron would eventually believe its isolated! , hence i do not say it is a solid of infinite density,
well, density is a relative parameter, and universe being a "uni" we can never conclude its absoluteness..
in my understanding , i found we can never even say if this universe is single, if it has direction , if its moving, if its hot or cold etc.. i mean anything that requires a comparision to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in whole!.
( try reframing your second Q, after you understand the first one)
regards
If there is energy outside of the objects occupying space what is it doing? We know matter and light are energy. But how is empty space energy?
QUOTE
If space is never empty it would be a soup resisting the motion of everything. It would be a solid of infinite density.
okay let us assume space is never empty.. and to be honest.. we dont know what space is. if it is never empty.. how can u conclude it is a soup resisting the motion??
i mean if u try to understand neutrinos, you know that the universe is virtually empty for them, and they can pass light years without hitting anything in their path. Likewise there are many particles for which even the gap between the nucleus of an atom and the electron is as big as the average distance between any 2 stars, if space consist of such small particles even an electron would eventually believe its isolated! , hence i do not say it is a solid of infinite density,
well, density is a relative parameter, and universe being a "uni" we can never conclude its absoluteness..
in my understanding , i found we can never even say if this universe is single, if it has direction , if its moving, if its hot or cold etc.. i mean anything that requires a comparision to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in whole!.
( try reframing your second Q, after you understand the first one)
regards
QUOTE (Vish+Sep 23 2005, 11:04 AM)
we dont know what space is. if it is never empty.. how can u conclude it is a soup resisting the motion
Well Vish, the RealityCheck starts to be a little nervous, it seems - so I'll answer your question in this topic, OK?
Thank You for understanding.
Well Vish, the RealityCheck starts to be a little nervous, it seems - so I'll answer your question in this topic, OK?
Thank You for understanding.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2005, 10:57 AM)
What can possibly be BETTER for coming to a 'common' understanding of a TOE than 'communally' thinking
The "communally thinking" never leads to the noticable results, not even to the usable physical theory. I am comming from the former communist party country, so I have a fifty years experience about it.
The "communally thinking" never leads to the noticable results, not even to the usable physical theory. I am comming from the former communist party country, so I have a fifty years experience about it.
OK stub..
QUOTE (Vish+Sep 23 2005, 11:04 AM)
Likewise there are many particles for which even the gap between the nucleus of an atom and the electron is as big as the average distance between any 2 stars, if space consist of such small particles even an electron would eventually believe its isolated! , hence i do not say it is a solid of infinite density,
well, density is a relative parameter, and universe being a "uni" we can never conclude its absoluteness..
in my understanding , i found we can never even say if this universe is single, if it has direction , if its moving, if its hot or cold etc.. i mean anything that requires a comparision to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in whole!.
This post will probably be one of the "layman" posts that RealityCheck keeps mentioning, but at the basic outset of his QUESTION1, a simpler mind may develop some intriguing ideas.
To begin describing the universe, I think Vish has instigated the base of what I'm trying to say: making a definition of anything requires a subject and subjectee. When trying to define a "space" or temporal/spatial "area" that a defined "observer" can "observe", a series of questions come to my mind.
(1) Can we say that nothing exists outside of what we define as spatial, and/or temporal?
If (1) is true, it implies that all 'somethings' exist withing our 'space'. Can we think of all 'somethings' as 'observers'?
If (1) is true, does this axiom necessitate a medium for transmission of information between 'space' or 'area' and 'observer'?
I don't know how the Universe can be broken down further, (here it comes!) based on my perceived role as an 'observer'. Maybe if I was a photon I'd think differently, but then I've never had a conversation with any photons about their perceptions of the Universe.
well, density is a relative parameter, and universe being a "uni" we can never conclude its absoluteness..
in my understanding , i found we can never even say if this universe is single, if it has direction , if its moving, if its hot or cold etc.. i mean anything that requires a comparision to detect the value of substance at hand can never be used to speak about the space or universe in whole!.
This post will probably be one of the "layman" posts that RealityCheck keeps mentioning, but at the basic outset of his QUESTION1, a simpler mind may develop some intriguing ideas.
To begin describing the universe, I think Vish has instigated the base of what I'm trying to say: making a definition of anything requires a subject and subjectee. When trying to define a "space" or temporal/spatial "area" that a defined "observer" can "observe", a series of questions come to my mind.
(1) Can we say that nothing exists outside of what we define as spatial, and/or temporal?
If (1) is true, it implies that all 'somethings' exist withing our 'space'. Can we think of all 'somethings' as 'observers'?
If (1) is true, does this axiom necessitate a medium for transmission of information between 'space' or 'area' and 'observer'?
I don't know how the Universe can be broken down further, (here it comes!) based on my perceived role as an 'observer'. Maybe if I was a photon I'd think differently, but then I've never had a conversation with any photons about their perceptions of the Universe.
Hi RealityCheck et al,
Don't give up... it is worth it. It not like the Solvay Conferences is it?
Cheers
Don't give up... it is worth it. It not like the Solvay Conferences is it?
Cheers
I see T.O.E., Geometry and equating Matter to Geometry--makes me think of something I read by Chris Doran and another fellow, both physicists at Cambridge.
This paper isn't so much a T.O.E. in itself, but more or less an introduction to geometric algebras -- well--please read the abstract and discern for yourself whether or not this may be a good tool for you guys. I believe, that with a read through of the document (which isn't long at all), that you folks may find that switching to the GA paradigm may be one of the best decisions made after you progress toward the T.O.E.
Abstract:
This paper contains a tutorial introduction to the ideas of geometric algebra, concentrating on its physical applications. We show how the definition of a `geometric product' of vectors in 2- and 3-dimensional space provides precise geometrical interpretations of the imaginary numbers often used in conventional methods. Reflections and rotations are analysed in terms of bilinear spinor transformations, and are then related to the theory of analytic functions and their natural extension in more than two dimensions (monogenics). Physics is greatly facilitated by the use of Hestenes' spacetime algebra, which automatically incorporates the geometric structure of spacetime. This is demonstrated by examples from electromagnetism. In the course of this purely classical exposition many surprising results are obtained - results which are usually thought to belong to the preserve of quantum theory. We conclude that geometric algebra is the most powerful and general language available for the development of mathematical physics.
Abstract--Intro and Document
One way or another, best of luck.
PS> I would also like to share that this article is NOT for the mathematically intimidated.
This paper isn't so much a T.O.E. in itself, but more or less an introduction to geometric algebras -- well--please read the abstract and discern for yourself whether or not this may be a good tool for you guys. I believe, that with a read through of the document (which isn't long at all), that you folks may find that switching to the GA paradigm may be one of the best decisions made after you progress toward the T.O.E.
Abstract:
This paper contains a tutorial introduction to the ideas of geometric algebra, concentrating on its physical applications. We show how the definition of a `geometric product' of vectors in 2- and 3-dimensional space provides precise geometrical interpretations of the imaginary numbers often used in conventional methods. Reflections and rotations are analysed in terms of bilinear spinor transformations, and are then related to the theory of analytic functions and their natural extension in more than two dimensions (monogenics). Physics is greatly facilitated by the use of Hestenes' spacetime algebra, which automatically incorporates the geometric structure of spacetime. This is demonstrated by examples from electromagnetism. In the course of this purely classical exposition many surprising results are obtained - results which are usually thought to belong to the preserve of quantum theory. We conclude that geometric algebra is the most powerful and general language available for the development of mathematical physics.
Abstract--Intro and Document
One way or another, best of luck.
PS> I would also like to share that this article is NOT for the mathematically intimidated.
lCine7ic -
Interesting little piece. I really liked the "unlearning" about the cross product vis à vis the "outer product" - not something I learned in my linear algebra classes. Always nice to expand my vector space to n dimensions!
-ss
Interesting little piece. I really liked the "unlearning" about the cross product vis à vis the "outer product" - not something I learned in my linear algebra classes. Always nice to expand my vector space to n dimensions!
-ss
Great discussion, visiting from Michigan in Seattle for a week, and here's my comments to above, is it to QUESTION One?
That is, starting from fewest or no assumptions?
Being a "Nave" Helmos's "Naive Seet Theory" gave me a handy way to approach almost any case where I just didn't know the "state" of a binary set of "words".
Try here, energy or matter as one state, and the other "vacumn", that is, the opposite of the energy/matter.
Next take a lead from Spanozia's reflections that binaries are inherently unstable.
And his conjecture that trinaries, triplets are (more) stable.
Switch to the quarks and gluons, binary eng/matt bound by strings.
Therefore two eng/matt pairs, are connected by the the gluons, the G-strings, threads, etc. Separated by vacumn (space).
Construct visual models, one, two, three, ... N dimensional.
Will join the chat next ;week.
Seatt;e is a beautiful place.
Best, rmuldavin
That is, starting from fewest or no assumptions?
Being a "Nave" Helmos's "Naive Seet Theory" gave me a handy way to approach almost any case where I just didn't know the "state" of a binary set of "words".
Try here, energy or matter as one state, and the other "vacumn", that is, the opposite of the energy/matter.
Next take a lead from Spanozia's reflections that binaries are inherently unstable.
And his conjecture that trinaries, triplets are (more) stable.
Switch to the quarks and gluons, binary eng/matt bound by strings.
Therefore two eng/matt pairs, are connected by the the gluons, the G-strings, threads, etc. Separated by vacumn (space).
Construct visual models, one, two, three, ... N dimensional.
Will join the chat next ;week.
Seatt;e is a beautiful place.
Best, rmuldavin
rmuldavin, enjoy Seattle! Hope you are outside enjoying the weather, it is perfect right now for outdoor activities.
Is Reality Check still sick??? Get better!
I have been itching to hear what he thinks should be used as the starting block? (My uneducated two cents is that a TOE needs to start with the smallest particle (which we haven't seen). Or something constant and unchanging under any situation.)
Is Reality Check still sick??? Get better!
I have been itching to hear what he thinks should be used as the starting block? (My uneducated two cents is that a TOE needs to start with the smallest particle (which we haven't seen). Or something constant and unchanging under any situation.)
Hi RealityCheck and everyone
I am not formally educated on this subject, but have intense interrest. Call it a hobby of mine.
My only credentails are a solid grasp of basic mathematics, deep curiosity of the subject (I'm currently reading "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose) and a profound inner understanding of reality that I am unable to atriculate, due in part to my lack of formal education of the mathematical language needed to describe the subject in unambiguous terms.
It is worth noting that I am trying to learn the intense math behind the physics. As I read "The Road to Reality", I often stop and go off on a tangent to better understand the math being discussed in the chapter/section. I've read other material and will certainly check out the "abstract" posted above as well as the earlier mentioned "A First Course in String Theory" by Barton Zwieback
I promise to stay "out of the way" of the more intelligent posters and also promise not to let my pre-concieved notions interfere with this process/project/discussion.
martillo's post on Sept 19, 2005 made a good point.
The first concept needed is to define Referentials and their properties as frames of observation/measuring physical magnitudes and where the laws of Physics will be expressed.
Futhermore, I assume many of you, far more educated than I, know of Godel's theorem. As stated in a recent Discover magazine article interviewing Stephen Hawking: "... the real relevance of Godel's theroem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves..."
In other words, how can we percieve our reality, when we are part of that reality?
Wouldn't we need to step "outside" of this "box" to see it for what it really is?
Is a TOE really possible for us? Won't there always be more questions to ask?
Futhermore, I assume many of you, far more educated than I, know of Godel's theorem. As stated in a recent Discover magazine article interviewing Stephen Hawking: "... the real relevance of Godel's theroem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves..."
In other words, how can we percieve our reality, when we are part of that reality?
Wouldn't we need to step "outside" of this "box" to see it for what it really is?
Is a TOE really possible for us? Won't there always be more questions to ask?
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Having said the above I will now attempt to answer the question.
I would suggest the only starting concept would be that of "potential".
Or perhaps put another way; we must agree on the concept of "nothing" and "something"
I don't just mean in a sense of "space" or "time" or "energy" or "dimensions" or anything in particular.
Put in numerical terms, we must agree that we are allowed to have a range from 0 to 1, or zero to infinity (moot point). This gives us a potential for oscillation, a potential for frequency or function. Wiggle room of sorts.
Given the mutually exclusive "physical concepts" of "nothing" and "something", we have "potential" on which constructs can be built such as:
I'm sure RealityCheck wanted to keep this process/project within the grasp of the layman. From my POV a binary state doesn't get any more simplistic. I sincerely hope it is not too simplistic.
PS. I hope you are feeling better.
I am not formally educated on this subject, but have intense interrest. Call it a hobby of mine.
My only credentails are a solid grasp of basic mathematics, deep curiosity of the subject (I'm currently reading "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose) and a profound inner understanding of reality that I am unable to atriculate, due in part to my lack of formal education of the mathematical language needed to describe the subject in unambiguous terms.
It is worth noting that I am trying to learn the intense math behind the physics. As I read "The Road to Reality", I often stop and go off on a tangent to better understand the math being discussed in the chapter/section. I've read other material and will certainly check out the "abstract" posted above as well as the earlier mentioned "A First Course in String Theory" by Barton Zwieback
I promise to stay "out of the way" of the more intelligent posters and also promise not to let my pre-concieved notions interfere with this process/project/discussion.
martillo's post on Sept 19, 2005 made a good point.
QUOTE
The first concept needed is to define Referentials and their properties as frames of observation/measuring physical magnitudes and where the laws of Physics will be expressed.
Futhermore, I assume many of you, far more educated than I, know of Godel's theorem. As stated in a recent Discover magazine article interviewing Stephen Hawking: "... the real relevance of Godel's theroem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves..."
In other words, how can we percieve our reality, when we are part of that reality?
Wouldn't we need to step "outside" of this "box" to see it for what it really is?
Is a TOE really possible for us? Won't there always be more questions to ask?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The first concept needed is to define Referentials and their properties as frames of observation/measuring physical magnitudes and where the laws of Physics will be expressed. |
Futhermore, I assume many of you, far more educated than I, know of Godel's theorem. As stated in a recent Discover magazine article interviewing Stephen Hawking: "... the real relevance of Godel's theroem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves..."
In other words, how can we percieve our reality, when we are part of that reality?
Wouldn't we need to step "outside" of this "box" to see it for what it really is?
Is a TOE really possible for us? Won't there always be more questions to ask?
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Having said the above I will now attempt to answer the question.
I would suggest the only starting concept would be that of "potential".
Or perhaps put another way; we must agree on the concept of "nothing" and "something"
I don't just mean in a sense of "space" or "time" or "energy" or "dimensions" or anything in particular.
Put in numerical terms, we must agree that we are allowed to have a range from 0 to 1, or zero to infinity (moot point). This gives us a potential for oscillation, a potential for frequency or function. Wiggle room of sorts.
Given the mutually exclusive "physical concepts" of "nothing" and "something", we have "potential" on which constructs can be built such as:
QUOTE
‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON
I'm sure RealityCheck wanted to keep this process/project within the grasp of the layman. From my POV a binary state doesn't get any more simplistic. I sincerely hope it is not too simplistic.
PS. I hope you are feeling better.
QUOTE (Layman Steve+Sep 26 2005, 10:38 PM)
..I would suggest the only starting concept would be that of "potential"...
The relativity theory is based on the number of quantity dualities (length/time, mass/energy, potential/energy flow density, permitivity/permeability,...).
I believe, the most basic is the length/time quantity (i.e. geometrodynamic quantities duality), but the universe can be described by the other pairs quantities in terms of local wave equation solution as well with no lost of information.
As concerning the (gravity) energy potential is given by the second difference of gravity field, i.e spacetime mass density. It means, the basic wave equation solution represents the spacetime metric of the derived wave equation solution. The solution in each dimension set are mutually dependent, like the waves onto water surface.
Are you able to derive the solution of elastic underwater-surface wave system as the diferential equations set? Then you're able to write the equation of the whole universe. Currently, I am just able to solve this model numerically, which is a quite easy, in fact.
The relativity theory is based on the number of quantity dualities (length/time, mass/energy, potential/energy flow density, permitivity/permeability,...).
I believe, the most basic is the length/time quantity (i.e. geometrodynamic quantities duality), but the universe can be described by the other pairs quantities in terms of local wave equation solution as well with no lost of information.
As concerning the (gravity) energy potential is given by the second difference of gravity field, i.e spacetime mass density. It means, the basic wave equation solution represents the spacetime metric of the derived wave equation solution. The solution in each dimension set are mutually dependent, like the waves onto water surface.
Are you able to derive the solution of elastic underwater-surface wave system as the diferential equations set? Then you're able to write the equation of the whole universe. Currently, I am just able to solve this model numerically, which is a quite easy, in fact.
Hi RelatiyCheck,
Obviously missed my post. Please find my submission here
Good Elf's "submission"
The answer you put there was to "Sephiroth Posted: Sep 20 2005, 01:57 PM"
When he said "Energy" I said "Aleph". The first letter in the Hebrew alphabet. This was a "pun" on his "name" combined with a Kabbalistic understanding of how these "emanations" proceed from God. Aleph is the principal pillar of Sephiroth emanation and is associated with divine "energy"... the "Breath of God". I am not religious but the parallel was not lost on me.
Sephiroth (Kabbalah)
It is "ancient" Cosmology at it's best and part of "Alchemical Lore". Not to mention "Jewish Mysticism". Notice ... Universe is a 10 dimensional emanation of God (or perhaps 11?). "The Tree of Life"... "TOE" of the Ancients.
Sorry...
RealityCheck,
Thank you for making this site a true school of reason, you did a great job in creating an environment of interaction and thought. Best of luck!
More sites should pattern themselves after this one.
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Tor,
Good Elf, hi hope all is well, I see you have been helping in many areas and that is awesome, keep up the great work.
Tor, much has been said, but please remember optically or radiation/© is our way of recovering knowledge or communications of the senses given to us.
You might want to step back and think of the Universe as a whole with no end, not like days of old where they thought the ocean would drop off at some point, but our universe is divided up into parts I believe with many realities.
We only know what 4 percent is & 96 percent we do not, of the 4 percent we see that the UNIVERSE is made of, H, He, and heavy elements. So you have a tremendous amount of room for study . HA!
Parts, defined as Dimensions, Branes explain it in what language you feel most comfortable with. But include the constants that we feel might apply to other systems or concepts of reality like gravity & © or radiation.
Any system must have laws of physics and does not have to be the same as ours, but there should be something common in all, we hope, I think it would be wise to start with a few and do the mathematics and work your way out.
Gravity and radiation would be a great place to start, in my humble point of reference. Mathematics is not everything but I hope whatever reality is beyond out perception has these two factors in them. I would also hope the equations is equal on both sides, this is my approach to many question, but could be so very different. Keep a very open mind & please stay out of the institutional box as much as you can in creative thinking.
Best of luck on you PhD, and looking forward to reading your paper some day, hope it makes a wave [pun] in the community.
ciao_
yquantum
RealityCheck,
Hate to see the ending of a great discussion, but you know best. And, you are welcome it is an honor to read great minds in action.
Hope you change your mind, and extend the deadline.
ciao_
yquantum Had to make a correction above, sorry about that! Rush, rush. We only know 4 percent, but everyone understood that. Take care. 
RealityCheck,
Understood, I will try and get back soon, time permitting and look forward to comments of everyone in the future. Stay focus RC, and keep the path clear in your direction.
I believe, Abdullah Quilliam had that in mind.
Courage brother! Do not falter,
Dry your tears and cease from sighing;
Though clouds look black, they soon may alter,
And the sun will send them flying...........................................
[There is no cause for despair; never despair.]
ciao_
yquantum
Obviously missed my post. Please find my submission here
Good Elf's "submission"
The answer you put there was to "Sephiroth Posted: Sep 20 2005, 01:57 PM"
When he said "Energy" I said "Aleph". The first letter in the Hebrew alphabet. This was a "pun" on his "name" combined with a Kabbalistic understanding of how these "emanations" proceed from God. Aleph is the principal pillar of Sephiroth emanation and is associated with divine "energy"... the "Breath of God". I am not religious but the parallel was not lost on me.
Sephiroth (Kabbalah)
It is "ancient" Cosmology at it's best and part of "Alchemical Lore".
Not to mention "Jewish Mysticism". Notice ... Universe is a 10 dimensional emanation of God (or perhaps 11?). "The Tree of Life"... "TOE" of the Ancients.Sorry...
QUOTE (Good Elf Posted: Sep 19 2005+ 02:07 PM)
As the first response... how about this...
As an absolute... all I would ask is that every asserted Theory have a "gedanken experiment", that all agree, "proves" to the present level of our understanding... a "relative" truth. This theory would then be on the basis of a Science and not a belief system. It should also be "simple" to understand. I am restating the Scientific Principle. All else must have this at it's base.
The "gedanken experiment" should be the extracted wisdom of an existing physical experiment, mathematical proof or a thought experiment similar to the one used to "prove" or crystallize the quantum uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was good enough to set the course of science history until this present day. I was no fan of the outcome of that debate but the debate itself was important and should be reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge. This is why "absolutes" are a difficult concept for me. I doubt if this original idea could hold up today. What does hold up is the need to test all the theories (at least in principle). This is something all true Scientists should agree upon. It may not need to be testable with current experimental science but advances may be required for the test. A "Postulate" that is "forever" untestable cannot have the status of a Theory. It is a belief or a conjecture (even the latter is probably too strong). This form should not be used to to build new theories.
Is that submission OK? Others now need to put their own submissions.
Cheers
As an absolute... all I would ask is that every asserted Theory have a "gedanken experiment", that all agree, "proves" to the present level of our understanding... a "relative" truth. This theory would then be on the basis of a Science and not a belief system. It should also be "simple" to understand. I am restating the Scientific Principle. All else must have this at it's base.
The "gedanken experiment" should be the extracted wisdom of an existing physical experiment, mathematical proof or a thought experiment similar to the one used to "prove" or crystallize the quantum uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was good enough to set the course of science history until this present day. I was no fan of the outcome of that debate but the debate itself was important and should be reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge. This is why "absolutes" are a difficult concept for me. I doubt if this original idea could hold up today. What does hold up is the need to test all the theories (at least in principle). This is something all true Scientists should agree upon. It may not need to be testable with current experimental science but advances may be required for the test. A "Postulate" that is "forever" untestable cannot have the status of a Theory. It is a belief or a conjecture (even the latter is probably too strong). This form should not be used to to build new theories.
Is that submission OK? Others now need to put their own submissions.
Cheers
<sigh> RealityCheck you are obviously steering this thread towards your preferred "answer"... Why don't you just put it out there, for goodness sake?
Paul & all,
RC has established this thread according to his design. That is true of all threads. Let it roll, he has volunteered to be moderator, while maintaining his right to "play" with the group. (the dealer bets last)
I hope I can squeeze a response in, moments before the deadline..
My answer: quantity
To whatever answer you propose, I will ask "how many / how much"; if you answer >1 , you will then have to explain how it came to be that there was X# of it.
When you have defined what "quantity" is, you can proceed to define geometry, space, time, vibration, etc. In a hard and full critique of this overlooked "system" we have developed, (math) there is room for a refinement to simpler terms. It is here that religion, philosophy, and science share the same path; while each has its' own direction, they all departed from this point.
In the beginning, there was ONE.
T.Roc
RC has established this thread according to his design. That is true of all threads. Let it roll, he has volunteered to be moderator, while maintaining his right to "play" with the group. (the dealer bets last)
I hope I can squeeze a response in, moments before the deadline..
My answer: quantity
To whatever answer you propose, I will ask "how many / how much"; if you answer >1 , you will then have to explain how it came to be that there was X# of it.
When you have defined what "quantity" is, you can proceed to define geometry, space, time, vibration, etc. In a hard and full critique of this overlooked "system" we have developed, (math) there is room for a refinement to simpler terms. It is here that religion, philosophy, and science share the same path; while each has its' own direction, they all departed from this point.
In the beginning, there was ONE.
T.Roc
QUOTE (TRoc+Sep 28 2005, 02:19 PM)
...In the beginning, there was ONE...
..just a single gravity wave....
Yes, I thought that was what you were going to ask about. The nature of infinite space, that is. I think it has to be a lot like the things we can see or in the best example hear in our everyday reality. What I am referring to is music, specifically how music breaks sound up mathematically. No one point can be said to be the base of everything. Instead it is systemic. The definition of any one note or combination of notes is without meaning if it isn't related to the whole.
What this means in regard to what I was talking about is that all of the concepts discussed; light, energy, matter, space-time, etc... are related to each other and cannot be defined outside of their interrelation. Or, rather they can be as observed by us because teleologically we live in the universe where these concepts are seemingly separated. We live in the universe of folded space. We live in an irrational (Fibonacci, golden mean) non-euclidean universe where space has folded in on itself.
Jesus this is hard to explain without over explaining and giving you too many distractions. Suffice it to say that what I was getting at in describing the electron as the basis, because of it being the part of space that is actually folded in on itself thus providing separation amongst our concepts, is the key. It isn't the be all and end all. What it does is give us a place to start. It defines a note. We can hear that note but really it isn't truly revealed until it is defined in the vastness of all the other notes. Furthermore all concepts such as accelleration are also defined in this way because (again just as in music) every part contains the other parts intrinsically only those parts are forced to enjoy a certain relationship.
I began to think this way when I noticed that in a lot of ways the universe behaves as if it is a singularity. Since there is no way it could actually be a singularity there has to be a more complex explanation.
What this means in regard to what I was talking about is that all of the concepts discussed; light, energy, matter, space-time, etc... are related to each other and cannot be defined outside of their interrelation. Or, rather they can be as observed by us because teleologically we live in the universe where these concepts are seemingly separated. We live in the universe of folded space. We live in an irrational (Fibonacci, golden mean) non-euclidean universe where space has folded in on itself.
Jesus this is hard to explain without over explaining and giving you too many distractions. Suffice it to say that what I was getting at in describing the electron as the basis, because of it being the part of space that is actually folded in on itself thus providing separation amongst our concepts, is the key. It isn't the be all and end all. What it does is give us a place to start. It defines a note. We can hear that note but really it isn't truly revealed until it is defined in the vastness of all the other notes. Furthermore all concepts such as accelleration are also defined in this way because (again just as in music) every part contains the other parts intrinsically only those parts are forced to enjoy a certain relationship. I began to think this way when I noticed that in a lot of ways the universe behaves as if it is a singularity. Since there is no way it could actually be a singularity there has to be a more complex explanation.
Hi RealityCheck,
What I am getting at was your original requirement for an "absolute". Since knowledge is not... of it's very nature... "absolute"... I needed to fall back on "absolute" rules so that the "Scientific" discussion does not become embroiled with the various "Religious" arguments being bandied about as "absolute" knowledge. There is no knowledge in our Universe that we are presently in our possession that could not be significantly improved with paradigm change or admission of new knowledge or science. Anything I said would always have a caveat on it and this is a "forever" clause with human wisdom. However "humans" may choose to set "rules" of engagement like the Marquis de Queensbury Rules or the in Cards the Rules of Hoyle. They say when someone is "cheating" or playing "unfairly". They are nothing about "knowledge" pe se but they set what is allowed vs what is not allowed.
In science this is the most basic tenant is that scientific knowledge grows through theory then testing and finally application. The order is not so important but the fundamental is the first two must always be present.. the third is "optional". Physics is an "application" of knowledge to solving real problems in the real World. If I started to discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.... someone could call a "foul" and point out that an angel is not a proven scientific subject of investigation or principle that has proven scientific application or repeatability. By this means man has dominated much of the known World for good or for bad. Disease has mostly been conquered, applications involving the certain operation of "instruments", "apparatus" and "chemistry" has led to a longer lifespan, human health and physical happiness according to relatively impartial measures of standards. All of us travel further faster and longer than in any point in history when such means of discovery was "forbidden". Standards themselves are set according to Scientific Principles in as much as they are "Scientific Standards".
I do not hope to influence those spheres of "politics", "economics" and "religion" by which so much misery has befallen so many in the last century. Leave that to the "conscience" of those with "power". The only "power" I am concerned with is material power as concerning the operation of electronics, machines, various craft and the host of applications. The principles of "energy" control and "distribution" to achieve human needs.
If I mention "radio waves" or laws of physics that have been substantiated with experiment, I need not attempt to prove that. If I imply something that is"beyond" current physics I will need to substantiate it with an "experiment".... one in our mind, already existing in physical principle, already discovered, or a "new" experiment that most would agree will show it to be true or false.
Any "attacks" on a Theory should not be the "ad hominum" kind. There have been a lot of those on this board. They should be of a scientific nature where the principle contested is shown not to be supported in "nature". If it not presently "visible" in nature, it should be clear that an experiment could be performed "in principle" using man's technology presently or from just a "little ahead".
If this was a Mathematics Forum these caveats would not be asked since Mathematics can be purely a construction of the human mind... for a piece of mathematics to be "Physics" it must be shown that the principle is supported by "nature" or the "Universe" itself. An "applied" science. In a way, while not admitting "God", every Physical Fact is required to be supported by "God" .... infallibly as part of "principle".
We do not need to prove everything since that would take forever (for instance we actually do not need to prove the existence of "radio" since most of us own one)... we do need to convince with supporting evidence in nature the physics people suggest is already part of our world. If a theory leads to a physical "absurdity" it needs to show this is a new "application" and it is in line with the rest of the theory which should be able to be tested and is already part of the known Universe.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is provable. If is not necessary for anyone to show this is true. If someone says it is false he/she must demonstrate that the new idea is ALWAYS correct and is a better description than the previous "proven" theory. No "ifs" no "buts". No trick answers. No quotes from the Bible as "proof". An animation is not a "proof" in itself. Its relevance to the real world must be demonstrted since so much depends on interpretation and understanding. On the other hand the animation is "very nice" especially if it is a mathematically exact simulation of principle and that principle is previously understood.
Thats it... the "long" version of it. It is not a big ask.
Cheers
QUOTE
what EXACTLY is your 'submission' SAYING in answer to the question? I'm obviously Oxygen-starved and missing something in your post.hehehe.
What I am getting at was your original requirement for an "absolute". Since knowledge is not... of it's very nature... "absolute"... I needed to fall back on "absolute" rules so that the "Scientific" discussion does not become embroiled with the various "Religious" arguments being bandied about as "absolute" knowledge. There is no knowledge in our Universe that we are presently in our possession that could not be significantly improved with paradigm change or admission of new knowledge or science. Anything I said would always have a caveat on it and this is a "forever" clause with human wisdom. However "humans" may choose to set "rules" of engagement like the Marquis de Queensbury Rules or the in Cards the Rules of Hoyle. They say when someone is "cheating" or playing "unfairly". They are nothing about "knowledge" pe se but they set what is allowed vs what is not allowed.
In science this is the most basic tenant is that scientific knowledge grows through theory then testing and finally application. The order is not so important but the fundamental is the first two must always be present.. the third is "optional". Physics is an "application" of knowledge to solving real problems in the real World. If I started to discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.... someone could call a "foul" and point out that an angel is not a proven scientific subject of investigation or principle that has proven scientific application or repeatability. By this means man has dominated much of the known World for good or for bad. Disease has mostly been conquered, applications involving the certain operation of "instruments", "apparatus" and "chemistry" has led to a longer lifespan, human health and physical happiness according to relatively impartial measures of standards. All of us travel further faster and longer than in any point in history when such means of discovery was "forbidden". Standards themselves are set according to Scientific Principles in as much as they are "Scientific Standards".
I do not hope to influence those spheres of "politics", "economics" and "religion" by which so much misery has befallen so many in the last century. Leave that to the "conscience" of those with "power". The only "power" I am concerned with is material power as concerning the operation of electronics, machines, various craft and the host of applications. The principles of "energy" control and "distribution" to achieve human needs.
If I mention "radio waves" or laws of physics that have been substantiated with experiment, I need not attempt to prove that. If I imply something that is"beyond" current physics I will need to substantiate it with an "experiment".... one in our mind, already existing in physical principle, already discovered, or a "new" experiment that most would agree will show it to be true or false.
Any "attacks" on a Theory should not be the "ad hominum" kind. There have been a lot of those on this board. They should be of a scientific nature where the principle contested is shown not to be supported in "nature". If it not presently "visible" in nature, it should be clear that an experiment could be performed "in principle" using man's technology presently or from just a "little ahead".
If this was a Mathematics Forum these caveats would not be asked since Mathematics can be purely a construction of the human mind... for a piece of mathematics to be "Physics" it must be shown that the principle is supported by "nature" or the "Universe" itself. An "applied" science. In a way, while not admitting "God", every Physical Fact is required to be supported by "God" .... infallibly as part of "principle".
We do not need to prove everything since that would take forever (for instance we actually do not need to prove the existence of "radio" since most of us own one)... we do need to convince with supporting evidence in nature the physics people suggest is already part of our world. If a theory leads to a physical "absurdity" it needs to show this is a new "application" and it is in line with the rest of the theory which should be able to be tested and is already part of the known Universe.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is provable. If is not necessary for anyone to show this is true. If someone says it is false he/she must demonstrate that the new idea is ALWAYS correct and is a better description than the previous "proven" theory. No "ifs" no "buts". No trick answers. No quotes from the Bible as "proof". An animation is not a "proof" in itself. Its relevance to the real world must be demonstrted since so much depends on interpretation and understanding. On the other hand the animation is "very nice" especially if it is a mathematically exact simulation of principle and that principle is previously understood.
Thats it... the "long" version of it. It is not a big ask.
Cheers
An, aha, moment. It suddenly occurs to me that what you are getting at may in fact have nothing to do with all of this theoretical explanation. You may in fact be getting at the evolutionary nature of the universe. The idea that empty space, or not empty space, as I said earlier given quantum fields there may be no empty space, is some kind of basis for what exists but why is it that anything exists? Could it be that forever the underneath has been in effect competing for existence. In our universe certain realities have won. Whether they have won forever is up to their nature, if they have dominated all other possibilities. 
Everything could always be this way or it could be like the rule of Napoleon, just when it seemed that all was settled.....
but why is it that anything exists? Could it be that forever the underneath has been in effect competing for existence. In our universe certain realities have won. Whether they have won forever is up to their nature, if they have dominated all other possibilities. Everything could always be this way or it could be like the rule of Napoleon, just when it seemed that all was settled.....
RealityCheck,Thank you for making this site a true school of reason, you did a great job in creating an environment of interaction and thought. Best of luck!
More sites should pattern themselves after this one.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (EVIL GENIUS+Sep 29 2005, 06:38 AM)
..this is hard to explain without over explaining and giving you too many distractions...
I believe, it's not difficult really - the folded (convoluted, hidden...) dimension concept just has a lot of consequences/aspects/levels of understanding. Every body can choose the slightly different for explanation - but the common base seems a rather primitive.
I believe, the hidden concepts in nature is very common, even though no so obvious - just because we are using a light as a source of information, which is a quite common (and low level) interaction - but no so far as the gravity is. The whole base of understanding is to use a different interaction for observation, for example the sound or surface water wave. They can be arranged by its influence scope in the following order :
...[gravity] -> [week nuclear interaction] -> [EMG interaction (i.e. light)] -> [underwater sound wave] -> [surface wave]....
In this order, all interactions on the left side are more basic and not all it's spreading dimension are accessible for the interaction on the right side. It means, using a surface wave is not possible to directly observe the spreading the sound a EMG waves, because these waves just changing the spacetime metric for spreading the surface waves (basically just changing the "density of water"). It means, the underwater processes are invisible for the surface waves and its observer. From this point of view the underwater dimensions are hidden by the same way, as gravity spreading dimension for the EMG waves.
From this point is important, the waves in underwater dimension are creating a path, i.e. dimension for the surface waves - no surface wave can spread outside the direction of the lower dimension wave. I believe, the very same relation exists here between the light waves and the weak force dimensions (which are forming our 6D vacuum), and between the weak force dimensions and gravity dimensions.
So the whole hidden dimension concept can be explained just by using a simple physical analogy, because it occurs in multiple level formations in the nature. Even more, it's not just a physical concept, but an metaphysical one. For example, the value/information exchange in human society proceeds on similar levels set, which are representing the direct analogy of the physical dimension in energy exchange and they're undergo the similar evolution (please, see my discussion with RealityCheck in my submission list for the further details about this topic).
I believe, it's not difficult really - the folded (convoluted, hidden...) dimension concept just has a lot of consequences/aspects/levels of understanding. Every body can choose the slightly different for explanation - but the common base seems a rather primitive.
I believe, the hidden concepts in nature is very common, even though no so obvious - just because we are using a light as a source of information, which is a quite common (and low level) interaction - but no so far as the gravity is. The whole base of understanding is to use a different interaction for observation, for example the sound or surface water wave. They can be arranged by its influence scope in the following order :
...[gravity] -> [week nuclear interaction] -> [EMG interaction (i.e. light)] -> [underwater sound wave] -> [surface wave]....
In this order, all interactions on the left side are more basic and not all it's spreading dimension are accessible for the interaction on the right side. It means, using a surface wave is not possible to directly observe the spreading the sound a EMG waves, because these waves just changing the spacetime metric for spreading the surface waves (basically just changing the "density of water"). It means, the underwater processes are invisible for the surface waves and its observer. From this point of view the underwater dimensions are hidden by the same way, as gravity spreading dimension for the EMG waves.
From this point is important, the waves in underwater dimension are creating a path, i.e. dimension for the surface waves - no surface wave can spread outside the direction of the lower dimension wave. I believe, the very same relation exists here between the light waves and the weak force dimensions (which are forming our 6D vacuum), and between the weak force dimensions and gravity dimensions.
So the whole hidden dimension concept can be explained just by using a simple physical analogy, because it occurs in multiple level formations in the nature. Even more, it's not just a physical concept, but an metaphysical one. For example, the value/information exchange in human society proceeds on similar levels set, which are representing the direct analogy of the physical dimension in energy exchange and they're undergo the similar evolution (please, see my discussion with RealityCheck in my submission list for the further details about this topic).
Hello everyone,
I just stumbled across this subject and since I am currenty finishing a thesis/theory about it, it would be interesting to follow.
I believe RealityCheck has a good first question which has not yet been answered. In order to find a possible starting point I agree that one needs to “unlearn” what has become our world which is a development from a very, very simple beginning.
******************************* QUESTION 1 ****************************
WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
With our knowledge and incredible abilities we have been able to solve many of the complicated challenges of understanding what we have around us, yet we have not been able to wring all the secrets from the universe.
Through the centuries we have developed theories and facts through physics, mathematics, observations and experiments and today we know a lot about the functions of the universe but not always why.
When the first matter commenced we became references for dimensions and concrete time, hence we could observe how masses behaved and based on this we outlined physical laws and mathematics.
We estimate the beginning to be 10-15 billion years in the past and the possibilities for combinations and patterns became enormous as the particles developed relations with each other. It is a formidable task to research everything that developed over this time considering we just recently became the resources to start wondering about it.
Over the centuries a lot has been researched and documented about every discipline of science which today is the basis of our knowledge and development for our civilization. Very often the literature is contradictory on subjects which are complex because the knowledge of the origin and end of the subject could not be established, hence, only part of the total issue could be described.
I would like to put the question:
In order for something to happen at all, we need three “things”, one physical (media) and two “laws” (which is independent of dimensions and time). The two laws are necessary for anything to happen to the media.
What are they?
I just stumbled across this subject and since I am currenty finishing a thesis/theory about it, it would be interesting to follow.
I believe RealityCheck has a good first question which has not yet been answered. In order to find a possible starting point I agree that one needs to “unlearn” what has become our world which is a development from a very, very simple beginning.
******************************* QUESTION 1 ****************************
WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
With our knowledge and incredible abilities we have been able to solve many of the complicated challenges of understanding what we have around us, yet we have not been able to wring all the secrets from the universe.
Through the centuries we have developed theories and facts through physics, mathematics, observations and experiments and today we know a lot about the functions of the universe but not always why.
When the first matter commenced we became references for dimensions and concrete time, hence we could observe how masses behaved and based on this we outlined physical laws and mathematics.
We estimate the beginning to be 10-15 billion years in the past and the possibilities for combinations and patterns became enormous as the particles developed relations with each other. It is a formidable task to research everything that developed over this time considering we just recently became the resources to start wondering about it.
Over the centuries a lot has been researched and documented about every discipline of science which today is the basis of our knowledge and development for our civilization. Very often the literature is contradictory on subjects which are complex because the knowledge of the origin and end of the subject could not be established, hence, only part of the total issue could be described.
I would like to put the question:
In order for something to happen at all, we need three “things”, one physical (media) and two “laws” (which is independent of dimensions and time). The two laws are necessary for anything to happen to the media.
What are they?
Hi Yquantum,
Nice to hear from you...
Nice to hear from you...
Hi Tor,Good Elf, hi hope all is well, I see you have been helping in many areas and that is awesome, keep up the great work.
Tor, much has been said, but please remember optically or radiation/© is our way of recovering knowledge or communications of the senses given to us.
You might want to step back and think of the Universe as a whole with no end, not like days of old where they thought the ocean would drop off at some point, but our universe is divided up into parts I believe with many realities.
We only know what 4 percent is & 96 percent we do not, of the 4 percent we see that the UNIVERSE is made of, H, He, and heavy elements. So you have a tremendous amount of room for study . HA!
Parts, defined as Dimensions, Branes explain it in what language you feel most comfortable with. But include the constants that we feel might apply to other systems or concepts of reality like gravity & © or radiation.
Any system must have laws of physics and does not have to be the same as ours, but there should be something common in all, we hope, I think it would be wise to start with a few and do the mathematics and work your way out.
Gravity and radiation would be a great place to start, in my humble point of reference. Mathematics is not everything but I hope whatever reality is beyond out perception has these two factors in them. I would also hope the equations is equal on both sides, this is my approach to many question, but could be so very different. Keep a very open mind & please stay out of the institutional box as much as you can in creative thinking.
Best of luck on you PhD, and looking forward to reading your paper some day, hope it makes a wave [pun] in the community.
ciao_
yquantum
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 19 2005, 03:30 AM)
Hi Martillo, Zephir. Good Elf, Solidspin, Yquantum et al.
GOOD ELF: what would you say to a TOE that not only identifies the ‘true bulk’, but also ‘naturally’ comes up ‘almost from the start’ with the ‘correct’ and uncomplicated ‘string’ substance/structures?
MARTILLO (as you see, I’ve accepted your challenge!): what would you say to a TOE that, immediately following on from the ‘string’ descriptions, it ‘corrects’/’adds to’ your ‘quantum loop’ concepts and model so that they become a consistent ‘stepping stone’ to the aether-type theories?
ZEPHIR: what would you say to a TOE that not only provides the ‘background’ concepts/contexts for the ‘correct’ ‘fixed-aether’/’motile-media’ model, and in so doing ‘adds to’ and ‘modifies’ your own (super)gravity processes and model so as to make it a properly ‘complete’ model?
SOLIDSPIN/YQUANTUM: what would you two say to a TOE where the ‘mathematical’ modelling of its ‘system(s)’ require only ‘classical’ physics equations ‘modified’ to include terms for ‘globalised source’ and ‘localised sinks’ for energy/matter/gravity; all of it ‘driven’/’realised’ by well-known ‘unsettled’ relativities (PI etc.) in Euclidian ‘spatial geometry’ of the ‘true’ bulk that we shall identify almost from the outset?
and EVERYONE: what would you say to a TOE which naturally and consistently produces ALL the observed phenomena/particles/forces, including Relativistic ones?
Right guys...by now, based on both my nom de plume and my posts, you will have gathered that I have my feet planted firmly on the ground and do not make rash statements; and that when I assert something, I am well prepared to support it with ‘cold’ logical analysis, and as disinterestedly as humanly possible. This being the case, I would ask you to take the above rhetorical questions seriously, since I guarantee that all the implications therein will be supported in turn as we proceed with the proposed on-line TOE ’construction’ project.
****NOTE WELL: FOR VARIOUS REASONS, I HAVE DECIDED TO USE ONLY THIS ONE THREAD FOR ARRIVING AT THE ENVISAGED T.O.E....of course, all are free to start/use other threads for general/specific discussions...HOWEVER, they will not be ‘officially’ referred to/used by this process...meaning that anyone on those other threads who has any material comment/contribution to make re this project should eventually post in THIS thread to be taken into ongoing/finalising consideration.****
Now, before we get to the first question in this Q & A process, a brief Introduction to the question is in order:
To arrive at a COMPLETE cosmological theory, one must BACKTRACK in the logical scheme of things until one has identified some absolutely independent PHYSICAL (NOT metaphysical etc.) concept that EVERYONE can agree on. Only then can one be safe in pursuing to its conclusion the train of logic indicated by that starting point. This is the only way we will EVER extricate ourselves from that ever growing morass of relative and bounded ‘partial’ theories that tend more to confuse than enlighten even professional cosmologist, let alone the average person. Such ubiquitous confusion is one of the reasons why it has often been said that if a cosmological theory cannot be sensibly explained to a person of average education then that theory is most probably wrong. And such a theory is doubly damned if its author can only put things in such a way as to also make the average person feel stupid if they don’t understand it, especially if it’s not their fault. So let’s now take our own advice and show how PROPER theorising about the objective physical universe should go. Let’s try to come up with a sensible theory that all of us can both trust and understand because WE will have arrived at it OURSELVES with only the barest minimum of no-nonsense guidance/hints from yours truly.
HINT: Wherever you happen to be while contemplating the first question (below), take time out to look about you. OK? Now, as you may or may not know, all concepts in our physical scheme of properties, characteristics and measurements, as well as all our mathematical/geometrical relativities and so on, are DERIVED ‘things’. So, EXCEPT for whatever will be identified as a result of answers to this first question, all the things that we use in physics are NOT absolute things in themselves, but depend ultimately on something else ‘further up the list’ of physical concepts. THE CONCEPT WE SEEK MUST EMBODY ALL POTENTIAL OF ANY SORT/EXTENT, AND HENCE MUST BE BOTH LEAST & MOST DIVISIBLE...SIMULTANEOUSLY.
So the question is:
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Good Elf, Martillo, Zephir, Solidspin, Yquantum and all...once this phase is complete, things will progress rather rapidly...so we can spend a few days on this first step in the process (in order for everyone to get into the swing of things, and because it is the most important step...since all else will ‘fall out’ smoothly and naturally once a ‘true’ starting point for our theorising has been identified). Good luck to everyone involved...and enjoy, too!...for we are making history here!
Best quizzmaster’s regards from: RealityCheck.
.
(1) Mass PUSSES Various forces, (MITUAL ATRACTION OR MITUAL REPULSUN OR MUTUAL NUTRAL OR….?,?,?), MASS MAY BE 1,2,3,……..7 LIKE TYPES.(FORCES or CHARGE)
Basic brick of existence dark energy must be macro structure of set of basic Mass PUSSES Various forces.
At least three there HERE NEED TO THINK if any PENDING ORIGINAL MASS WITH VERIOUS FORCE IF ANY MORE EXIST. (MASS AND CHARGE or FORCE may not separately exist)
(2)3D SPACE (EVERYTHING IN THAT INCLUDING DARK ENERGY)
I ASSUME THIS TWO NOT NEED TO DEFINE, OUR CALULATIONS AND ARGUMENT CAN NOT CHANGE "BASIC CHARGED MASS WITH FORCE”
And 3D SPACE (WITHOUT TIME DIMENTION only X/Y/Z.)
GOOD ELF: what would you say to a TOE that not only identifies the ‘true bulk’, but also ‘naturally’ comes up ‘almost from the start’ with the ‘correct’ and uncomplicated ‘string’ substance/structures?
MARTILLO (as you see, I’ve accepted your challenge!): what would you say to a TOE that, immediately following on from the ‘string’ descriptions, it ‘corrects’/’adds to’ your ‘quantum loop’ concepts and model so that they become a consistent ‘stepping stone’ to the aether-type theories?
ZEPHIR: what would you say to a TOE that not only provides the ‘background’ concepts/contexts for the ‘correct’ ‘fixed-aether’/’motile-media’ model, and in so doing ‘adds to’ and ‘modifies’ your own (super)gravity processes and model so as to make it a properly ‘complete’ model?
SOLIDSPIN/YQUANTUM: what would you two say to a TOE where the ‘mathematical’ modelling of its ‘system(s)’ require only ‘classical’ physics equations ‘modified’ to include terms for ‘globalised source’ and ‘localised sinks’ for energy/matter/gravity; all of it ‘driven’/’realised’ by well-known ‘unsettled’ relativities (PI etc.) in Euclidian ‘spatial geometry’ of the ‘true’ bulk that we shall identify almost from the outset?
and EVERYONE: what would you say to a TOE which naturally and consistently produces ALL the observed phenomena/particles/forces, including Relativistic ones?
Right guys...by now, based on both my nom de plume and my posts, you will have gathered that I have my feet planted firmly on the ground and do not make rash statements; and that when I assert something, I am well prepared to support it with ‘cold’ logical analysis, and as disinterestedly as humanly possible. This being the case, I would ask you to take the above rhetorical questions seriously, since I guarantee that all the implications therein will be supported in turn as we proceed with the proposed on-line TOE ’construction’ project.
****NOTE WELL: FOR VARIOUS REASONS, I HAVE DECIDED TO USE ONLY THIS ONE THREAD FOR ARRIVING AT THE ENVISAGED T.O.E....of course, all are free to start/use other threads for general/specific discussions...HOWEVER, they will not be ‘officially’ referred to/used by this process...meaning that anyone on those other threads who has any material comment/contribution to make re this project should eventually post in THIS thread to be taken into ongoing/finalising consideration.****
Now, before we get to the first question in this Q & A process, a brief Introduction to the question is in order:
To arrive at a COMPLETE cosmological theory, one must BACKTRACK in the logical scheme of things until one has identified some absolutely independent PHYSICAL (NOT metaphysical etc.) concept that EVERYONE can agree on. Only then can one be safe in pursuing to its conclusion the train of logic indicated by that starting point. This is the only way we will EVER extricate ourselves from that ever growing morass of relative and bounded ‘partial’ theories that tend more to confuse than enlighten even professional cosmologist, let alone the average person. Such ubiquitous confusion is one of the reasons why it has often been said that if a cosmological theory cannot be sensibly explained to a person of average education then that theory is most probably wrong. And such a theory is doubly damned if its author can only put things in such a way as to also make the average person feel stupid if they don’t understand it, especially if it’s not their fault. So let’s now take our own advice and show how PROPER theorising about the objective physical universe should go. Let’s try to come up with a sensible theory that all of us can both trust and understand because WE will have arrived at it OURSELVES with only the barest minimum of no-nonsense guidance/hints from yours truly.
HINT: Wherever you happen to be while contemplating the first question (below), take time out to look about you. OK? Now, as you may or may not know, all concepts in our physical scheme of properties, characteristics and measurements, as well as all our mathematical/geometrical relativities and so on, are DERIVED ‘things’. So, EXCEPT for whatever will be identified as a result of answers to this first question, all the things that we use in physics are NOT absolute things in themselves, but depend ultimately on something else ‘further up the list’ of physical concepts. THE CONCEPT WE SEEK MUST EMBODY ALL POTENTIAL OF ANY SORT/EXTENT, AND HENCE MUST BE BOTH LEAST & MOST DIVISIBLE...SIMULTANEOUSLY.
So the question is:
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Good Elf, Martillo, Zephir, Solidspin, Yquantum and all...once this phase is complete, things will progress rather rapidly...so we can spend a few days on this first step in the process (in order for everyone to get into the swing of things, and because it is the most important step...since all else will ‘fall out’ smoothly and naturally once a ‘true’ starting point for our theorising has been identified). Good luck to everyone involved...and enjoy, too!...for we are making history here!
Best quizzmaster’s regards from: RealityCheck.
.
(1) Mass PUSSES Various forces, (MITUAL ATRACTION OR MITUAL REPULSUN OR MUTUAL NUTRAL OR….?,?,?), MASS MAY BE 1,2,3,……..7 LIKE TYPES.(FORCES or CHARGE)
Basic brick of existence dark energy must be macro structure of set of basic Mass PUSSES Various forces.
At least three there HERE NEED TO THINK if any PENDING ORIGINAL MASS WITH VERIOUS FORCE IF ANY MORE EXIST. (MASS AND CHARGE or FORCE may not separately exist)
(2)3D SPACE (EVERYTHING IN THAT INCLUDING DARK ENERGY)
I ASSUME THIS TWO NOT NEED TO DEFINE, OUR CALULATIONS AND ARGUMENT CAN NOT CHANGE "BASIC CHARGED MASS WITH FORCE”
And 3D SPACE (WITHOUT TIME DIMENTION only X/Y/Z.)
RealityCheck,Hate to see the ending of a great discussion, but you know best. And, you are welcome it is an honor to read great minds in action.
Hope you change your mind, and extend the deadline.
ciao_
yquantum
Had to make a correction above, sorry about that! Rush, rush. We only know 4 percent, but everyone understood that. Take care.
Evil Genius,
you posted " What I am referring to is music, specifically how music breaks sound up mathematically. No one point can be said to be the base of everything. Instead it is systemic. ".
The systemic and mathematical breaking up of "sound" resulted in "one point that is the base of everything", it is called the tonic. It it the starting point of all scales, and all relationships with other "sounds" (Vibration). Without it, all relationships are meaningless.
If you truly believe "No one point can be said to be the base of everything", then this thread is not for you! It is the very question at hand!
Best regards
T.Roc
you posted " What I am referring to is music, specifically how music breaks sound up mathematically. No one point can be said to be the base of everything. Instead it is systemic. ".
The systemic and mathematical breaking up of "sound" resulted in "one point that is the base of everything", it is called the tonic. It it the starting point of all scales, and all relationships with other "sounds" (Vibration). Without it, all relationships are meaningless.
If you truly believe "No one point can be said to be the base of everything", then this thread is not for you! It is the very question at hand!
Best regards
T.Roc
RealityCheck,Understood, I will try and get back soon, time permitting and look forward to comments of everyone in the future. Stay focus RC, and keep the path clear in your direction.
I believe, Abdullah Quilliam had that in mind.
Courage brother! Do not falter,
Dry your tears and cease from sighing;
Though clouds look black, they soon may alter,
And the sun will send them flying...........................................
[There is no cause for despair; never despair.]
ciao_
yquantum
RealityCheck,
Sorry, didn't mean to intrude.
Regarding your comment on a finite/bounded universal extent: no I would never limit my theory by final boundaries, but it does not mean that there are no limits in systems, but there are unlimited systems.
I will follow your TOE-quest with interest and not interfere
cheers
Tor
Sorry, didn't mean to intrude.
Regarding your comment on a finite/bounded universal extent: no I would never limit my theory by final boundaries, but it does not mean that there are no limits in systems, but there are unlimited systems.
I will follow your TOE-quest with interest and not interfere
cheers
Tor
Hello All:
I just stumbled on this blog, very interesting topic guys.
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
We are looking for the UN ultimo "base" building block, the nanohelices of:, pause for emphasis, - all matter. Wowser.
The ideal perfect experiment needs its atmospheric vacuum. The Mayans need a "zero", the chemist needs his hydrogen atom.
We need our " "
I have a minute throb from banging my head against the wall, but 'tis only a flesh wound, eh?
I am going to respond multiple choice on this one.
A) "Inconceivable!"
before you pass this one by so slightly, taste Ethe bouquet of its merits. It is mathematically impossible. The concept of our quest is a worthy cause, but we must start from a chosen frame of reference in our very grasp of the subject musings. Every surveyor needs a base elevation.
the essence of Chaos
C) The "Uncaused First Cause"
D) " " (unnamed), the definition which is the exact intersection point of all the possible axis of dimensional reality during a specific moment in time, space, etc., etc. By its very definition it is in a constant state of flux and each point is only valid during it specific moment in time, space, etc., etc.
I just stumbled on this blog, very interesting topic guys.
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
We are looking for the UN ultimo "base" building block, the nanohelices of:, pause for emphasis, - all matter. Wowser.
The ideal perfect experiment needs its atmospheric vacuum. The Mayans need a "zero", the chemist needs his hydrogen atom.
We need our " "
I have a minute throb from banging my head against the wall, but 'tis only a flesh wound, eh?
I am going to respond multiple choice on this one.
A) "Inconceivable!"
before you pass this one by so slightly, taste Ethe bouquet of its merits. It is mathematically impossible. The concept of our quest is a worthy cause, but we must start from a chosen frame of reference in our very grasp of the subject musings. Every surveyor needs a base elevation.
the essence of ChaosC) The "Uncaused First Cause"
D) " " (unnamed), the definition which is the exact intersection point of all the possible axis of dimensional reality during a specific moment in time, space, etc., etc. By its very definition it is in a constant state of flux and each point is only valid during it specific moment in time, space, etc., etc.
'twas me - forgot to log in but will be curious to see where this one goes -Isa
Existence, everything needs to exist first.
I beg your pardon 
Nothing exists but what we percieve in our minds to be our own "reality" and existence among our surroundings that we percieve are there. But are they really there? or do we just percieve them to exist in our minds? does something have to be tangible for it to exist? I think not. Uh oh...always bing interrupted 
Nothing exists but what we percieve in our minds to be our own "reality" and existence among our surroundings that we percieve are there. But are they really there? or do we just percieve them to exist in our minds? does something have to be tangible for it to exist? I think not. Uh oh...always bing interrupted
Hi Yquantum and RealityCheck,
Ey Good Elf, RealityCheck and ye all,
T' me this for you pirates of physics,
Yo,
It's "Let UsTalk Physics Like A Pirate" !
When mathamathics on our laptops are benches God gave us for wenches to toss in the works,
And a Choas ain't what this is seem, they must be order, ARRR!
When conservation law, something from nothing, are shivered and lillies are livered.
Don't and every last nickel is swashed and law continued in the dimensions of old,
Ye, in what parallel world ye live in?
We'll abandon our minds abit for a theory of ARRRs
And metric back the laws, till we're sloshed in the pub. Yo ho, who Feynman, and bongo? ....
Anyone see me papers on the TOE?
And it was me last draf of ALE!!! Must have fell in the Super String of Something, for it can not tell?
- Just off the coast o' Australia , matey! ARRR!
pick up yer textbook and say "What is this?
We can tink what we will!
When we hoist Physics Forum Prize, the professor, dodge 'er,
We fill 'em with theories more than can ye bear,
We'll plunder each theory and pillage each university and college,
Or at least clean out Harvard & MIT of beer! Ayy!
Ahoy, mateys! And Welcome ta "Physicists and mind masters!"
Let's see the secret! ARRRRRRRR………………. In honor of ye home land, Good Elf.
ciao_
yquantum
thanks RC, ARR! Me' tinks me had to much beer, Eh?
RealityCheck,
Hate to see the ending of a great discussion, but you know best. And, you are welcome it is an honor to read great minds in action.
Hope you change your mind, and extend the deadline.
ciao_
yquantum Had to make a correction above, sorry about that! Rush, rush. We only know 4 percent, but everyone understood that. Take care.
yquantum
No problem it is always happen in opposite views,
But I think no clash here,
RealityCheck, invites us for collectively work to find way,
extend the deadline is not stick with my view,
It is common for every possible grated answer.
RealityCheck,
I am glad this paper, will continue.
I have had to stay out for many reasons.
So, I have no right interact now, but just for your consideration for direction with this.
And I will do as in the past, just read! I do believe it is very important to change our terminology or language in ascertaining the BIG question, in theory or mathematics’.
Do you think it wise from a theoretical perspective, to use or start with four dimensional laws when in fact they just might not apply outside our 4d, or Brane which interact with our reality, that has a CAUSE and EFFECT on our laws in 4d? [TOE] RC, when you mentioned bulk, I define as well as other in the field, - full higher dimensional space, we would call this the -bulk-. That includes all dimensions. This is where language can be a problem, using mathematics' is a universal tool, or should I say correctly, a global tool.. Eh!
For example- 96 percent of the universe, we know it affects our reality, but how that is the Nobel Prize QUESTION!
That includes all laws, theories, and there are only two constants [this is just a possibility, I understand] that might make the journey you seek.
Some will find this a hard pill to take for sure.
There really seems to be only two forces, and one is timeless, © due to it's speed RC, the reason I include © is because of informational reasons, how else are you going to formulate a hypothesis? - I am going to reword this, it is the 'TIME' issue, that concerns me, and if you do the mathematics’ [you will see there is no relativity that can be implied from that point of reference, the photon] you might want to think on that one for just a few, and I do not want to open up another can of physic/worms here.
The other [gravity] which is so misunderstood in the approach of study, by most because it permeates throughout the [bulk], if I understood you correctly, or we can say good-bye to GR.– I do not think it as weak as some might think. HA!
Thanks for the land lover oversight, and will be reading.
Good luck! Please forgive the intrusions, you are doing GREAT PHYSICS. Of course this is from my HUMBLE view RealityCheck.
ciao_
yquantum
you have seen my work when I type it myself, so dodge the typos! Eh! Rush, Rush, so little time [BIG PUN]. Take care everyone!
REALITYCHECK SAYS.....
....‘BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL REPRESENTING/EMBODYING INFINITE ‘SPREAD’ OF ALL POSSIBLE ‘INFINITESIMAL ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’ SUBDIVISIONS.
...
~Matters' witness -in 3d, to time's passage, is gravity.
Its dissipation into the nothing (time('s?)host), is self powered, for matter's(concentration?/escape.) point of negative gravity.(?)
Time and matter define space (29 billion light years?)
Time, x dimensions, we ride its surface, in 3d.
...thinking out loud ~regards
Reality Check,
I should have just enjoyed the site you have started, I would read and wondered where this site would lead, & still hoping it does not end soon.
I do not have the liberty to interject my opinions to any helpful degree & not sure that what I had to say would be of use [oh me], just please always stay out of the institutional box as much as possible which is what I am seeing, besides I enjoy reading this site and I do not want to stand in the way of progress. Eh!
To answer your question you do, and rightly so, change, shake up and go with the wave of information as your site sees fit that is what physics is all about.
We need new and fresh ideas. Oh, keep the light on as long as you can, deal! Eat right, do not smoke, get your rest, etc. HA!
This will be my last communication for sometime, will only be able to read what has happen and I can not keep up in real time, for this I have regrets.
Please keep up the great brain storming and enjoy!
A friend - ciao,
yquantum you know better than anyone, dodge the typos/rush, rush, ouch bumped my, TOE [those darn PUNS]!
No thank you MTs, have plenty to do. Thank you for the offer......
DIRECTION PER SE (or BULK DIRECTION or UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION CONCEPT or OMNI-DIRECTION POTENTIAL or whatever is the most efficacious for audience comprehension of what is meant)...
i.e. persistence
~regards, esin
QUOTE (yquantum Posted on Sep 29 2005+ 03:51 PM)
Stay focus RC, and keep the path clear in your direction.
I believe, Abdullah Quilliam had that in mind.....
I hope this 'further" timely observation does not happen though... he he he!
We should stay open RealityCheck about the existence of "real" extra spatial dimensions. There is so much simplification in postulates that could be invoked. We can work through all this "mundane" groundwork but we must not lose sight of the "prize"... all those 'applications". To access those "applications" you will need new physics. Without a specific direction into "uncharted waters" we may be only "paddling around in the wading pool".
It may be timely to say this was 'Talking like a Pirate Week" here in Australia.... probably one of the most important weeks on the calendar. You must add a few "aargh's" and "shiver me timbers", or "gold doubloons and pieces of eight me hearties". Maybe it is more like "Speak like a Parrot Week"... get those two mixed up a lot.... he he he! Can you give us a look ahead to see where we be head'in Capt'in... Umm... "Aargh!... Aargh!"
Cheers
I believe, Abdullah Quilliam had that in mind.....
I hope this 'further" timely observation does not happen though... he he he!
QUOTE
An Epistle according to "Petronius"
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Pretonious Arbiter, 60AD
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."
Pretonious Arbiter, 60AD
We should stay open RealityCheck about the existence of "real" extra spatial dimensions. There is so much simplification in postulates that could be invoked. We can work through all this "mundane" groundwork but we must not lose sight of the "prize"... all those 'applications". To access those "applications" you will need new physics. Without a specific direction into "uncharted waters" we may be only "paddling around in the wading pool".
It may be timely to say this was 'Talking like a Pirate Week" here in Australia.... probably one of the most important weeks on the calendar. You must add a few "aargh's" and "shiver me timbers", or "gold doubloons and pieces of eight me hearties". Maybe it is more like "Speak like a Parrot Week"... get those two mixed up a lot.... he he he!
Can you give us a look ahead to see where we be head'in Capt'in... Umm... "Aargh!... Aargh!"Cheers
Well I think (and I'm not going to be talking in "Pirate") that the "ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT' CONCEPT" to base a theory on, if I haven't misunderstood what the independent concept is, is that the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum physics and the "TOE" all come together to form the triangle of modern physics. The TOE must agree whole heartedly with the special theory of relativity and quantum theory. If not, the TOE is full of sh't.
To start a theory, you need to know what all the unexplainable phenomena are, and if your theory can indeed explain them. If not, it is not a TOE, for TOEs are Theories Of Everything. The TOE must predict quantum quantum physics, and obey special theory.
Hope I was of help.
To start a theory, you need to know what all the unexplainable phenomena are, and if your theory can indeed explain them. If not, it is not a TOE, for TOEs are Theories Of Everything. The TOE must predict quantum quantum physics, and obey special theory.
Hope I was of help.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Sep 30 2005, 10:37 AM)
The TOE must predict quantum physics, and obey special theory...
Properly speaking....
In fact, TOE must predict/explain all postulates of both the quantum theory, both relativity theory (i.e. both special, both general), because all these theories results were proven experimentaly with high precision.
It must predict both the visible, both the unvisible dimensions number (if any...).
In brief, it must be able to predict everything without using any other predictions outside of world of pure math/topology.
Properly speaking....
In fact, TOE must predict/explain all postulates of both the quantum theory, both relativity theory (i.e. both special, both general), because all these theories results were proven experimentaly with high precision.
It must predict both the visible, both the unvisible dimensions number (if any...).
In brief, it must be able to predict everything without using any other predictions outside of world of pure math/topology.
Ey Good Elf, RealityCheck and ye all, T' me this for you pirates of physics, Yo,
It's "Let UsTalk Physics Like A Pirate" !
When mathamathics on our laptops are benches God gave us for wenches to toss in the works,
And a Choas ain't what this is seem, they must be order, ARRR!
When conservation law, something from nothing, are shivered and lillies are livered.
Don't and every last nickel is swashed and law continued in the dimensions of old,
Ye, in what parallel world ye live in?
We'll abandon our minds abit for a theory of ARRRs
And metric back the laws, till we're sloshed in the pub. Yo ho, who Feynman, and bongo? ....
Anyone see me papers on the TOE?
And it was me last draf of ALE!!! Must have fell in the Super String of Something, for it can not tell?
- Just off the coast o' Australia , matey! ARRR!
pick up yer textbook and say "What is this?
We can tink what we will!
When we hoist Physics Forum Prize, the professor, dodge 'er,
We fill 'em with theories more than can ye bear,
We'll plunder each theory and pillage each university and college,
Or at least clean out Harvard & MIT of beer! Ayy!
Ahoy, mateys! And Welcome ta "Physicists and mind masters!"
Let's see the secret! ARRRRRRRR………………. In honor of ye home land, Good Elf.
ciao_
yquantum
thanks RC, ARR! Me' tinks me had to much beer, Eh?
nice yarn yquantum!
realitycheck,
I perceive, that despite the elevation on the hill, that some flesh makes better use of its oxygen than it may thus allude to, he he.
I will admit, since i am still scratching mi cabeza, that I must narrow my response so tallyho!
Since the proposed answer D) is out because we don't wish to contain a system in flux, although flux ain't all that bad.
also answer A) by definition, though not unmerited, will not work in this assignment.
So I will fuse B & C to be:
The cause wielding in chaos, initial energy.
...still curious on your tally.
realitycheck,
I perceive, that despite the elevation on the hill, that some flesh makes better use of its oxygen than it may thus allude to, he he.
I will admit, since i am still scratching mi cabeza, that I must narrow my response so tallyho!
Since the proposed answer D) is out because we don't wish to contain a system in flux, although flux ain't all that bad.
also answer A) by definition, though not unmerited, will not work in this assignment.
So I will fuse B & C to be:
The cause wielding in chaos, initial energy.
...still curious on your tally.
QUOTE (yquantum+Sep 29 2005, 02:49 PM)
RealityCheck,Hate to see the ending of a great discussion, but you know best. And, you are welcome it is an honor to read great minds in action.
Hope you change your mind, and extend the deadline.
ciao_
yquantum
Had to make a correction above, sorry about that! Rush, rush. We only know 4 percent, but everyone understood that. Take care. yquantum
No problem it is always happen in opposite views,
But I think no clash here,
RealityCheck, invites us for collectively work to find way,
extend the deadline is not stick with my view,
It is common for every possible grated answer.
Hi,
I think should be that thing the glue between our mind and everything, even it is not entirely consciously perceptive: LIGHT.
Regards
I think should be that thing the glue between our mind and everything, even it is not entirely consciously perceptive: LIGHT.
Regards
RealityCheck:
I am disappointed with your conclusion with respect to the title of this topic. You should have added 'according to RealityCheck" to the topic title. This I suspected and decided NOT to participate further.
Your interpretation of the answer by - ISSACHAR SAYS ... CHAOS-INITIATING ENERGY - may be incorrect.
Chaos theory, by some, is also referred to as bifurcation theory. Thus this appears to be equivalent to your "OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL" or "‘INFINITESIMAL ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’ SUBDIVISIONS".
Although " ‘SCALAR’ " is partially correct, where are the VECTORS?
The criticism is meant to be constructive - but please be sure that 'correct' answers are only relative - and perhaps relative only to your perspective.
I am disappointed with your conclusion with respect to the title of this topic. You should have added 'according to RealityCheck" to the topic title. This I suspected and decided NOT to participate further.
Your interpretation of the answer by - ISSACHAR SAYS ... CHAOS-INITIATING ENERGY - may be incorrect.
Chaos theory, by some, is also referred to as bifurcation theory. Thus this appears to be equivalent to your "OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL" or "‘INFINITESIMAL ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’ SUBDIVISIONS".
Although " ‘SCALAR’ " is partially correct, where are the VECTORS?
The criticism is meant to be constructive - but please be sure that 'correct' answers are only relative - and perhaps relative only to your perspective.
RealityCheck,I am glad this paper, will continue.
I have had to stay out for many reasons.
So, I have no right interact now, but just for your consideration for direction with this.
And I will do as in the past, just read! I do believe it is very important to change our terminology or language in ascertaining the BIG question, in theory or mathematics’.
Do you think it wise from a theoretical perspective, to use or start with four dimensional laws when in fact they just might not apply outside our 4d, or Brane which interact with our reality, that has a CAUSE and EFFECT on our laws in 4d? [TOE] RC, when you mentioned bulk, I define as well as other in the field, - full higher dimensional space, we would call this the -bulk-. That includes all dimensions. This is where language can be a problem, using mathematics' is a universal tool, or should I say correctly, a global tool.. Eh!
For example- 96 percent of the universe, we know it affects our reality, but how that is the Nobel Prize QUESTION!
That includes all laws, theories, and there are only two constants [this is just a possibility, I understand] that might make the journey you seek.
Some will find this a hard pill to take for sure.
There really seems to be only two forces, and one is timeless, © due to it's speed RC, the reason I include © is because of informational reasons, how else are you going to formulate a hypothesis? - I am going to reword this, it is the 'TIME' issue, that concerns me, and if you do the mathematics’ [you will see there is no relativity that can be implied from that point of reference, the photon] you might want to think on that one for just a few, and I do not want to open up another can of physic/worms here.
The other [gravity] which is so misunderstood in the approach of study, by most because it permeates throughout the [bulk], if I understood you correctly, or we can say good-bye to GR.– I do not think it as weak as some might think. HA!
Thanks for the land lover oversight, and will be reading.
Good luck! Please forgive the intrusions, you are doing GREAT PHYSICS. Of course this is from my HUMBLE view RealityCheck.
ciao_
yquantum
you have seen my work when I type it myself, so dodge the typos! Eh! Rush, Rush, so little time [BIG PUN]. Take care everyone!
RC,
Yes, I speak of the "physical" nature of quantity. (while reserving the right to broaden that definition into other areas of the Sciences)
Perhaps you missed the refining statement of "In the beginning, there was ONE."
Let us use a "connect the dots" approach, as it will lay bare the roots of duality. (the heart of your answer)
We each have a piece of paper, I make a dot in the center of mine, you make 2 dots in the center of yours. My "work" is complete, and you are left to connect your dots alone. With a line between them, you now introduce the concepts of direction (scalar), and (prematurely)duality. It is quite obvious which paper is Primary, and which is Secondary. It does not matter what the dots represent.
Also, a note on duality. This concept requires internal reflection. (here I mean mentally) Both Yin and Yang, the archetypal symbol of duality, are contained in ONE circle. By definition, dualistic means 2 "views" of the same thing, that quite often, appear contrary. (from either single perspective)
Perhaps most importantly, QUANTITY sets the stage for our concept of Mathematics. Who is to say that OUR system will have absolute concordance with the quantities set forth by the creation of our Universe? This COULD be the reason we have such a hard time finding exact mathematical representations, and find it necessary to "re normalize", or in some fashion, "fudge" the numbers.
In the scheme of your Thread, we can not, say at stage 5, say "oh, BTW, math already exists", and as you pointed out in your last post, the "mind" does not exist yet, so how will our math system?
I respectfully suggest that your answer is # 2.
T.Roc
Yes, I speak of the "physical" nature of quantity. (while reserving the right to broaden that definition into other areas of the Sciences)
Perhaps you missed the refining statement of "In the beginning, there was ONE."
Let us use a "connect the dots" approach, as it will lay bare the roots of duality. (the heart of your answer)
We each have a piece of paper, I make a dot in the center of mine, you make 2 dots in the center of yours. My "work" is complete, and you are left to connect your dots alone. With a line between them, you now introduce the concepts of direction (scalar), and (prematurely)duality. It is quite obvious which paper is Primary, and which is Secondary. It does not matter what the dots represent.
Also, a note on duality. This concept requires internal reflection. (here I mean mentally) Both Yin and Yang, the archetypal symbol of duality, are contained in ONE circle. By definition, dualistic means 2 "views" of the same thing, that quite often, appear contrary. (from either single perspective)
Perhaps most importantly, QUANTITY sets the stage for our concept of Mathematics. Who is to say that OUR system will have absolute concordance with the quantities set forth by the creation of our Universe? This COULD be the reason we have such a hard time finding exact mathematical representations, and find it necessary to "re normalize", or in some fashion, "fudge" the numbers.
In the scheme of your Thread, we can not, say at stage 5, say "oh, BTW, math already exists", and as you pointed out in your last post, the "mind" does not exist yet, so how will our math system?
I respectfully suggest that your answer is # 2.
T.Roc
A spider on its web of thin threads
swaying qently in the breeze
senses the vibrations
does it sense a fly
or anoher spider
food or mate?
Super-symmetry mirrors
an opposite with asymmetry
the web and the spider
as fly buzzes
in its entanglement
Does Nature's God
of the Declaration of Independence
swalow the spider that crawled insider Her
to be born of a new form?
Does TOE equal
Triangle Of Electrons?
Lying flat, not very fat
with verticies of spin
coupling to opposites
rapping our world
so very thin
On to QUESTION TWO
Best, rmuldavin
swaying qently in the breeze
senses the vibrations
does it sense a fly
or anoher spider
food or mate?
Super-symmetry mirrors
an opposite with asymmetry
the web and the spider
as fly buzzes
in its entanglement
Does Nature's God
of the Declaration of Independence
swalow the spider that crawled insider Her
to be born of a new form?
Does TOE equal
Triangle Of Electrons?
Lying flat, not very fat
with verticies of spin
coupling to opposites
rapping our world
so very thin
On to QUESTION TWO
Best, rmuldavin
Realitycheck,
I do not understand how I missed this site; I went through most that was of interest and new in my searching for discussion with my peers I work with. I was getting ready to respond to another site where I had asked for clarification but this is what I am looking for.
Incredible site, so many good comments from all, even the one I had ask for information, & even the ones that are a little out in left field, as we say in America! Never leave stone/theory uncovered or just look at the cover page!
I remember one fellow that was a patient clerk before he made a “splash”. Talk about the greatest understatement of the world.
YQUANTUM, cannot find your E-mail or any real information on you. What do you do? Are you in the USA, does not matter! Are you retired? Do you teach? Need information please! Would you consider a position on our staff? Please contact us, long hours. I will inform the proper people on this, just let me how you want to do this!
You know as well as I do, your approach in matters of dimensions, follow the many views of reflective boundry condition.*
Reality check, I like how you are going about this, we all need to stand on the shoulders of the Giants. Great job.
Best in your search Reality check, (working on a paper?)
MTs
*Research in Advance Physics, for a certain group? YQUANTUM you can list your E-mail, or tell me that you are interested and I will give you a number to call, I know and expect bogus calls but we will create a # for you, for a short time, I believe I will know if it is you by looking at the number of post and your name, plus your insight on many theories and complex, & abstract thinking.
'Anyone who knows a strange fact shares in its singularity.'
I do not understand how I missed this site; I went through most that was of interest and new in my searching for discussion with my peers I work with. I was getting ready to respond to another site where I had asked for clarification but this is what I am looking for.
Incredible site, so many good comments from all, even the one I had ask for information, & even the ones that are a little out in left field, as we say in America! Never leave stone/theory uncovered or just look at the cover page!
I remember one fellow that was a patient clerk before he made a “splash”. Talk about the greatest understatement of the world.
YQUANTUM, cannot find your E-mail or any real information on you. What do you do? Are you in the USA, does not matter! Are you retired? Do you teach? Need information please! Would you consider a position on our staff? Please contact us, long hours. I will inform the proper people on this, just let me how you want to do this!
You know as well as I do, your approach in matters of dimensions, follow the many views of reflective boundry condition.*
Reality check, I like how you are going about this, we all need to stand on the shoulders of the Giants. Great job.
Best in your search Reality check, (working on a paper?)
MTs
*Research in Advance Physics, for a certain group? YQUANTUM you can list your E-mail, or tell me that you are interested and I will give you a number to call, I know and expect bogus calls but we will create a # for you, for a short time, I believe I will know if it is you by looking at the number of post and your name, plus your insight on many theories and complex, & abstract thinking.
'Anyone who knows a strange fact shares in its singularity.'
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 1 2005, 04:58 AM)
REALITYCHECK SAYS.....
....‘BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL REPRESENTING/EMBODYING INFINITE ‘SPREAD’ OF ALL POSSIBLE ‘INFINITESIMAL ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’ SUBDIVISIONS.
...
~Matters' witness -in 3d, to time's passage, is gravity.
Its dissipation into the nothing (time('s?)host), is self powered, for matter's(concentration?/escape.) point of negative gravity.(?)
Time and matter define space (29 billion light years?)
Time, x dimensions, we ride its surface, in 3d.
...thinking out loud ~regards
Reality Check,I should have just enjoyed the site you have started, I would read and wondered where this site would lead, & still hoping it does not end soon.
I do not have the liberty to interject my opinions to any helpful degree & not sure that what I had to say would be of use [oh me], just please always stay out of the institutional box as much as possible which is what I am seeing, besides I enjoy reading this site and I do not want to stand in the way of progress. Eh!
To answer your question you do, and rightly so, change, shake up and go with the wave of information as your site sees fit that is what physics is all about.
We need new and fresh ideas. Oh, keep the light on as long as you can, deal! Eat right, do not smoke, get your rest, etc. HA!
This will be my last communication for sometime, will only be able to read what has happen and I can not keep up in real time, for this I have regrets.
Please keep up the great brain storming and enjoy!
A friend - ciao,
yquantum
you know better than anyone, dodge the typos/rush, rush, ouch bumped my, TOE [those darn PUNS]!No thank you MTs, have plenty to do. Thank you for the offer......
RealityCheck:
I must apologize for wrongly jumping to the conclusion that your answer was the final answer rather than only one of the possible answers. I became confused by this post of Oct 1 2005, 04:58 AM
As I re-review many of the answers summarized by RealityCheck I perceive an apparently similar concept separated by the actual language used.
RealityCheck: “‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL ... ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY”
SEPHIROTH: “ENERGY”
ESIN: “ENERGY DISSIPATES ... ENTROPY”
KARR: “EXISTENCE”
ISSACHAR: “CHAOS-INITIATING ENERGY”
GOOD ELF: “NOTHING IS ‘ABSOLUTE’, ALL IS ‘RELATIVE’’
Consider the following comments taken from longer dialogs:
TRoc: “Yin and Yang”
yquantum: “CAUSE and EFFECT”
Both used the word perspective within their dialogs.
This is sort of what I mean by ‘BIFURCATION’ or chaos theory. A ‘POTENTIAL’ to one may be ’ENTROPY’ to another and ’EXISTENCE’ or ’ENERGY’ to others which may mean that a ‘RELATIVE’ perspective may be inherent in what others might see as ’ABSOLUTE’ from only their perspective.
‘DUALITY’ [able to bifurcate?] appears to be equivalent to “Yin and Yang” and “CAUSE and EFFECT” and ‘ENERGY’ or ‘ENTROPY’ since energy can be transformed into mass [outside this exercise].
I may have just found VECTORS in the comments by RealityCheck: ‘ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’
This exercise may be a type of mathematical game. We have yet to determine whether this will be a cooperative or non-cooperative game as classically defined.
This exercise may also be constructing a causal set. I have only recently become aware of this theory in competition with string theory and QLG for quantum gravity. Some of the papers are from Penn State and acknowledge review by some of the originators of QLG.
The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside by Fotini Markopoulou in 1999
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9811/9811053.pdf
Quantum Gravity and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/theory/...rch/quantum.htm
Site under construction
http://physics.syr.edu/~sorkin/causet.program
I must apologize for wrongly jumping to the conclusion that your answer was the final answer rather than only one of the possible answers. I became confused by this post of Oct 1 2005, 04:58 AM
QUOTE
CLOSING COMMENT: LAYMAN STEVE CAME CLOSEST! PRACTICALLY THERE, LAYMAN STEVE! So I give KUDOS to YOU!...(I can hardly give MYSELF kudos, can I, since I posed the question already 'knowing' the answer!hehehe). CONGRATULATIONS LAYMAN STEVE(!)...whoever you are...BTW, WHY NOT REGISTER and participate 'in-depth' as a 'regular' IN THIS TOE PROJECT AT LEAST?
As I re-review many of the answers summarized by RealityCheck I perceive an apparently similar concept separated by the actual language used.
RealityCheck: “‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL ... ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY”
SEPHIROTH: “ENERGY”
ESIN: “ENERGY DISSIPATES ... ENTROPY”
KARR: “EXISTENCE”
ISSACHAR: “CHAOS-INITIATING ENERGY”
GOOD ELF: “NOTHING IS ‘ABSOLUTE’, ALL IS ‘RELATIVE’’
Consider the following comments taken from longer dialogs:
TRoc: “Yin and Yang”
yquantum: “CAUSE and EFFECT”
Both used the word perspective within their dialogs.
This is sort of what I mean by ‘BIFURCATION’ or chaos theory. A ‘POTENTIAL’ to one may be ’ENTROPY’ to another and ’EXISTENCE’ or ’ENERGY’ to others which may mean that a ‘RELATIVE’ perspective may be inherent in what others might see as ’ABSOLUTE’ from only their perspective.
‘DUALITY’ [able to bifurcate?] appears to be equivalent to “Yin and Yang” and “CAUSE and EFFECT” and ‘ENERGY’ or ‘ENTROPY’ since energy can be transformed into mass [outside this exercise].
I may have just found VECTORS in the comments by RealityCheck: ‘ORIENTATIONAL DUALITY’
This exercise may be a type of mathematical game. We have yet to determine whether this will be a cooperative or non-cooperative game as classically defined.
This exercise may also be constructing a causal set. I have only recently become aware of this theory in competition with string theory and QLG for quantum gravity. Some of the papers are from Penn State and acknowledge review by some of the originators of QLG.
The internal description of a causal set: What the universe looks like from the inside by Fotini Markopoulou in 1999
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9811/9811053.pdf
Quantum Gravity and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research/theory/...rch/quantum.htm
Site under construction
http://physics.syr.edu/~sorkin/causet.program
Gadfly,
Well homogenized. Thanks for the links you provided. One reading does not make me very knowledgeable, but it is very close to the theory I have come up with. Just a short comment on this quote by Fotini Markopoulou in 1999:
"We choose to interpret 1 as “it is true that x is in A”, i.e. 1 is chosen as
the true one of the two truth-values of the set {1, 0}.2 “Choosing the element
1” from {1, 0} as described above, means that we use a function from the
terminal object to the set {1, 0} that outputs the element 1, .. "
This is what I am saying, the initial set would be {0,1}, from which, we must choose 1 as the "truth", or Primary basis for beginning. (zero is nothing, and "you can't get there from here")
1 is the singular point from which to begin; again it doesn't matter (yet) what "units" we are talking about. Don't take all of my rambling to be purely Philosophic in nature; it is the simple, yet rigorous application of logic.
Another quote: "The philosophy here can be roughly interpreted as follows. The set of truth-values {1, 0} is the simplest set we have that, together with the simplest
possible (but non-trivial) inclusion function T : {0} → {1, 0}, exhibits all the
features of a subset of a set."
And: "At this stage we are done with all the technical material from set theory.
We will now go ahead to apply it, generalize it, and draw conclusions from it.
The generalization will attempt to capture the following: In the case of sets
and subsets that we have seen, it is characteristic that xA splits the original
set in exactly two parts, those that belong to the subset and those that do
not, with anything in the middle excluded. In such cases we only need two
truth-values and {1, 0} suffices. For example, this defines the causal past of
a single event in the causal set: we can assign 1 to all events r ≤ p and 0 to
all q ≥ p. "
The separation of the set into 2 equal parts is the same function that can apply to the first subset ({1}) that will result in the next fundamental QUANTITY. I don't mean to "jump ahead" on our step by step analysis, but that one is obviously the quantity of 2. Note that we did NOT have to use math here, and indeed we can not. Zero and One will not play our mathematical game, they just lead back to themselves. What we are using here is what I call "innate quantity logic"; animals have this, and unindoctrinated children (~<4yrs), and most "no contact" tribes use this. Take 2 small children, and 1 candy bar. Tell them they will share the candy, and you will give them each the same amount, and then DONT. Sit back and watch "inherent knowledge of quantity" take place.
At any rate, ALL quantities can be extracted from the set {1,2}. HOW Nature does this (without our math) is the nature of my theory. I will continue at the appropriate time in this thread.
RC, I believe the terms "scalar" or "tensor" are TOO abstract (independent) to make a logical beginning point. You misunderstood my last post (although, upon 2nd reading, it was not clear enough). Basically, I am saying that your answer would be more appropriate at the next phase of your thread.
T.Roc
Well homogenized. Thanks for the links you provided. One reading does not make me very knowledgeable, but it is very close to the theory I have come up with. Just a short comment on this quote by Fotini Markopoulou in 1999:
"We choose to interpret 1 as “it is true that x is in A”, i.e. 1 is chosen as
the true one of the two truth-values of the set {1, 0}.2 “Choosing the element
1” from {1, 0} as described above, means that we use a function from the
terminal object to the set {1, 0} that outputs the element 1, .. "
This is what I am saying, the initial set would be {0,1}, from which, we must choose 1 as the "truth", or Primary basis for beginning. (zero is nothing, and "you can't get there from here")
1 is the singular point from which to begin; again it doesn't matter (yet) what "units" we are talking about. Don't take all of my rambling to be purely Philosophic in nature; it is the simple, yet rigorous application of logic.
Another quote: "The philosophy here can be roughly interpreted as follows. The set of truth-values {1, 0} is the simplest set we have that, together with the simplest
possible (but non-trivial) inclusion function T : {0} → {1, 0}, exhibits all the
features of a subset of a set."
And: "At this stage we are done with all the technical material from set theory.
We will now go ahead to apply it, generalize it, and draw conclusions from it.
The generalization will attempt to capture the following: In the case of sets
and subsets that we have seen, it is characteristic that xA splits the original
set in exactly two parts, those that belong to the subset and those that do
not, with anything in the middle excluded. In such cases we only need two
truth-values and {1, 0} suffices. For example, this defines the causal past of
a single event in the causal set: we can assign 1 to all events r ≤ p and 0 to
all q ≥ p. "
The separation of the set into 2 equal parts is the same function that can apply to the first subset ({1}) that will result in the next fundamental QUANTITY. I don't mean to "jump ahead" on our step by step analysis, but that one is obviously the quantity of 2. Note that we did NOT have to use math here, and indeed we can not. Zero and One will not play our mathematical game, they just lead back to themselves. What we are using here is what I call "innate quantity logic"; animals have this, and unindoctrinated children (~<4yrs), and most "no contact" tribes use this. Take 2 small children, and 1 candy bar. Tell them they will share the candy, and you will give them each the same amount, and then DONT. Sit back and watch "inherent knowledge of quantity" take place.
At any rate, ALL quantities can be extracted from the set {1,2}. HOW Nature does this (without our math) is the nature of my theory. I will continue at the appropriate time in this thread.
RC, I believe the terms "scalar" or "tensor" are TOO abstract (independent) to make a logical beginning point. You misunderstood my last post (although, upon 2nd reading, it was not clear enough). Basically, I am saying that your answer would be more appropriate at the next phase of your thread.
T.Roc
Read most of the three links above, the second copied as sentance:
" The algebraic structures involved have been also applied to certain structural issues in quantum computation and networks theory."
"Networks theory."?
But lask link shared student to professor and students working on understanding time and space.
Ok, I run through the TOE/G-string conjectures:
Between two dots, d1, d2, of mass/energy connets a G-string, say G(d1~d2).
A pair of double dots connected by G(d1~d2) has also from each dot, G-strings to all other dots in "Universe". Guess from old data, each dot has ten^54 links, L~= N(N-1)/2 where N is the number of dots in the "Universe".
Conjecture that the Higgs Particle is a dot.
Layer that on the outside of a falt Black Hole,
/H~e+~e-/~g(e-)~/e~e+~H/
That is, a black hole sphere with g(e+-) strings connecting the dots on the shere.
Since the electron is considered an elementary particle, an "a-tom', unbreakable, it is probably so, so far, because it's "gluons", "g-strings" are the tightest known to, yes, "man".
Or maybe a hint at how much powere there is in fig leafs?
More later, best, rmuldavin
" The algebraic structures involved have been also applied to certain structural issues in quantum computation and networks theory."
"Networks theory."?
But lask link shared student to professor and students working on understanding time and space.
Ok, I run through the TOE/G-string conjectures:
Between two dots, d1, d2, of mass/energy connets a G-string, say G(d1~d2).
A pair of double dots connected by G(d1~d2) has also from each dot, G-strings to all other dots in "Universe". Guess from old data, each dot has ten^54 links, L~= N(N-1)/2 where N is the number of dots in the "Universe".
Conjecture that the Higgs Particle is a dot.
Layer that on the outside of a falt Black Hole,
/H~e+~e-/~g(e-)~/e~e+~H/
That is, a black hole sphere with g(e+-) strings connecting the dots on the shere.
Since the electron is considered an elementary particle, an "a-tom', unbreakable, it is probably so, so far, because it's "gluons", "g-strings" are the tightest known to, yes, "man".
Or maybe a hint at how much powere there is in fig leafs?
More later, best, rmuldavin
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 3 2005, 12:20 AM)
DIRECTION PER SE (or BULK DIRECTION or UNDIFFERENTIATED DIRECTION CONCEPT or OMNI-DIRECTION POTENTIAL or whatever is the most efficacious for audience comprehension of what is meant)...
i.e. persistence
~regards, esin
RC,
OK, we are VERY close to agreement here. Please realize that I said that the quantity would be in units of SOMETHING, and I agree, that is just a label. I don't see how the concept of DIRECTION (scalar) is any different. We are essentially having the "chicken or egg first" debate. One more time at the podium, and if I don't succeed in convincing you (& all), I will concede to vote for your starting point.
Our group (all participants here) is gathered "somewhere" in the empty Universe. Above the din of "harrumphs", RC can be heard clearing his throat. (good elf has encapsulated us all in magic bubbles so we can talk via sonoluminescent wave collapse between branes) "May I have your attention, please?", RC begins, "we are about to embark on a journey to solve the riddles of the Universe, which DIRECTION shall we go?" There is a moment of uncomfortable silence, everyone realizing the infinite degrees of freedom involved. Philip347 can be seen jotting down a note; Rmuldavin smiles at something unseen. Suddenly, everyone points in a direction, exclaiming "That way!"
Wherever we ARE is point A, wherever we are going is point B. (notice my sacrifice of 1 & 2?) The concept of DIRECTION requires 2 points, which, by the standards set forth by our administrator, seems to NOT be independent.
However, if we were to deem point A and B dualistic aspects of a scalar, I could swallow them as One. (which is where we started! he-he-he)
T.Roc
OK, we are VERY close to agreement here. Please realize that I said that the quantity would be in units of SOMETHING, and I agree, that is just a label. I don't see how the concept of DIRECTION (scalar) is any different. We are essentially having the "chicken or egg first" debate. One more time at the podium, and if I don't succeed in convincing you (& all), I will concede to vote for your starting point.
Our group (all participants here) is gathered "somewhere" in the empty Universe. Above the din of "harrumphs", RC can be heard clearing his throat. (good elf has encapsulated us all in magic bubbles so we can talk via sonoluminescent wave collapse between branes) "May I have your attention, please?", RC begins, "we are about to embark on a journey to solve the riddles of the Universe, which DIRECTION shall we go?" There is a moment of uncomfortable silence, everyone realizing the infinite degrees of freedom involved. Philip347 can be seen jotting down a note; Rmuldavin smiles at something unseen. Suddenly, everyone points in a direction, exclaiming "That way!"
Wherever we ARE is point A, wherever we are going is point B. (notice my sacrifice of 1 & 2?)
The concept of DIRECTION requires 2 points, which, by the standards set forth by our administrator, seems to NOT be independent. However, if we were to deem point A and B dualistic aspects of a scalar, I could swallow them as One. (which is where we started! he-he-he)
T.Roc
Hi RealityCheck,
Thank you for the paraphrase and for the kind words.
Plese grant registered user "stevieb" post rights to this thread
I am flsuh with anticipation.
Where will this thread go?
How will it end?
What/where/when/how?
Thank you for the paraphrase and for the kind words.
Plese grant registered user "stevieb" post rights to this thread
I am flsuh with anticipation.
Where will this thread go?
How will it end?
What/where/when/how?
Reality Check,
Are you saying that bulk direction is something like a light cone? I would suppose not a cone that relies on time to define it, but what underlies time, let's say consequence. And that this cone extends not really toward another given point, since at a beginning point there won't be any other points, but outward in all possible directions.
What defines the medium? Is it also defined by consequence?
Just a thought, if what underlies everything is inherently false (false according to our known laws) then, should it contradict itself it could become true (true according to our known laws).
TRoc, I wasn't referring to playing in any particular key. What instead I was trying to get at when using the analogy of music was the harmonics involved and the repitition throughout octaves of the basic structure. I wanted to point out how this is like all the various forms of radiation whether infinitely tightening or loosening they relate harmonically, if you will, in their new incarnation to what they were before. It might be a better anology I suppose to instead refer to the Jungian concept of the architype. A vague net that initiates structure but does not stand in the way of any fantastic definition that might develop under its purview.
Of course, I am only trying to establish a systemic basis for empty space. I want to get at why, if quantum fields exist, they can exist. Furthermore I wish to establish that their existence should have no bearing upon this particular discussion as they would serve only as a background that could be any systemic structure, thus they can be discounted from any equation that defines initial startup, or the fixing of an original point. I think as the process unfolds the systemic nature of those fields will have to be accounted for because strectched they are most probably what most of us are puzzling over when we try to imagine strings.
Are you saying that bulk direction is something like a light cone? I would suppose not a cone that relies on time to define it, but what underlies time, let's say consequence. And that this cone extends not really toward another given point, since at a beginning point there won't be any other points, but outward in all possible directions.
What defines the medium? Is it also defined by consequence?
Just a thought, if what underlies everything is inherently false (false according to our known laws) then, should it contradict itself it could become true (true according to our known laws).
TRoc, I wasn't referring to playing in any particular key. What instead I was trying to get at when using the analogy of music was the harmonics involved and the repitition throughout octaves of the basic structure. I wanted to point out how this is like all the various forms of radiation whether infinitely tightening or loosening they relate harmonically, if you will, in their new incarnation to what they were before. It might be a better anology I suppose to instead refer to the Jungian concept of the architype. A vague net that initiates structure but does not stand in the way of any fantastic definition that might develop under its purview.
Of course, I am only trying to establish a systemic basis for empty space. I want to get at why, if quantum fields exist, they can exist. Furthermore I wish to establish that their existence should have no bearing upon this particular discussion as they would serve only as a background that could be any systemic structure, thus they can be discounted from any equation that defines initial startup, or the fixing of an original point. I think as the process unfolds the systemic nature of those fields will have to be accounted for because strectched they are most probably what most of us are puzzling over when we try to imagine strings.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Ooh, I have an answer. This concept would have to be instability. Everything is unstable, and as a result, we get forces of nature. We get gravity, magnetism and all the other forces. Dimensions form because of instability.
That's what I base my theory on anyway.
ReallityCheck, I would respond to you, but I'm not exactly sure I understood you. Actually, I know I didn't.
Ooh, I have an answer. This concept would have to be instability. Everything is unstable, and as a result, we get forces of nature. We get gravity, magnetism and all the other forces. Dimensions form because of instability.
That's what I base my theory on anyway.
ReallityCheck, I would respond to you, but I'm not exactly sure I understood you. Actually, I know I didn't.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 3 2005, 10:31 AM)
Ooh, I have an answer. This concept would have to be instability.
You're a quite right. The Aether wave theory is based on the natural spacetime instability of the gravity wave solution (sorry, this applet works only in MS IE5+ browser).
You're a quite right. The Aether wave theory is based on the natural spacetime instability of the gravity wave solution (sorry, this applet works only in MS IE5+ browser).
Reality Check,
I didn't mean to sound as if the light cone analogy was strictly an adherent analogy, that is to say that it wanted to hold across the board. I only meant to say that the problem of time, pragmatic time, can be solved in your scalar model by saying that pragmatism is revealed in the consequences. That it can't be known before hand, because there is/was no before hand. Maybe that is a nod to the uncertainty principle given the base relationship I am proposing with quantum fields?
It strikes me that what you are getting at is a multiple universe model of the cosmos. You can talk about infinite universes if they each can start anywhere and they do not interact with each other. If they can interact with each other you have a problem. If they can interact then you have either one universe, if they interact on all levels, or a limited number of universes if they interact only certain universes with certain properties of other universes but not with all properties of all other universes. What the hell did he just say? Well, either you have this universe if all possible universes interact on all levels or you have the string model of limited number of multiple dimensions if there is a limited number of interactions between separate universes no two universes reacting in the same ways with each other.
You have opened up a can of worms.
I know you don't want to talk about what comes after the precious moment of first movement, nor do you want to talk about a priori structures that could be responsible for first movement but if you are going to come up with an equation you might have to.
You could, for instance, refer to quantum field fluctuations being responsible for first impetus. Everywhere they could be like a car stuck in a ditch that needs to be rocked back and forth in order to get it out. They could swing wildly in flux eventually on a particular swing reaching a point of critical necessity.
You could establish what the geometry of newly directant space would be given that it relates only to itself. I have stated that I think it wraps around itself irrationally, you could give it another shape. Do the possible geometries have enough divergence that they can establish a starting point for a model of the cosmos? Are they infinite separable geometries or do they coincide? If they coincide do they coincide on all levels?
This is heady stuff.
I didn't mean to sound as if the light cone analogy was strictly an adherent analogy, that is to say that it wanted to hold across the board. I only meant to say that the problem of time, pragmatic time, can be solved in your scalar model by saying that pragmatism is revealed in the consequences. That it can't be known before hand, because there is/was no before hand. Maybe that is a nod to the uncertainty principle given the base relationship I am proposing with quantum fields?
It strikes me that what you are getting at is a multiple universe model of the cosmos. You can talk about infinite universes if they each can start anywhere and they do not interact with each other. If they can interact with each other you have a problem. If they can interact then you have either one universe, if they interact on all levels, or a limited number of universes if they interact only certain universes with certain properties of other universes but not with all properties of all other universes.
What the hell did he just say? Well, either you have this universe if all possible universes interact on all levels or you have the string model of limited number of multiple dimensions if there is a limited number of interactions between separate universes no two universes reacting in the same ways with each other. You have opened up a can of worms.
I know you don't want to talk about what comes after the precious moment of first movement, nor do you want to talk about a priori structures that could be responsible for first movement but if you are going to come up with an equation you might have to.
You could, for instance, refer to quantum field fluctuations being responsible for first impetus. Everywhere they could be like a car stuck in a ditch that needs to be rocked back and forth in order to get it out. They could swing wildly in flux eventually on a particular swing reaching a point of critical necessity.
You could establish what the geometry of newly directant space would be given that it relates only to itself. I have stated that I think it wraps around itself irrationally, you could give it another shape. Do the possible geometries have enough divergence that they can establish a starting point for a model of the cosmos? Are they infinite separable geometries or do they coincide? If they coincide do they coincide on all levels?
This is heady stuff.
QUOTE (Evil Genius+Oct 4 2005, 02:08 AM)
You could, for instance, refer to quantum field fluctuations being responsible for first impetus
Its obvious, the current gravity field behavior is metastable. You can bring up this as the very homogeneous mass field, like interstellar gas. It unconditionally stable, but even a very small inhomogeneity is able to start the star creation by avalanche-like process.
But question is, why the gravity should have this behavior? Is it a result of some evolutionary process? Or just a accident? If so, why the creation of our spacetime have started by the very same way, as the creation of the whole universe? Can be this process generalized by some way (fractal universe, multiple universe concept)?
Who knows - lets search the answer...
Its obvious, the current gravity field behavior is metastable. You can bring up this as the very homogeneous mass field, like interstellar gas. It unconditionally stable, but even a very small inhomogeneity is able to start the star creation by avalanche-like process.
But question is, why the gravity should have this behavior? Is it a result of some evolutionary process? Or just a accident? If so, why the creation of our spacetime have started by the very same way, as the creation of the whole universe? Can be this process generalized by some way (fractal universe, multiple universe concept)?
Who knows - lets search the answer...
In one sentance many words:
"Now as to GEOMETRY, at THIS STAGE in our TOE process, ‘geometry’ and ‘mathematics’ and ‘topology’ DON’T EXIST...only an absolute concept is being considered, and since that concept has been reasonably agreed to be a SCALAR concept, THERE CAN BE NO ‘HIGHER’ GEOMETRY THAN THAT WHICH WILL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE APPLY TO AN ABSOLUTE ‘SCALAR’ FRAME...and if that is the case at this stage, the only relevant geometry looks like being a ‘Euclidian’ one, and NOT ‘higher/topological’ ones...but of course, when all the DERIVED/RELATIVE concepts ‘fall out’ of our project in due course, THEN most probably any ‘comprehensive’ analysis of phenomena will have to ALSO include the DERIVED/RELATIVE higher geometries/mathematics."
COMMENTS:
"Scalar" (concept):a. [ Latin,..., of or pertaining to a ladder, flight of steps.] in mathematics, designating or of a quaity that has magnitude but no direction in space, as volume or temperature.
(Also), n. in mathematics, a scalar quanity: distinguished from vector.
As I view what your words seem to be struggling to reach is in fact out of reach.
What is the value of a measure or imaginary division of something that cannot be measured? Or isa scalar like the volume of the water in a glass?
Pour the water on a table large enough is might spread out so thin as to not spill off the table on to the floor. Locally we might infer that the depth of the water spreads over an area equal to the volume divided by the local thickness.
I still like Albert Einstein's notion that measurement is local.
The electron with it gryomagnetic ratio measured out to some sixteen decimal places is our local accurate clock. A ratio of mechanical inertial force to magnetic forces in a spinning charge electron, preferable the TOP, the 1/3 charge verticies of a triplet electron.
Thus your scalar is a fish out of water, let's hope only for a jump to be seen by or see other mates.
Ahoy, my fellow sea man.
Best, rmuldavin
"Now as to GEOMETRY, at THIS STAGE in our TOE process, ‘geometry’ and ‘mathematics’ and ‘topology’ DON’T EXIST...only an absolute concept is being considered, and since that concept has been reasonably agreed to be a SCALAR concept, THERE CAN BE NO ‘HIGHER’ GEOMETRY THAN THAT WHICH WILL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE APPLY TO AN ABSOLUTE ‘SCALAR’ FRAME...and if that is the case at this stage, the only relevant geometry looks like being a ‘Euclidian’ one, and NOT ‘higher/topological’ ones...but of course, when all the DERIVED/RELATIVE concepts ‘fall out’ of our project in due course, THEN most probably any ‘comprehensive’ analysis of phenomena will have to ALSO include the DERIVED/RELATIVE higher geometries/mathematics."
COMMENTS:
"Scalar" (concept):a. [ Latin,..., of or pertaining to a ladder, flight of steps.] in mathematics, designating or of a quaity that has magnitude but no direction in space, as volume or temperature.
(Also), n. in mathematics, a scalar quanity: distinguished from vector.
As I view what your words seem to be struggling to reach is in fact out of reach.
What is the value of a measure or imaginary division of something that cannot be measured? Or isa scalar like the volume of the water in a glass?
Pour the water on a table large enough is might spread out so thin as to not spill off the table on to the floor. Locally we might infer that the depth of the water spreads over an area equal to the volume divided by the local thickness.
I still like Albert Einstein's notion that measurement is local.
The electron with it gryomagnetic ratio measured out to some sixteen decimal places is our local accurate clock. A ratio of mechanical inertial force to magnetic forces in a spinning charge electron, preferable the TOP, the 1/3 charge verticies of a triplet electron.
Thus your scalar is a fish out of water, let's hope only for a jump to be seen by or see other mates.
Ahoy, my fellow sea man.
Best, rmuldavin
RealityCheck:
As I continue to ponder your comments I have convinced myself that your choice of DUALITY was probably the best chosen word for this concept. The use of this term by Witten in unifying the five 10D string theories into M-theory was a compelling factor.
Yet because of the UNCERTAINTY of Heisenberg [momentum vector - position scalar], I remain very skeptical of being too specific at the beginning of TOE, as a good gadfly should. DUALITY has some degree of UNCERTAINTY. Consider the following definitions:
From Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania [an easily found website for reference]
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm
A scalar is a physical quantity whose definition does not in any way depend on direction in space. Scalars include time, mass, volume, temperature, density and others. The size of a scalar quantity is represented as a number. In physical equations, scalars obey the algebra of numbers.
A vector is a physical quantity dependent on direction in space. A vector has both size and direction, and both must be specified to uniquely characterize the vector. Vector quantities include displacement, velocity, acceleration, momentum, angular momentum and others. Since surface area has spatial orientation, it must often be treated as a vector. Direction matters with vectors. Two vectors are said to be equal only if their sizes and directions are the same
There is also E = m * c^2 [vector-scalar duality of kinetic-potential energy].
Any mention of direction or kinesis suggests vector and may be pathognomotic for a vector, to borrow a term from medicine. When direction is applied to a scalar [whether particular or NOT], the scalar is transformed into a vector by definition. One cannot allow you to violate the definitions.
Thus your argument is NOT convincing from
I also remain convinced that other “terms, ENERGY [see above], YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning” are appropriate for the concept of DUALITY when there likely is some UNCERTAINTY.
Energy is perhaps the best known omni-potential entity within physics. There exist multiple equations that convert the potential energy scalars into kinetic energy. One must clarify if this exercise is about constructing a TOE for this universe as it is known or for some other universe. I simply do NOT understand for ENERGY
I also remain convinced that other “terms, ENERGY [see above], YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning” are appropriate for the concept of DUALITY when there likely is some UNCERTAINTY.
Energy is perhaps the best known omni-potential entity within physics. There exist multiple equations that convert the potential energy scalars into kinetic energy. One must clarify if this exercise is about constructing a TOE for this universe as it is known or for some other universe. I simply do NOT understand for ENERGY
terms, ENERGY, YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning
Even EXISTENCE may have DUALITY - Shakespeare - “To be or not to be.” Is that NOT the question for this exercise in TOE?
EXISTENCE DUALITY or DUALITY EXISTENCE almost has some simple elegance as a concept, somewhat like E = m * c^2.
Thus I find myself unable to acquiesce entirely to your opinions regarding terminology in the discourse to date. I am particularly troubled by using direction with scalar. That is contrary to definition. The dismissal of energy as without “definite physical meaning” seems contrary to the use of this term in physics.
I do agree with the significance of the term DUALITY with resulting UNCERTAINTY.
As I continue to ponder your comments I have convinced myself that your choice of DUALITY was probably the best chosen word for this concept. The use of this term by Witten in unifying the five 10D string theories into M-theory was a compelling factor.
Yet because of the UNCERTAINTY of Heisenberg [momentum vector - position scalar], I remain very skeptical of being too specific at the beginning of TOE, as a good gadfly should. DUALITY has some degree of UNCERTAINTY. Consider the following definitions:
From Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania [an easily found website for reference]
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm
A scalar is a physical quantity whose definition does not in any way depend on direction in space. Scalars include time, mass, volume, temperature, density and others. The size of a scalar quantity is represented as a number. In physical equations, scalars obey the algebra of numbers.
A vector is a physical quantity dependent on direction in space. A vector has both size and direction, and both must be specified to uniquely characterize the vector. Vector quantities include displacement, velocity, acceleration, momentum, angular momentum and others. Since surface area has spatial orientation, it must often be treated as a vector. Direction matters with vectors. Two vectors are said to be equal only if their sizes and directions are the same
There is also E = m * c^2 [vector-scalar duality of kinetic-potential energy].
Any mention of direction or kinesis suggests vector and may be pathognomotic for a vector, to borrow a term from medicine. When direction is applied to a scalar [whether particular or NOT], the scalar is transformed into a vector by definition. One cannot allow you to violate the definitions.
Thus your argument is NOT convincing from
QUOTE
....‘SCALAR’ DIRECTION can be thought of as ‘OMNI’ ORIENTATION...whereas ‘VECTOR’ DIRECTION can be thought of as ‘SINGULAR’ ORIENTATION. And while ‘ORIENTATION’ is specifically dependent on particular location relativities, ‘DIRECTION POTENTIAL AS SUCH is independent of any such specific considerations, and hence IS an absolute/independent physical concept. That’s the best I can do in the time available, 555JOSHUA!...hope it helped.
I also remain convinced that other “terms, ENERGY [see above], YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning” are appropriate for the concept of DUALITY when there likely is some UNCERTAINTY.
Energy is perhaps the best known omni-potential entity within physics. There exist multiple equations that convert the potential energy scalars into kinetic energy. One must clarify if this exercise is about constructing a TOE for this universe as it is known or for some other universe. I simply do NOT understand for ENERGY
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ....‘SCALAR’ DIRECTION can be thought of as ‘OMNI’ ORIENTATION...whereas ‘VECTOR’ DIRECTION can be thought of as ‘SINGULAR’ ORIENTATION. And while ‘ORIENTATION’ is specifically dependent on particular location relativities, ‘DIRECTION POTENTIAL AS SUCH is independent of any such specific considerations, and hence IS an absolute/independent physical concept. That’s the best I can do in the time available, 555JOSHUA!...hope it helped. |
I also remain convinced that other “terms, ENERGY [see above], YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning” are appropriate for the concept of DUALITY when there likely is some UNCERTAINTY.
Energy is perhaps the best known omni-potential entity within physics. There exist multiple equations that convert the potential energy scalars into kinetic energy. One must clarify if this exercise is about constructing a TOE for this universe as it is known or for some other universe. I simply do NOT understand for ENERGY
terms, ENERGY, YIN/YANG, CHAOS, CAUSE/EFFECT etc. have no definite physical meaning
Even EXISTENCE may have DUALITY - Shakespeare - “To be or not to be.” Is that NOT the question for this exercise in TOE?
EXISTENCE DUALITY or DUALITY EXISTENCE almost has some simple elegance as a concept, somewhat like E = m * c^2.
Thus I find myself unable to acquiesce entirely to your opinions regarding terminology in the discourse to date. I am particularly troubled by using direction with scalar. That is contrary to definition. The dismissal of energy as without “definite physical meaning” seems contrary to the use of this term in physics.
I do agree with the significance of the term DUALITY with resulting UNCERTAINTY.
Then what was your second question? With all that's been going on in this thread, I believe I missed it.
The real TOE will be able to explain what energy is. Otherwise, it isn't really a TOE.
Reality Check,
Thinking about it I believe there is only one limitation that bounds your origin thesis. That limitation is that there can only exist one universe at a time. Well, that is to say in the concept of time that the existence of said universe creates.
I too am not a huge multi-verse fan but I will admit they can exist if each subset, as it were, can have no interaction with the others. To do that their basic contruction would have to be radically different from ours, though.
Getting back to the focal point, however, if bulk direction starts everything, then once there is something there to exist there can no longer be bulk direction. There can be most of the forces sufficienct to create additional stuff (I hesitate to say matter) but they wouldn't be accompanied by bulk direction anymore but rather by instability.
Any other way and I have to ask the question, "where are all the other universes that I should see looking beyond the bounds of this current one?" They aren't there because, unlike that crap in Scientific American about space-time expanding faster than the speed of light, they don't exist. Yeah, sure, there could exist an event horizon at the envelope edge of the universe but that would make our universe a singularity. Given Hawking radiation I suppose there is still room for differentiation between matter and energy in such a model but why not go with Occum first and then get on to the more fantastic later.
Thinking about it I believe there is only one limitation that bounds your origin thesis. That limitation is that there can only exist one universe at a time. Well, that is to say in the concept of time that the existence of said universe creates.
I too am not a huge multi-verse fan but I will admit they can exist if each subset, as it were, can have no interaction with the others. To do that their basic contruction would have to be radically different from ours, though.
Getting back to the focal point, however, if bulk direction starts everything, then once there is something there to exist there can no longer be bulk direction. There can be most of the forces sufficienct to create additional stuff (I hesitate to say matter) but they wouldn't be accompanied by bulk direction anymore but rather by instability.
Any other way and I have to ask the question, "where are all the other universes that I should see looking beyond the bounds of this current one?" They aren't there because, unlike that crap in Scientific American about space-time expanding faster than the speed of light, they don't exist. Yeah, sure, there could exist an event horizon at the envelope edge of the universe but that would make our universe a singularity.
Given Hawking radiation I suppose there is still room for differentiation between matter and energy in such a model but why not go with Occum first and then get on to the more fantastic later.
RealityCheck
I think that I may agree with some of your concepts - NOT that of UNCERTAINTY as a POSTULATE
I respectfully have to disagree with much of the terminology of your post of Oct 5 2005, 12:10 AM and will attempt to explain why - in as constructive manner as possible.
Are you serious?!? Nobel prizes are NOT awarded for postulates.
1 - Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel prize [apparently presented with the 1933 prize shared by Schrödinger and Dirac] when [allotropic forms of hydrogen] experimentation appeared to confirm his theoretical work [published 1925] that became one of the foundation equations for quantum mechanics.
Please read the presentation speech by Professor H. Pleijel, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, available at Nobelprize.org.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1932/press.html
2 - Einstein began publishing his ideas in relativity in 1905 and never received a Nobel prizes for this work. His 1921 award was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech by Professor S. Arrhenius, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, noted that this effect contributed to quantum mechanics and was “extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly”.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/press.html
This observer will stand by “physicists early in the last century’ whose work was foundational to present day knowledge.
Are you serious?!? Nobel prizes are NOT awarded for postulates.
1 - Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel prize [apparently presented with the 1933 prize shared by Schrödinger and Dirac] when [allotropic forms of hydrogen] experimentation appeared to confirm his theoretical work [published 1925] that became one of the foundation equations for quantum mechanics.
Please read the presentation speech by Professor H. Pleijel, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, available at Nobelprize.org.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1932/press.html
2 - Einstein began publishing his ideas in relativity in 1905 and never received a Nobel prizes for this work. His 1921 award was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech by Professor S. Arrhenius, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, noted that this effect contributed to quantum mechanics and was “extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly”.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/press.html
This observer will stand by “physicists early in the last century’ whose work was foundational to present day knowledge.
4) TERMINOLOGY...Throughout scientific history, new terms/concepts have perforce been ‘coined’ to introduce novel concepts/understandings into the lexicon...such as ‘quantum’, ‘particle’, ‘energy’, ‘forces’, ‘fields’ and so on). THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOING SO...the ONLY criteria being that the new term/concept is appropriate/efficacious to the conveyance of the ‘proper’ MEANING/RELEVANCE when added to the lexicon which PREVIOUSLY WAS DEFICIENT due to the lack of the ‘newly-introduced’ term/concept. So don’t be afraid to be ORIGINAL if what you have to offer IS ORIGINAL because NO-ONE HAD THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE. That’s what the term/concept ‘pioneering’ connotes, after all! hehehe.
Are you seriously suggesting that such an cumbersome, metaphor mixing phrase as “’BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL” is as elegant or useful as any of the one word terms within the above quote? Just examine the sheer quantity of your verbiage used in an effort to justify such wording when the other concepts have previously been defined and have a generally recognizable meaning to others interested in many areas of physics.
Simple non-scientific google searches for various definition:
Definitions of energy on the Web: from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(physics) the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms" [others omitted only for brevity]
In other words ENERGY has omni-potential.
Definitions of duality on the Web: [others omitted only for brevity]
The condition of one thing having two sides, parts, or faces from
www.brooklynexpedition.org/structures/glossary_latin.html
A correspondence between apparently different theories that lead to the same physical results from newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/l.html
Wave and matrix mechanics are two examples of duality.
Respectfully, I remain unable to comprehend how I can ever be converted to your opinions regarding your terminology in the discourse to date. Rather than building upon the concepts developed by physicists over the last century, I regretfully find your terminology imprecise and confusing especially with respect to the definitions that have precedent to your posted opinions.
Contrary to your perspective of ‘no inconsistency is involved here”, I respectfully find ‘inconsistency is involved here” within your discussion. Your “new term/concept is appropriate/efficacious to the conveyance of the ‘proper’ MEANING/RELEVANCE when added to the lexicon which PREVIOUSLY WAS DEFICIENT” is sadly NOT my perspective of your opinions - sorry.
Good Luck with your efforts to convert others to your opinions, but I do notice that many previous posters to this topic have NOT done so recently. Perhaps you are becoming too dogmatic in the pursuit to justify your own terminology.
I think that I may agree with some of your concepts - NOT that of UNCERTAINTY as a POSTULATE
I respectfully have to disagree with much of the terminology of your post of Oct 5 2005, 12:10 AM and will attempt to explain why - in as constructive manner as possible.
QUOTE
3) UNCERTAINTY: This is a POSTULATE, not a physical’ concept. It represents a capitulation by physicists early in the last century when they came, as it were, face-to-face with the daunting spectre of ‘RANDOMNESS/INFINITE-VARIABILITY’
Are you serious?!? Nobel prizes are NOT awarded for postulates.
1 - Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel prize [apparently presented with the 1933 prize shared by Schrödinger and Dirac] when [allotropic forms of hydrogen] experimentation appeared to confirm his theoretical work [published 1925] that became one of the foundation equations for quantum mechanics.
Please read the presentation speech by Professor H. Pleijel, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, available at Nobelprize.org.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1932/press.html
2 - Einstein began publishing his ideas in relativity in 1905 and never received a Nobel prizes for this work. His 1921 award was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech by Professor S. Arrhenius, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, noted that this effect contributed to quantum mechanics and was “extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly”.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/press.html
This observer will stand by “physicists early in the last century’ whose work was foundational to present day knowledge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) UNCERTAINTY: This is a POSTULATE, not a physical’ concept. It represents a capitulation by physicists early in the last century when they came, as it were, face-to-face with the daunting spectre of ‘RANDOMNESS/INFINITE-VARIABILITY’ |
Are you serious?!? Nobel prizes are NOT awarded for postulates.
1 - Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel prize [apparently presented with the 1933 prize shared by Schrödinger and Dirac] when [allotropic forms of hydrogen] experimentation appeared to confirm his theoretical work [published 1925] that became one of the foundation equations for quantum mechanics.
Please read the presentation speech by Professor H. Pleijel, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, available at Nobelprize.org.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1932/press.html
2 - Einstein began publishing his ideas in relativity in 1905 and never received a Nobel prizes for this work. His 1921 award was "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech by Professor S. Arrhenius, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics, noted that this effect contributed to quantum mechanics and was “extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly”.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/press.html
This observer will stand by “physicists early in the last century’ whose work was foundational to present day knowledge.
4) TERMINOLOGY...Throughout scientific history, new terms/concepts have perforce been ‘coined’ to introduce novel concepts/understandings into the lexicon...such as ‘quantum’, ‘particle’, ‘energy’, ‘forces’, ‘fields’ and so on). THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOING SO...the ONLY criteria being that the new term/concept is appropriate/efficacious to the conveyance of the ‘proper’ MEANING/RELEVANCE when added to the lexicon which PREVIOUSLY WAS DEFICIENT due to the lack of the ‘newly-introduced’ term/concept. So don’t be afraid to be ORIGINAL if what you have to offer IS ORIGINAL because NO-ONE HAD THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE. That’s what the term/concept ‘pioneering’ connotes, after all! hehehe.
Are you seriously suggesting that such an cumbersome, metaphor mixing phrase as “’BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL” is as elegant or useful as any of the one word terms within the above quote? Just examine the sheer quantity of your verbiage used in an effort to justify such wording when the other concepts have previously been defined and have a generally recognizable meaning to others interested in many areas of physics.
Simple non-scientific google searches for various definition:
Definitions of energy on the Web: from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(physics) the capacity of a physical system to do work; the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms" [others omitted only for brevity]
In other words ENERGY has omni-potential.
Definitions of duality on the Web: [others omitted only for brevity]
The condition of one thing having two sides, parts, or faces from
www.brooklynexpedition.org/structures/glossary_latin.html
A correspondence between apparently different theories that lead to the same physical results from newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/l.html
Wave and matrix mechanics are two examples of duality.
Respectfully, I remain unable to comprehend how I can ever be converted to your opinions regarding your terminology in the discourse to date. Rather than building upon the concepts developed by physicists over the last century, I regretfully find your terminology imprecise and confusing especially with respect to the definitions that have precedent to your posted opinions.
Contrary to your perspective of ‘no inconsistency is involved here”, I respectfully find ‘inconsistency is involved here” within your discussion. Your “new term/concept is appropriate/efficacious to the conveyance of the ‘proper’ MEANING/RELEVANCE when added to the lexicon which PREVIOUSLY WAS DEFICIENT” is sadly NOT my perspective of your opinions - sorry.
Good Luck with your efforts to convert others to your opinions, but I do notice that many previous posters to this topic have NOT done so recently. Perhaps you are becoming too dogmatic in the pursuit to justify your own terminology.
RC,
MANY times, you have posted in threads, telling people that SIMPLICITY was in order, and an integral part of science. Occam's razor stuff. The more simple the explanation, the deeper the understanding. (just not too simple)
Now I ask you to think more along those lines; I am actually becoming less convinced of your "starting point" the more that you say about it. It just simply should not require paragraphs to explain. I think a limit of 1 or 2 adjectives should also be imposed.
Most importantly, does your answer contain an internal replication "code" that will indeed lead directly to the next, and consequent "fundamental" ideas? Does everything in the Universe contain the property of "bulk scalar potential"? Shouldn't the starting point's defining property be an intrinsic part of EVERYTHING?
Reduction in the periodic table leads to the Hydrogen atom, but Hydrogen is not "in everything", so even that reduction is not simple enough. The 2 items that make up this atom are vibrations, and named "electron" and "proton", and have different charge and mass. That is 5 more concepts; not far enough still. And on down we go...
I strongly feel that this FIRST concept needs to be more Philosophical than Scientific. Your answer begs too many questions: How does the bulk scalar have INFINITE potential direction? What shape does it have in order to have that? How did it get that shape? Is that shape more fundamental than others? What "shape" will this "direction" be? Is it the same shape as the "fundamental shape"? If not, how did this second shape get there? Is there a Quantity associated with the fundamental shape?
I said that we could look at direction as a duality, but I also said that duality needs reflection in order to exist. What I mean here is either the observer or the object must MOVE through "time" and space in order for the dualism to be perceived, or a "mirror" held up. Until that happens, the object is One. ("The unexamined life is not worth living")
In order to have "infinite potential direction" ( 3 concepts), you need Quantity (infinity), Duality (Potential and Manifestation), One point, with the option of a Second point to "connect" to, and Space to do it all in. Not to mention Scalar, Bulk, etc., etc.
I would appreciate some argument for why Quantity should NOT be our starting point. I realize that this may be simpler than most people would think was necessary, but let us adhere tenaciously to logic throughout this endeavor.
T.Roc
MANY times, you have posted in threads, telling people that SIMPLICITY was in order, and an integral part of science. Occam's razor stuff. The more simple the explanation, the deeper the understanding. (just not too simple)
Now I ask you to think more along those lines; I am actually becoming less convinced of your "starting point" the more that you say about it. It just simply should not require paragraphs to explain. I think a limit of 1 or 2 adjectives should also be imposed.
Most importantly, does your answer contain an internal replication "code" that will indeed lead directly to the next, and consequent "fundamental" ideas? Does everything in the Universe contain the property of "bulk scalar potential"? Shouldn't the starting point's defining property be an intrinsic part of EVERYTHING?
Reduction in the periodic table leads to the Hydrogen atom, but Hydrogen is not "in everything", so even that reduction is not simple enough. The 2 items that make up this atom are vibrations, and named "electron" and "proton", and have different charge and mass. That is 5 more concepts; not far enough still. And on down we go...
I strongly feel that this FIRST concept needs to be more Philosophical than Scientific. Your answer begs too many questions: How does the bulk scalar have INFINITE potential direction? What shape does it have in order to have that? How did it get that shape? Is that shape more fundamental than others? What "shape" will this "direction" be? Is it the same shape as the "fundamental shape"? If not, how did this second shape get there? Is there a Quantity associated with the fundamental shape?
I said that we could look at direction as a duality, but I also said that duality needs reflection in order to exist. What I mean here is either the observer or the object must MOVE through "time" and space in order for the dualism to be perceived, or a "mirror" held up. Until that happens, the object is One. ("The unexamined life is not worth living")
In order to have "infinite potential direction" ( 3 concepts), you need Quantity (infinity), Duality (Potential and Manifestation), One point, with the option of a Second point to "connect" to, and Space to do it all in. Not to mention Scalar, Bulk, etc., etc.
I would appreciate some argument for why Quantity should NOT be our starting point. I realize that this may be simpler than most people would think was necessary, but let us adhere tenaciously to logic throughout this endeavor.
T.Roc
QUOTE (gadfly+Oct 6 2005, 10:13 PM)
RealityCheck
... Are you seriously suggesting that such an cumbersome, metaphor mixing phrase as “’BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL” is as elegant or useful as any of the one word terms within the above quote? ...
to wit, persistence,,, which naturally begs the question, "from whence". Yet, as we have little else in evidence of the bigger picture, perhaps it is sufficient for our purposes to begin with the puzzle pieces we have at hand~
~enjoyed the links, thank you
... Are you seriously suggesting that such an cumbersome, metaphor mixing phrase as “’BULK’ OR ‘SCALAR’ OMNI-DIRECTIONAL POTENTIAL” is as elegant or useful as any of the one word terms within the above quote? ...
to wit, persistence,,, which naturally begs the question, "from whence". Yet, as we have little else in evidence of the bigger picture, perhaps it is sufficient for our purposes to begin with the puzzle pieces we have at hand~
~enjoyed the links, thank you
Reality Check,
I know that the number of universes (subsets of a complex whole) is something that I am stuck on. That is for good reason. I can't see how quantum fields can be involved in the structure of our universe unless there was an event that involved them. That event was probably the inception. After giving it some thought I realized that I couldn't be right in my referring to the field's fluxing being the reason for the impetus that would have brought the universe forth. That would have meant the action of an external force would have been necessary to push the field past its ordinary flux limits in order to reach the threshold necessary to fold space. Yes, I still see the universe as folded space. If such an addition of energy wasn't necessary then there would be new universes popping up randomly or new matter being created all the time. That has already been disproven.
I see how your model can be true. It is true if it is a one shot thing. It is true if it conforms, at least loosely to the analogy of pressure, even pressure everywhere at the beginning. Somewhere there is a slipup in the uniformity, a slipup that according to our thread is directly due to that very same uniformity.
Geometrically the shape we are looking for is the elliptical ring. It is the same shape as that which a rotating singularity takes. Magnetic fields are very similar in shape. Perhaps most importantly the elliptical ring, according to the proof that solved Fermat's last theorm, is a modular form. It would have to be a modular form in order for it to be repeated in the creative instability that would follow the origin. Repeated until the 'pressure' that still existed but was now below an initial startup pressure could equalize (run to zero and thence to no more creation).
I know that the number of universes (subsets of a complex whole) is something that I am stuck on. That is for good reason. I can't see how quantum fields can be involved in the structure of our universe unless there was an event that involved them. That event was probably the inception. After giving it some thought I realized that I couldn't be right in my referring to the field's fluxing being the reason for the impetus that would have brought the universe forth. That would have meant the action of an external force would have been necessary to push the field past its ordinary flux limits in order to reach the threshold necessary to fold space. Yes, I still see the universe as folded space. If such an addition of energy wasn't necessary then there would be new universes popping up randomly or new matter being created all the time. That has already been disproven.
I see how your model can be true. It is true if it is a one shot thing. It is true if it conforms, at least loosely to the analogy of pressure, even pressure everywhere at the beginning. Somewhere there is a slipup in the uniformity, a slipup that according to our thread is directly due to that very same uniformity.
Geometrically the shape we are looking for is the elliptical ring. It is the same shape as that which a rotating singularity takes. Magnetic fields are very similar in shape. Perhaps most importantly the elliptical ring, according to the proof that solved Fermat's last theorm, is a modular form. It would have to be a modular form in order for it to be repeated in the creative instability that would follow the origin. Repeated until the 'pressure' that still existed but was now below an initial startup pressure could equalize (run to zero and thence to no more creation).
QUOTE (Evil Genius+Oct 8 2005, 06:15 PM)
..It would have to be a modular form in order for it to be repeated in the creative instability that would follow the origin...
Realitycheck
here may be a possible explanation on the world at large and small through dimensional analysis and integration. Its a very fairly long webpage but im sure it'll help with the foundations of TOE. It also introduces the fine structure constant as being related to electromagnetic transverse and standing wave relationships with each other.
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp
Ive spent some of my time following and understanding this documentary and every physics equation makes more sense to me now! It also shows relationships between equations:
eg
P=VI (electromagnetic) is the same as P=Fv (mechanical).
If you are interested in understanding this further and are confused dont hesitate to ask me!
here may be a possible explanation on the world at large and small through dimensional analysis and integration. Its a very fairly long webpage but im sure it'll help with the foundations of TOE. It also introduces the fine structure constant as being related to electromagnetic transverse and standing wave relationships with each other.
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp
Ive spent some of my time following and understanding this documentary and every physics equation makes more sense to me now! It also shows relationships between equations:
eg
P=VI (electromagnetic) is the same as P=Fv (mechanical).
If you are interested in understanding this further and are confused dont hesitate to ask me!
That was me above... i forgot to sign in! lol
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 9 2005, 10:48 AM)
QUOTE (Evil Genius+Oct 8 2005, 06:15 PM)
..It would have to be a modular form in order for it to be repeated in the creative instability that would follow the origin...
Zephir
I think not like that.
Consider h2 molecule for imagination.
2xe-g: g core(within set) e is n (charge not mass)
2xn-g: g outer(within set) n is e (charge not mass)
2xp-g: g core(within set)
We can think now.
Nothing at absolute center of vicinity.
Nucleons circular motion as binary star.
e-g elliptical with related nucleons. (Dancing couple)(comet sun)
i think.
Zephir
I think not like that.
Consider h2 molecule for imagination.
2xe-g: g core(within set) e is n (charge not mass)
2xn-g: g outer(within set) n is e (charge not mass)
2xp-g: g core(within set)
We can think now.
Nothing at absolute center of vicinity.
Nucleons circular motion as binary star.
e-g elliptical with related nucleons. (Dancing couple)(comet sun)
i think.
Zapper, thanks for link to BlazerLab, found nuclear physics, the energy binding curve, first portion of curve that starts at single nucleon (left) and peaks at Iron (middle) is labeled "fusion" and from peak to (right) the heavier elements, "fission".
However, from single nucleon to He4 and then down to Lithium, it may be fusion, but from Lithium to Helium4, energy is given off, that would be "fission".
This location, He4-Li may well serve as a source of electrical power generation as would be the case for a constant binding energy running through three points on the"Z" curve (negative resistance in electrical engineering terms).
Thanks, rmuldavin
However, from single nucleon to He4 and then down to Lithium, it may be fusion, but from Lithium to Helium4, energy is given off, that would be "fission".
This location, He4-Li may well serve as a source of electrical power generation as would be the case for a constant binding energy running through three points on the"Z" curve (negative resistance in electrical engineering terms).
Thanks, rmuldavin
A multiverse doesn't work with my theory, plus, it seems silly.
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.