To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The 12th dimension
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Dr. Brettmann
Superstring theory admits 11 dimensions manifolds prior the the bigbang. 7 of them folded on themselves and everyone knows that only 4 are still visible. Yet, to explain the decay of mu-mesons during the collaspe of black holes, actual theories predict that the magnetic momemtum of these particules is going to change depending on the referential chosen. So, it is clear that we have a contradiction! blink.gif

Here is what I propose to the scientific community : God only could resolve these contradictions if we place Him as the 12th dimension of our Universe. More precisely, we must place him between the 7th and the 8th dimension biggrin.gif . This way, the core manifold of the black holes (such as the one centered in NGC0891) will allow the high energy collapsing of the gradient electroweak magnetic field.

Here is the geometrical intuition that leads to my theory:
User posted image

Discuss!
tongue.gif
professor andy
are you a real doctor? (coss im not a real professor! heh)
yquantum
Wecome and hi DB,

QUOTE
God only could resolve these contradictions if we place Him as the 12th dimension of our Universe. More precisely, we must place him between the 7th and the 8th dimension [biggrin.gif]  . This way, the core manifold of the black holes (such as the one centered in NGC0891) will allow the high energy collapsing of the gradient electroweak magnetic field.


Not to be un-Professional, I welcome you and with respect, have a question?

What you have postulated first is only theory yet to be proven. Your geometrical intuition reminds me of the Mandelbrot set.

Hard to discuss a theory, when you need to define your intuition without facts, we are limited by this post, unless you can copy and paste.
You know mathematics is very necessary here, and not dodging the mu-mesons in question we will get to that soon enough.

Before you posted you knew this was audacious, but that is what a Forum is all about. So DB, this complex manifold, before I get into this discussion with you and I may not because you bring in the word -GOD-, manifolds can be glued together from a number of coordinate patches, where each patch is now an open region of the coordinate space C^n or n-tuples (z^1, z^2,.....,Z^n) you know this to be complex numbers.

DB, will we work from transition functions that express the coordinate transformations, to end up with holomorphic functions or p-forms, tensors, etc., (real n-manifold) & (complex structure)?

We can even talk about Higgs meson in breaking the symmetry if you like. But where I am completely lost is how in the ____, do you put an 'Omnipresent Entity', in the 12 dimension. I am not even sure where you are coming from. Please explain, one is theory, and the other will never be proven, help me here.

Best regards,
y unsure.gif
bada
this is very interesting indeed.. hmm.. but have you got any tangible proofs or evidence that support your theory?
yquantum
Hi bada,

unsure.gif Waiting on the DR.B, I am not much of a diplomat but my problem besides putting up with myself, is that one will be proven one day but I believe with the research being done in M-theroy, Super Strings or Loop (but there are some issues that need to be dealt with in that discipline) if you keep up with it, which would be great.

And the other is if, (GOD is present everywhere simultaneously), how would one isolate the entity in just one dimension.

I do not mean to sound esoteric but the ontology frightens me, and the epistemology is way beyond me when it comes to GOD! Well, that goes for about anything with me, come to think about it. Eh!

Best regards,
y
smile.gif
Steve
YQ: DrB is not applying dimensional projection in a correct fashion. You mostly hit the nail on the head with your question about "how would one isolate it".

Note that I'm not challenging his intuition or "gut hunch" - but the words in his description of that gut hunch form complete nonsense. Hopefully the drivel that follows will give him a tool he can use to phrase it in a better way, that more accurately represents his thought.

Given his 12-space, and that we directly perceive 3 - let's keep it simple and use things that are familiar to us. Let's pick 2 of these dimensions that we can trivially perceive, X and Y - and let's use his, G, to form our 3space. While we cannot perceive this as a 3-space, we certainly know how it'll behave in regards to our XY plane.

By definition, G is as orthogonal to the rest as X or Y is. It must be; he said it is a "dimension". (Like I said - if "dimension" isn't what he means, then he wants to use a more appropriate term.)

G being orthogonal means that anything displaced along it has no implied displacement along any other. In effect, if you draw a 50-mile line anywhere in the direction of G such that it intersects our XY - the resulting volume in XY will be a cartesian singularity. Extend your line along G to infinite length - nothing changes, both X and Y still perceive a singularity where the line along G intersects.

Right off the bat, YQ, your intuition about "isolate if present everywhere" is shown true. Extending our game to a 4-space model (where XYZ is perceived, and G is no longer in the observer's perception) yields the exact same result - our "line" along G is still perceived as a cartesian singularity. By its very definition, an object existing exclusively in this 12th dimension will have minimum volume (either 0, or perhaps you could argue a Planck length or identity) in (N sans G) space. Note well that its region of influence in (N sans G) space should be limited to the domain of that singularity.

Additional critique -

There's also no such thing as inserting something "between" dimensions. There are none "higher", there are none "lower". They have no stacking order smile.gif
QUOTE
and everyone knows that only 4 are still visible
There are 3 that are visible to us. The others are still very much here, and would be "visible" if we had different "eyeballs". Also, this "4th" that is referred to is the composite of the rest that we do not perceive (or in parlance, are not visible).

Like I said, it's not sensible as stated. And like I said - I'm not challenging his intuition, so hopefully he won't be angry or defensive - but the words that were posted are somewhat silly. I do hope he comes back and posts a better description - use analogies (and fully qualify them) when words fail, whatever - but if he cannot communicate his (somewhat important, if it turns out to be true) idea, it'll be lost.
yquantum
smile.gif Hi Steve,

We will just have to wait. The 'GOD' factor, that makes me nervous, I must admit.

Very good point Steve, and you must be very thick skinned, to be a scientist or to post on an open Forum, and I am sure he is.

Best regards,
y
Good Elf
Hi All,

Dr. Brettmann Posted on Apr 19 2005, 07:15 PM
QUOTE
Here is the geometrical intuition that leads to my theory... discuss

He he he...It is quite clear this is a "low" resolution picture of "God". ohmy.gif As you all know you just need to zoom in a few dozen more times and you would find "Him" in one of those gaps in the Mandelbrot Set as Yquantum has quite rightly pointed out. There he would be smiling back at you all as the "God of the Gaps".

It is difficult for "God" to be found nowadays since the gaps are getting fewer and narrower and the ability to resolve such "small" detail in the Universe is rapidly improving. Yet he is very adaptive and will continue to be able to elude humankind really getting a positive fix on him for quite some time.

It is quite a "magnanimous gesture" that the good Doctor has proposed for the placement of "God" into his very own dimension. After all it is ours to do with as we please since we created them for our convenience anyway for the use of String Theory.

Tucked away cosy there we can be assured that he can watch the "Telly" all day long without being intruded upon by the likes of humankind. Consider how resourceful we are as a species to so completely relegate the "Creator" to such a "small picture". The Churches down here have everything well in hand and can work out the "big picture" quite adequately without his worrying his poor little o'le head. He is getting on in years now you realize.

At least with all those "Madonna and Child" pictures Jesus at least gets a "minor" part to play in Mary's Greatness and I have seen a couple of really goodies such as an excellent attempt at his likeness on the back wall of the Sistine Chapel (The Last Judgement) where they recently chose his new spokesperson here on Earth. I will include that picture so you can remember him in one of his more "memorable" roles as destroyer of the Universe and the damming of all the souls, not a smiling face among all those depicted (it is said the Saint whose facial skin has been removed and hangs from his hand to the lower right of God, is a depiction of Michaelangelo himself (skin) who saw no joy in his own immanent demise).... I am sure a quite accurate depiction..
user posted image
Hmm... on second thoughts that might be Jesus in the center... God appears to be that lower "torso" in the very top of the picture. I bet he is not too happy how this picture turned out either. I'll bet "He" had better pictures taken of him on holidays than this. The poor old fella is just not cutting it with PR anymore.

So that will be the last of this matter until another spokesperson needs to be chosen. This one sound like an excellent choice with the "credentials" he holds ... what scholarship... we will not need to hear from the "real" God for quite some time thankfully... tell him everything is "fine" down here. Our key role in the "Last Judgment" is going according to plan and phase two has already begun. wink.gif

Cheers
currie
In no way do I mean any offense by this, it was just something humourous I heard on the radio today befitting of this scrupulous discussion.

(talking to a catholic priest)
Guy - So you're telling me that no matter how many bad things I do, as long as I sincerely confess my sins I'll still go to heaven?
Priest - Well yes, but...
Guy - Thanks! Hey Jim, I think I discovered a loophole to this whole heaven and hell business.

Okay so it really doesn't have all that much to do with this but I had to share it.
JavaTool
I think he was joking, fellas. The picture is just a magnified fractal - don't know what set it is (doesn't look like a Mandelbrot), but maybe it would make better sense to put God in the area with the greatest rate of bifurcation (or least, whatever your viewpoint is).
Guest
JavaTool,

I am sure you are right! The subject of 'Deity', is way over my head.

Best regards,
y blink.gif
Lesser Deity
Hi All,

I am appalled by the lack of reverence for us "Gods" around here. You should really pick your act up and get down to the job of worshipping immediately. You are all on report and you will all find it terribly difficult to get a reference from me in the afterlife no matter what your denomination. dry.gif

I know a lot of very inportant people that can make things very bad for you all so cut it out! That elf is toast!

Signed You Know Who! mad.gif
Lesser Deity
PS: I haven't forgotten you either "Herr Doktor"! ph34r.gif
Laidback
QUOTE (Dr. Brettmann+Apr 19 2005, 07:15 PM)
Superstring theory admits 11 dimensions manifolds prior the the bigbang. 7 of them folded on themselves and everyone knows that only 4 are still visible. Yet, to explain the decay of mu-mesons during the collaspe of black holes, actual theories predict that the magnetic momemtum of these particules is going to change depending on the referential chosen. So, it is clear that we have a contradiction! blink.gif

Here is what I propose to the scientific community : God only could resolve these contradictions if we place Him as the 12th dimension of our Universe. More precisely, we must place him between the 7th and the 8th dimension biggrin.gif . This way, the core manifold of the black holes (such as the one centered in NGC0891) will allow the high energy collapsing of the gradient electroweak magnetic field.

Here is the geometrical intuition that leads to my theory:
User posted image

Discuss!
tongue.gif

Oh my dawg! are you for real Doc!? laugh.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif

I dunno about the regular guys here but my guess would be you have shamed your self Immeasurably, may I suggest you post religious tripe in the kiddie section of any other forum other than this one..

Errr~
Cheers!.

dahiteman
just a thought. god is light, right? "light of the world". god is infinite, right? time is relevent, right? if that Einstein guy is right,at the speed of light, a being or object would become infinite, right? if time is relevent, then creation of the universe could have taken place in what is now a second and still be recorded today in billions of years, especially considering the different levels of gravity, or just plain energy at the time of creation. yes creation as we know it was "the big bang". something had to be there before the big bang to create the big bang. the bible says that scientist will become more confused as they learn more. that's a paraphrase. im not sure of the exact wording. study it if you want to know what it says exactly. that is exactly what is happening unsure.gif (confused scientists). if science would accept a god creator and add that to the equation maybe they would understand a little more. we are not meant to know all. i am not an incredibly intelligent person but i like thinking like one. its all so fascinating. I came to believe in Christ at the age of 23, after doing a lot of studying of science. now that i have seen it from another angle, it has become more interesting. i would love to here a response from an open mind. no haters, please.
solidspin
Dr. Brettmann:

your assertion is pretty non-sequitur...

...actual theories predict that the magnetic momemtum of these particules is going to change depending on the referential chosen. So, it is clear that we have a contradiction! blink.gif

Ummm, why are you proposing that we NEED a reference? You've made a huge leap in logic here. Lee Smolin's nice presentation of loop quantum theory discards the need for a reference, as his model is "graph-paper-free". This makes sense if you think of spacetime (as superstring theory has as its foundation) string bits. This model is also congruous w/ the Bekenstein area-volume relation as well as still working on the irreducible Planck scale.

It would be much easier if we could come up w/ a sound, "graph-paper-free" system, particularly if Einstein is right and spacetime is merely relational. Your assertion about G_d is pretty silly, in my humble opinion - and I'm not a PhD - yet (still 2 yrs to go). So please all due respect to you.

I personally lean toward superstring, provided loop quantum attributes are incorporated, and provided G_d is not...
yquantum
Hi solidspin,

I should not have put in my two cents at the sad.gif beginning of the thread. I do research in SS, Loop, M-t, and SUSY but not sure you could find the answer in these theories.

I do not understand the dynamics of [G_D] <--(you using this, reminds me of the University of Jerusalem and some friends) but WELCOME to the Forum.

I believe the Dr. has reconsidered his theory & what ever field you are striving for we both know that we cannot ascertain the meaning of G_D, mathematically and I do not think it is intuitive by nature or reason, so I believe he has come to the same conclusion! Eh!

Best regards,
y smile.gif
solidspin
hello, yQ:

My point exactly - since G_d cannot (by definition) be ascertained mathematically, It shouldn't be part of the argument - I think you're just more patient than I regarding the topic!

The "G_d" thing was a habit I picked up living here near NYC, since we had to use it so often to accommodate hasidim, orthodoxy, etc. when writing letters.

Being in the field, do you agree w/ Smolin's assertions? Since all 3 - including, I believe your fields, are congruous w/ the discretization of spacetime, research should move toward a "reference-free" model - what do you think?

I thoroughly enjoy the current literature/debates on M-theory, loop, etc., but my field is solid-state physics/chem. so I am admittedly just an eager dilettante.
solidspin
oh, and gracious thx for making me feel welcome! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
yquantum
Hi solidspin,

cool.gif If you are referring to Dr. Lee S. then there is a few questions with the theory I have, but it is because of the reputation of the man, it is worth consideration.

When you compare the universe to Darwinian evolution one must be very careful. This is a [can] of superposition's I am not sure I want to collapse, HA! So I will not go there right now.

Glad you are on board, there are some great gentlemen having fun here, and if, like me just great relaxation from the rigorous routines we must face.

There is a thread on S.Strings, if you want to check on it.

Welcome - and hang in there with the studies, the midnight oil is worth the price and I am not talking about fossil fuel, and then again I just might be if you are commuting! (maybe you will come up with an alliterative source of energy) hope so!

Best regards,
y
smile.gif
dahiteman
Hey all,


In my opinion, which is worthless, scientists have only supported the GOD theory in their lack of conclusive findings. As "scientists", this whole God think has been a thorn in your hind end hasn't it? What I don't understand is why students of science think that they can't be "religious" and scientists at the same time. You can study the very complicated methods of God's work that we will never understand and still be "religious". No matter what you find, it doesn't rule out God. I also find it funny and disturbing that your closed mind can't even type G.O.D.. If you want to be a scientist you have to have an open mind. Open to any possibilities. It is a fundamental to problem solving. You must consider all possible solutions. A genius once said, "If you haven't disproven them or proven yourself then you can't rule them out." (Me). Remember that. If you can't agree with that quote, you have a smart deficiency.

In Jesus,
Dahiteman
Guest_guest
first of all i will agree that the original poster, dr brettwhatever, was a little too jaunty in his:

blah blah blah- we humans are stupid, can only 'see' 4 dimensions - here is a simple theory- 12D - picture - god is here - blah blah blah -

(-now DISCUSS as i, the good dr, watch you 'inferior beings' struggle with my retarded idea-)

post

i agree he is over simplifying the state or habitat of the supreme being by saying it exists in the 12th dimensions

(who ever said the I AM exists in all the dimensions, i feel was on target)

at the same time....... i think the posters, especially the indignant and equally big headed yquantum, are too nervous and undeveloped spiritually, to really start the task at hand for our next stage of human existence.

integrating divinity with science.

because:

if we as a human race overdevelop technologically and under develop spiritually, we'll blow ourselves up. (when this happens, a little ignorant monkey will press the large red button, which would be akin to the reset button for the device called earth)

yes thats right, most people will die, and we'll start again.... and thats what happened at the end of the last great age of humankind. shall we learn from our mistakes?

so, i after all that, i think i want to say, the root of his question is one i have been pondering. could a large part of the supreme being be concentrated withing the 12 dimension? could that be the lair of all lairs which the greatest conscious being watches from.

is the 12 dimension the end of material completion? is that the stage at which spirit and matter have finalized in to whole and separate forms? a quote comes to mind; When you think everything has finished, that will only be the beginning...

i think a better way of saying it is the human consciousness can be presently aware of a max of 4 dimensions. we span 4. (avatars are rare examples of those who encompass more)

so could, perhaps, the ultimate span 12? being totally aware of 12 dimensions in the now, is a pretty, well, supreme task......

science and religion are both taken from the same perspective: what reality looks like from a human being's stand point, the both give you a beginning/alpha and end/omega, and where you happen to stand between those points.

the problem has been, up till now, partly because of the non-instantaneous methods of communication, the dogmatic stale atmosphere surrounding both- both sides not willing to give up past suppositions in the light of greater truth. (otherwise known as "old (mostly white) man syndrome")

our communication abilities as humans has increased 100 million times since the advent of the net, is it a surprise our society has yet to catch up?

"i cannot imagine the clock work of the universe, without a clock maker." -voltaire

which came first, consciousness or physical reality? a first born would say physical reality, a twice born would say consciousness.

also, the Ultimate could be described in a mathematical equation, not one we could understand, but one/(One) none the less. mathematics is the language of our universe. no doubt the Ultimate would be the ultimate equation, the one that results, after 4 point something billion years, in you and me, all the waves in the ocean and everything else in our 'now' 3d snapshot of the entirety of it all.

i just stumbled across this list in my net travels and your conversations are encouraging to me. i am glad to see all of you expressing your ideas so freely. i just hope that more positive energy can be infused within your banter. being negative and demeaning is wasting ones time. by bringing others down, you accompany them.

yours and mine,

the 'god'

hermes/mercury/thoth
haste
dahiteman

So if i choose to be atheist, not because I choose to be a scientist, but because I simply do not agree with any monothesim or polythesim or any religion, because I have taken my open mind and made a decision that none of them are right.
Does this prevent me from being a genius? Your post implies only religious men/women can truly be geniuses
dahiteman
Interpretations and implications often differ. I am not implying that one should be religious but that one should not rule out a posible solution without knowing the solution. Okay, try to follow me on this one. It's a huge leap off the topic to make a point. You may not like bird shit. You may not have seen a bird, but if you have a spot on your shoulder, don't rule out the possibility of it being bird shit. huh.gif
yquantum
ohmy.gif it is hot in here cool.gif

biggrin.gif Recent scientific research reveals that you guys, probably underestimate your own capabilities. You are gifted with virtually unlimited potential for learning and creativity.

Ninety-five percent of what we know about the capabilities of the human brain has been learned in the last twenty years.

Universities, are only beginning to apply this emerging understanding of human potential.

So where ever you are coming from, 'Enjoy the Ride.'

Ciao_
yquantum smile.gif
solidspin
yQ -


you score. I agree. I'm betting that, when viewed w/ human history as a context, we are at the bottom of an exponential curve that had a very long lead time from zero to like about 1791 yrs or so, w/ the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when pure science from the Age of Enlightenment was being put to practical use.

We should be introducing derivatives and integrals by 6th grade and teaching basic linear algebra techniques to kids right after they learn short division (like the 4th grade or so). Screw this nonsense. Time to step up to the plate and start rocking...

gleefully spinning solids biggrin.gif
WaterBreath
QUOTE (solidspin+May 19 2005, 09:27 AM)
We should be introducing derivatives and integrals by 6th grade and teaching basic linear algebra techniques to kids right after they learn short division (like the 4th grade or so).  Screw this nonsense.  Time to step up to the plate and start rocking...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I started algebra in 7th grade. And that was two years earlier than the average person in my public school system. I'm sure I could have handled it much earlier than that. Seems like we studied fractions in depth in 5th grade, and nothing else new really until algebra in seventh. Actually, now that I think about it, fractions might have made a lot more sense to some kids if they'd been introduced within the context of algebra. I can't tell you how many kids had trouble understanding why 2/4 and 1/2 are the same. Personally, I think it's the teaching.

But on the other hand, a lot of otherwise intelligent people seem to have awful trouble with the simple concept of representing an unknown value with a letter or symbol. So I don't think the general population would handle it as well as we'd like.
yquantum
smile.gif Hi WaterBreath & solidspin,

I know you can take mathematics at a very young age. Both of you, hit a home run as they say in America.

I respect your view on what the educational system should do & will, with our help. And I hope we bring up the curve in our life time for our children!

Proud to be on the site with you, very astute gentlemen!!!!!

Totally 'Awesome' Comments guys!

Best of respect and regards
Ciao_,
yquantum wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif smile.gif
WaterBreath
QUOTE
I know you can take mathematics at a very young age.

Agreed. But I think there is a limit to how quickly a given person can usefully assimilate new mathematical techniques. One nice thing about haveing a slowed-down math curriculum is that the child can become accustomed to thinking in terms of the math they've learned. It's easy (usually) for a 7th or 8th grader to just instinctively handle the arithmetic that algebra is built upon. But that instinct takes time to develop. If the kids are still working on getting that really integrated into their thought processes, algebra is going to be tough. And calculus unimagineable.

Some kids could handle it. I think that what solidspin outlined would have been aggressive for me though. I would have to have very good teachers. And unfortunately that's just not guaranteed. My algebra teacher in 9th grade was terrible. He single-handedly allowed me to forget much of what I had learned in 7th and 8th grade.

Anyway, I guess the essence of what I'm saying is that I think solidspin's plan could only be accomplished with really good teachers and ambitious students. Possibly having a parallel math track for interested kids could get the job done. But that would have the undesirable side-effect of putting at a disadvantage the kids who don't realize their appreciation for math until later. And also, there is a growing population of people (in the U.S. anyway) who are very apprehensive about doing anything that might cause one kid to feel inferior to another. I think having such an accelerated parallel track would cause one of two things:
1) The kids outside the track would feel stupid.
2) The kids outside the track, who would outnumber the kids within it, would mercilessly pick on them. I think it would make the "nerd stigma" many times worse than what it already is.

Personally, I think 2) is worse, and more likely. A concerted promotional effort might mitigate some of the teasing, but I question the support it would receive and the extent to which such promotion would be effective.

I'm not saying I think things are "okay" where they are. I just think any progress will continue to require gradual steps to be successful.
yquantum
biggrin.gif Hi WaterBreath,

This is the case, sometimes, and I am not disagreeing with you here, what to make that very clear.

But we underestimate our children, even ourselves if we are not careful. Like language, I know someone at the age 5, could speak fluidly seven, also age 6 higher mathematics, and the list goes on, some would say this was impressive, was he a genius, hard to say, acts dumb when in public! (that was a joke). WaterBreath!

And I disagree with my peers on this all the time so you could be right and I could be wrong would not be the first time or last, but in the right environment it is anyone's guess, the brain is remarkable I have studied it for many years as a side line on my own time, and I am still amazed at its potential.

Yes, and I do agree to a point, but we have yet educated the educational system, and if enlighten, and it is being done as I type this, we could see much better results, WaterBreath did you know when you are young you do not even have trouble with different dimensions, you can believe me on this one it is just 'Awesome.'

Your comment is well received, and I would just like to see the educational system pick up the pace in math, science and make our children believe all is possible, teacher 'BIAS', is a very large problem, as well as there approach. I know we both want it to improve.

Just a side project I am working on, and I am seeing great results thus far.

Thank you WaterBreath, and a very good point! Well, said sir!!

Ciao_
yquantum smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif
solidspin
Hey, WB -

I completely agree w/ the "good teachers" part, but I would bet one unit of your country's currency that I could teach any kid the 2nd fundamental theorem of calculus w/ a lego set! You're exactly right in the sense that you need good teachers.

I would argue that you need teachers who are so good, that they teach the kids something normally perceived as difficult (like the 2nd FToC) in a simple manner, not so much to convey the gorgeous subtleties of it, but merely to get across the idea of driving dx -> 0 (i.e. the midpoint theorem). They have to do it in a cool way, though. Like taking chocolate bars and lining them up for the midpoint theorem and microwaving them to achieve a differential volume - tasty, messy and educational!

I have written a whole series of these ideas (like even/odd functions, GR, 1st FToC, etc.) for like 6th graders (US) and have even tried them out, w/ like crazy pics, and enticing colors and stuff, so kids get psyched - and some of them have worked.

It's annoying but we can't have "math" teachers in elementary school who aren't at least thoroughly familiar w/ at least Calc III. the pay in the US sucks at these levels, but US math/science is so abysmal these days it's embarrassing. mad.gif
Guest_Quagmire
Alright guys--while straying from the topic, as odd as it is, you folks have wandered into a very interesting discussion, which I must admit I've read in it's entirity.

I must admit, I've had to M-W a number of the words used in this forum--gosh I don't know what it's like to have a large vocab. but I certainly wish I did. English was never my "thing".

Dahiteman -- I agree my friend w/ the general content of your comments. Science, without accounting for God, will only lead to more questions. Yes, as a Christian it is so much easier to say "God took care of it" or "I don't know but it's alright because I don't have to b/c I'm not God". When discussing theology w/ thiests/athiests/agnostics I find myself using these phrases often. However, obviously you and I are here, reading these topics and posting b/c we still find them interesting. I, myself, would like to understand the mechanics of this wonderful creation we live in, and if God so chooses to reveal the answers to our questions and curiousity then he will.

However, we have very little knowledge on God's "entity" in the res cogitans / res extensa sense (psychosomatic) sense. You and I, as Christians, believe the the word and consequently think God may partially exist as light (or any/all EM radiation) or in some form of. So we have a "God" constant, c? Hardly--all who have a decent teacher in EM theory are tought

c=1/√(µ.ε.) (using . to denote free space)

who even knows if the permeability/permitivity constants themselves are not in fact constants but actually comprised other factors that we have not even discovered?

All this to say, whether we believe/acknowledge/praise God or not, we have no way of mathematically including him into hypotheses; there isn't a God variable/tweak factor. Then again, God created math/logic or at least our ability to recognize it's presence so maybe all math is God. Who knows. And I apologize to any athiests/agnostics out there who may have been offended by those last couple of statements.

I had a lot more but deleted it as I could not finish my thoughts in the remaining time I have at this computer. Perhaps I will join the message board and post and update.


I do want to pose some questions for you physics folk (I'm an Electrical Engineer, interested but intimidated by the physics you guys work with).


I read somewhere that certain particles pop in and out of space -- are created and destroyed in an instant. That even in a vacuum that these particles can be created/destroyed (which kind of redefines the word vacuum I suppose).

Would/could these particles actually be a singularity in the since that they lie dorment in the singularity state but something causes their volume to change and consequently they breech the limit of a singularity, pop into existance and then are pulled back to their original near-zero volume? Perhaps volume changed by a certain amount of energy radiated?

I apologize if that idea isn't expressed clearly. Let me know what you think.

And to anyone who has read this post, I envy your patience :-)

I must also say I'm blown away by the amount of respect and curtesy shown. Astonishing.

-V/R



So a singularity--the idea of infinite density. A black hole is considered a singularity because light can not escape it, YET it's density, although accurately immeasurible, is finite.

yquantum
wink.gif Hi Quagmire,

Good question, but you intelligence shows, some things you cannot hide!

I believe you are asking about 'Virtual Particles', correct if not then I am typing at a typo speed for fun.

A (VP), is a logical construct that stems from the permissiveness of quantum physics. According to the rules in QM, particles can be created by borrowing the necessary energy. The duration of the loan is governed by the Heisenberg's law which states that the borrowed energy times the duration of the loan must be greater than Planck's constant divided by twice pi. The equation I cannot type on this Forum, but think of [delta(E)delta(t)] is greater than h/2pie (h=planck's constant). I am sure you understand because of your background. This means that the larger the amount of energy borrowed, the shorter the time the virtual particle can exist to enjoy it.

No wormholes, Black holes, etc., on (VP's), just good old QM.

Ciao_
yquantum smile.gif Hope this is the question, if not forgive!
WaterBreath
QUOTE
The equation I cannot type on this Forum

Sure you can! Watch:

ΔEΔt > ħ

( ħ = h/2π )


Check out these links to find out how I did it:
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/latin1.html
http://www.info.com.ph/~etan/w3pantheon/un...e/UCGdg205.html

The mathematical characters look better in Times font, with a bigger size. Otherwise the pi symbol looks more like a miniatiure intersection symbol from set theory.
solidspin
righteo yQ

Although the "popular" term used in the US (Sci. Am., and even an article in Time mag). is to call them "Planck Particles" - appropriately so, I guess.tongue.gif

But I thought the story went was that you have to have 2 planck particles 1 +h/2π and 1-h/2π appearing and annihilating simultaneously for proper thermodynamics/ QM rules to be maintained - correct me if I'm wrong...

S
solidspin
oh, and now that I just saw what WB put up, they have to be +,- hbar/2 - I'm 99.999% sure on this......

Ima gonna try the mathfont page that he just put up - thx WB biggrin.gif
Neutron
QUOTE (yquantum+May 19 2005, 08:32 PM)
The equation I cannot type on this Forum...
yquantum
laugh.gif Hi WaterBreath,

(I keep putting it off, going to make a call, now.) Fantastic my friend, procrastination is unforgivable, I should have made more of an effort on this!

Just, is this is my tea break, but my time is restricted, most days!

I have to see if it falls in the guide lines of protocol here. A fine line we must walk, but, 'THANKS' if I can, they work with me most of the time, how does it go?

'FREEDOM AT LAST'

Ciao_
yquantum cool.gif smile.gif cool.gif
yquantum
smile.gif Hi solidspin,

Next tea time, did not want to be rude!

Ciao_
yquantum smile.gif
WaterBreath
I have a few quick questions about these virtual particles. Should be easy for you guys "in the field".

Quantum theory says that if we examine a given space for a tiny, known amount of time, we can only know the amount of energy in that space to a particular degree of confidence...

Did someone look at quantum theory and say "hey, according to this, if we examine this space for this long, the uncertainy in energy is enough to allow a particle to be there," or something to that effect?

Or did we see evidence of turbulence at the Planck scale and then "discover" that quantum theory predicted these virtual particles?

Or am I totally misunderstanding why virtual particles "fit" with quantum theory in the first place?

I apologize if one of the given links already answers this. Haven't had the time to look at them closely.
yquantum
cool.gif Hi

Just a second, watch out for typo's.

I understand your point, being from different parts of the world terminology does carry different connotations. But mathematics rules. Eh!

I looked at the math, see if this clears it up for you. The strength of the (EM) force is determined by the -e. The force between two -e, however, depends on how fast they are moving. Each -e is surrounded by a sea of virtual -e & +e pairs that owe their existence to H.U.Principle. So solidspin, these particles appear out of nothing and disappear almost immediately after being created.

Here is the catch, it requires they recombine and annihilate in (t) to satisfy the uncertainty principle.

And that states that delat(E)delta(t) > h/2pie . This uncertainty relation means that during the interval an -e +e pair of total energy delta(E) can be created out of nothing; if the pair recombines and annihilates itself before the time delta(t) is up, no experiment that I know of as of today.

I rushed and that always causes me concern but I did get back! Let the computer on the site, but I had somethng come up! Back now! I do not have time to even read it hope I have it right?

Ciao_
yquantum

Thanks WaterBreath because of protocol, I would be setting a precedent and advise unwise. We do have very stringent guidelines here. So I agreed. It would have been a lot easier. Eh! But never say never. HA!
yquantum
Hi WaterBreath,

Posted and viewed your comment, check into Paul Diac, then Carl Anderson discovered what Daric formulated, before it was discovered, genius Eh!

Ciao_
y smile.gif
tshanal
this shanal from***** palace i just want complete imf about the 12th dimension in space as i have studied only 3 demisions clearly so i am interseted in 5,6,7,8,9,11th demisions and also its relation with origin of the universe. plz email me on tshanal2100@hotmail.com . i wil be great full to have much imf
Bodhidharma
I can see why the doc chose to stay out of this one. GD dmn guys! I was going to post a reply about how his theory doesn't make sense but I see 800 other people already beat me to it.

I can honesty say that I've found a group of people smarter than me, in fact the combined IQ of this forum would rival that of the senate, congress, current administration... and most of the red states for that matter. laugh.gif
deepesh
rolleyes.gif oh yeah.....12 dimension .....now i have become a man who saw god in reality ....yeah god really exist
nautilus
Wow. I followed about half of that, but it looks really interesting. So you're saying that these -e and +e particles aren't around at all and suddenly, "poof!" there they are, but they're gone before they can be measured? (Sry if it's already been covered, I don't know the equasion parts.)
madamimadam
Try reading "The Great Beyond" by Paul Halpern. This is a very good book on higher dimensions, parallel universes, and the extraordinary search for TOE. blink.gif

p.s. don't confuse JC with God.
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.