new theory...

[Harte]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Eutychus\")</div>

I'm not sure if this will further the discussion, but in my experience, gases repel the most shortly following a turkey dinner.[/b]

Eutychus,
While these gases may or may not repel, it has been established that they are repellant.
Harte

 

[systemoftheuniverse]

Re: new theory...

So your really saying that matter and anti matter combine to create quantum fluctuation. For the only way to eleminate energy is to combine it to to it's opposite. Combine positive and negative, and you get no effect. So all matter does come from nothing?

Here is a starting part. Perpendicular resistance creates all new energy. So all energy that isn't contained in an atom is the result of perpendicular resistance? Then this energy radiates out at the speed of light? After all the speed of light is the limit of the universe,.. going faster then that is impossiable. For when you stop in space, time space stops and time takes over. When you reach the speed of light, time stops and space takes over.

So how can light travel at the speed of light if it has weight?

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: new theory...

No, matter and anti matter when combine anhialate each other, they no longer exist. Wether this then adds to another pool of energy somewhere I do not know. Maybe this is the energy source for quantum fluctuation, or at least one of them...We live in an extremely complex and fluid environment where energy levels are constantly vying for a balance...

Quantum fluctuation is the theoretical, spontaneous appearance of particles in Space (not necessarily outer space in the traditional sense). These usually only last for tiny amounts of time before 'disappearing' again, supposedly reacting to another particle either in the same space or with itself through time.. (I think, please correct any misunderstandings anybody)

The definitions of matter, as I understand them are

1) Solid
2) Fluid
3) Gas
4) Plasma.

Plasma is the only area I can find a reference to this perpendicular resistance, could you elaborate on it a bit ?

Light travels at the speed of light, when it is slowed it has the potential for more energy, this also implies a mass as it sticks to E=Mc2. Obviously there is a point of weight that can travel at the speed of light and is present in light ? Though this matter may be the smallest available, the fact that it can travel at the speed of light doesn't therfore mean we can, we are made up of a collection of lot larger matter than an individual photon.

Read some on Ronald Mallet this seems relevant here also... He is devising an actual time machine and has some credibility with him also, for now.

 

[Harte]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

No, matter and anti matter when combine anhialate each other, they no longer exist. Wether this then adds to another pool of energy somewhere I do not know. Maybe this is the energy source for quantum fluctuation, or at least one of them...We live in an extremely complex and fluid environment where energy levels are constantly vying for a balance...
[/b]

Energy is not required for quantum fluctuation. As you said, matter plus antimatter equals nothing. Quantum fluctuation is this equation in reverse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Quantum fluctuation is the theoretical, spontaneous appearance of particles in Space (not necessarily outer space in the traditional sense). These usually only last for tiny amounts of time before 'disappearing' again, supposedly reacting to another particle either in the same space or with itself through time.. (I think, please correct any misunderstandings anybody)
[/b]

Six, the disappearing you refer to is the annihilation you mentioned earlier, although there are some changes these particles (and their antiparticles) can go through before they are snuffed out of existence.

I must say here that I am surprised and gladdened to see that you are indeed well versed in quantum theory, assuming you don't do it for a living, that is. There is (or was, at least) an idea floating around out there that antiparticles could be thought of as just time-reversed particles. In other words, there could be only one electron in the universe. It just goes back and forth through time as an electron, then positron, then electron again, etc. until it has filled every niche that calls for an electron (or positron) through the entire span of time itself. An odd but elegant idea, no doubt not true, but it is a fact that particles and antiparticles can be considered the same, just time-reversed from each other. Excellent point TN6, but probably lost on SOU.

Harte

 

[systemoftheuniverse]

Re: new theory...

Don't you find it funny that light takes off with no transfer of momentum, but you expect it to slow down from momentum. Photons vibrate so fast that they escape the matter holding them at the speed of light? Yet the last vibration they exert to escape has no equal and opposite reaction for momentum.

the only way to do some real deep space travel is by repelling energies, not propulsion. Unless you think we could go to the edge of the universe where all the antimatter collects, and capture it.

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>

Don't you find it funny that light takes off with no transfer of momentum, but you expect it to slow down from momentum. Photons vibrate so fast that they escape the matter holding them at the speed of light? Yet the last vibration they exert to escape has no equal and opposite reaction for momentum.

the only way to do some real deep space travel is by repelling energies, not propulsion. Unless you think we could go to the edge of the universe where all the antimatter collects, and capture it.[/b]

SoU, you have some real thought going there. Light doesn't necessarily have to 'escape' its' source, think of the masses of energy in the sun and other stars. I have to say that light is energy and wavelike and only appears as a 'solid' photon when we 'interfere' with it.

Read up on holographic universe theory, if you get bogged down with that try some General Relativity, I think you might appreciate it.

You're thinking too 'physical world' on this in that light must act by Neutonian Laws, it does not obey much nowadays..

Not sure about there being loads of anti-matter outside of the universe, maybe there is, once we reach the edge of space/time maybe that is what is out there and our universe is an anomolous bubble in this sea.

Personally I like to think there is nothing there, literally, no time or space. You would either disappear from existence, or pop up somewhere in the Universe where the energy you just removed from it is most needed or naturally drawn toward, like in an electric circuit (analogous). The centre of a star maybe !


Harte,

n1, has been a bit of a hobby of mine for quite a few years now, I like to know how things work. Hey if you know of any jobs where they will pay me to post this kind of stuff, be sure to let me know

Is a nice theory, is simplistic and would be so right. Would make time somewhat more of an important influence. Our universe could after all be just another atom in another Universe somewhere, and so on... Put's a whole new slant on splitting the atom though....

Six.

 

[Harte]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Personally I like to think there is nothing there, literally, no time or space. You would either disappear from existence, or pop up somewhere in the Universe where the energy you just removed from it is most needed or naturally drawn toward, like in an electric circuit (analogous). The centre of a star maybe ![/b]

Six,
Unless I'm mistaken, current cosmological theory holds that there is no "edge of the universe" as SOU puts it. While it is theoretically possible to attempt to reach the edge of the "known universe", we must remember that the universe has been expanding for around 10 to 15 billion years. If you were to travel at a speed extremely close to the speed of light, you could reach the edge of the known universe rather quickly (as time is measured by your watch) but it would take billions of years measured by the clocks on Earth. All that time the universe would be continuing to expand. It's an interesting problem to try to discover what would happen if you could reach the edge of this expansion, but it is most likely that, although the edge no doubt exists in some higher dimension, this edge has no reality in our 4-d perception. This is because it is space itself which is expanding. There exists nothing beyond that space is expanding "into". I am certain you were aware of this last fact, but many people here and elsewhere are not. I have a sister who works as an engineer at NASA, yet even she refuses to believe this!

If the universe is "spherical" (closed), you would eventually find yourself back where you started. If the universe is "hyperbolic" (open), you would never be able to reach anything like what we would think of as an "edge." I must say here that these types of curves I mention are not what you may think. They are nonlocal spacetime curvatures and hence would only be perceptable by observers in some higher dimension. Similar to the way that Charlie Brown cannot be aware that the paper he exists on has been folded.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

n1, has been a bit of a hobby of mine for quite a few years now, I like to know how things work. Hey if you know of any jobs where they will pay me to post this kind of stuff, be sure to let me know [/b]

I also have found that having at least some understanding of the nature of reality is strangely non-profitable. I first began to learn of QM when I decided one day to find out what electricity is. I'd had several courses in college about how to do this or that with circuits, how to measure or predict voltages, currents, etc. but never any decent explanation of how electricity yields power to, for example, the very calculator I was using to perform the requisite calculations. Imagine my surprise when I found that the reason for this lack of information was because, at its most basic level, nobody really knows.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

Is a nice theory, is simplistic and would be so right. Would make time somewhat more of an important influence. Our universe could after all be just another atom in another Universe somewhere, and so on... Put's a whole new slant on splitting the atom though....

Six. [/b]

I know you've read some of Dmitri's posts here on the creation of life. The idea of quantum particles traveling in time is basic to what he believes, in short that some future civilization is causing the necessary changes (on the quantum level) that happened here for life to begin, and subsequently for new species to form. This would be all well and good to me, but he allows this future race to be creating their own predecessors (us), which is of course a flagrant violation of causality, a principle for which he apparently cares very little. Hope he doesn't read in this topic, don't want to give him any freebies.

Harte

 

[Dmitri]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

don't want to give him any freebies.[/b]

I am OK, Harte,

I am not a physicist anyway. My concern will be to test ID in its most general sense. I treat all specifics as hypothetical only and do not hold them dear. Thanks for your insights.

~Dmitri

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

Six,
Unless I'm mistaken, current cosmological theory holds that there is no \"edge of the universe\" as SOU puts it. While it is theoretically possible to attempt to reach the edge of the \"known universe\", we must remember that the universe has been expanding for around 10 to 15 billion years. If you were to travel at a speed extremely close to the speed of light, you could reach the edge of the known universe rather quickly (as time is measured by your watch) but it would take billions of years measured by the clocks on Earth. All that time the universe would be continuing to expand. It's an interesting problem to try to discover what would happen if you could reach the edge of this expansion, but it is most likely that, although the edge no doubt exists in some higher dimension, this edge has no reality in our 4-d perception. This is because it is space itself which is expanding. There exists nothing beyond that space is expanding \"into\". I am certain you were aware of this last fact, but many people here and elsewhere are not. I have a sister who works as an engineer at NASA, yet even she refuses to believe this!

If the universe is \"spherical\" (closed), you would eventually find yourself back where you started. If the universe is \"hyperbolic\" (open), you would never be able to reach anything like what we would think of as an \"edge.\" I must say here that these types of curves I mention are not what you may think. They are nonlocal spacetime curvatures and hence would only be perceptable by observers in some higher dimension. Similar to the way that Charlie Brown cannot be aware that the paper he exists on has been folded.[/b]

I have to agree on that one, I'd like to think that the Universe, as we know it, is closed. As for the shape, is anybodys guess. I think the most popular theories involve a doughnut shape, or was the 3D Simpsons episode I'm thinking of


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

I also have found that having at least some understanding of the nature of reality is strangely non-profitable. I first began to learn of QM when I decided one day to find out what electricity is. I'd had several courses in college about how to do this or that with circuits, how to measure or predict voltages, currents, etc. but never any decent explanation of how electricity yields power to, for example, the very calculator I was using to perform the requisite calculations. Imagine my surprise when I found that the reason for this lack of information was because, at its most basic level, nobody really knows.[/b]

Quite, Is a bit disappointing and after a while exciting when you find you're at the edge of known science and the answers are either all theoretical or you have to come up with something yourself. I guess this is why I have more time for religion as faith is starting to become relevant in modern Physics to some extent. That and the Ultimate Being may after all be our Universe...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>

I know you've read some of Dmitri's posts here on the creation of life. The idea of quantum particles traveling in time is basic to what he believes, in short that some future civilization is causing the necessary changes (on the quantum level) that happened here for life to begin, and subsequently for new species to form. This would be all well and good to me, but he allows this future race to be creating their own predecessors (us), which is of course a flagrant violation of causality, a principle for which he apparently cares very little. Hope he doesn't read in this topic, don't want to give him any freebies.

Harte[/b]

heheh, there is some credence of the idea of effect preceding cause, how much of this is to answer akward questions I don't know, probably a lot or it's just a thought experiment.

Is amazing how many people resort to the unknown intelligent influence to answer difficult questions. Why is it so hard to believe that the system we live in works because it does. Some of the astonishing things that actually physically happen are mind blowing enough to heap a lot of respect onto the Universe we live in and the Planet we live on...

SoU, is early and am probably being slow, but what do you mean by ID ?

 

[Harte]

Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

SoU, is early and am probably being slow, but what do you mean by ID ?[/b]

Six,
If you're referring to Dmitri's post above, ID means Intelligent Design.
Harte