Continuing from another section ... where this doesn't belong ...
What do you mean by nothing, by travel, by fast, by light?
I will start with "what is a photon" ... or "what is light"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon ... neither wave nor particle, classically modeled incorrectly by EM theory. At lower energy the wave like aspect dominates ... at higher energy the particle aspect dominates. This is because our view of things is ... pragmatic, not "truth". Also a photon is more particle like in small scale situations, and more wave like in large scale situations. My grandfather'r radio transmitter was at 800 Kilocycles AM. The wavelength at that low frequency (low energy) is about 374 meters, his transmitting antenna had to be half that length (half dipole) or 187 meters or 560 feet tall. That is one big, diffuse particle!
The quantum vacuum isn't empty, so what do yo mean by nothing? Something imaginary?
By travel, there is both group velocity and phase velocity ... it is group velocity that is limited, that is the speed at which modulation can travel ... which isn't greater than C ... in whatever units you care to define that. Speed isn't the same as velocity. Fast is relative .. for sub C velocity, this is significant. But with light in a vacuum (in matter it is less fast hence index of refraction) comparisons don't mean what we think they mean, hence Special Theory of Relativity. Speed not being the same as velocity (because space-time connection) is further clarified in the General Theory of Relativity.
Travel is ... cause/effect propagation (aka group velocity) or is it timeless consequence (quantum entanglement)? Basically temporal and non-temporal logic in math terms. They are different, that is why quantum entanglement can't be used for faster-than-light signaling. All tests to prove any variability of C (speed) in vacuo has failed (this is the consequence of it being a dimensionless quantity ... in space-time). The velocity does change .. gravitational lensing etc. In fact we can choose our units of distance and time, such that C= 1.0.
Edit .. a half dipole antenna is 1/4 wave length, so an antenna 280 feet tall ;-)
I have a pretty stout bow.....
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:08:32 PM
I have a pretty stout bow.....
Zeno of Elea believes that your arrow can never move thru the air. This is what happens with logic is allowed to trump physics. That is one of his paradoxes, not just Achilles vs the Tortoise.
But i also have a special arrow. It simply stays put and the world revolves "around" it.
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
But i also have a special arrow. It simply stays put and the world revolves "around" it.
Republican or female or both? Or Catholic ... the Earth spins because the Pope stands still, and all those cardinals are necessary to make the Earth spin around him ;-)
the extra terrestrials travel in technology that moves faster than light, yes.
Nothing travels faster within the observable Universe than a photon in vacuum and the speed of it is precisely 299 792 458 metres per
second. Photons are capable of this because they have zero rest mass. However if they did not have it they would tend to infinite mass
as they approached c. Because the faster that an object travels relative to c then the more its mass increases. Now infinite mass would
be greater than all of the mass in the entire Universe. And so is impossible for any object to travel at c. But because photons have zero
rest mass they can travel through time at c but without experiencing it. Second reason why nothing travels faster within the observable
Universe than a photon in vacuum is because time would stop and start going backwards. This is physically impossible because it would
violate the law of cause and effect so that any effect would always come before its cause rather than after it. The Universe is expanding
faster than c but this is not a violation of Special Relativity. This only applies to objects within the Universe but not the Universe as such
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 05, 2017, 11:44:34 PM
the extra terrestrials travel in technology that moves faster than light, yes.
This can be proven through logic, since we know they wouldn't have gotten here otherwise.
The Millennium Falcon. She's the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy. She made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Large enough space between two points can expand faster than what a photon is able to travel, but is that "traveling"?
Quote from: Atheon on February 06, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
The Millennium Falcon. She's the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy. She made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
A parsec is a unit of distance not velocity. Making the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs wasn't so much a conformation of the Falcon's speed as Han's navigational skills.
The Kessel Run (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run)
Expansion of the universe itself from dark energy? No photon, traveling at lightspeed will ever catch up to the very edge of the universe (ignoring the concept of an "edge").
Quote from: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 02:21:14 AM
Expansion of the universe itself from dark energy? No photon, traveling at lightspeed will ever catch up to the very edge of the universe (ignoring the concept of an "edge").
Perhaps .. dark energy and dark matter are extrapolations ... not experimental confirmations. And it is still pretty mysterious, the expansion at all (from the Big Bang) since by odds, it should have collapsed into a black hole, very early. Having extra energy (like explosion) actually increases the gravity, it works against you.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 09:51:37 AM
Perhaps .. dark energy and dark matter are extrapolations ... not experimental confirmations. And it is still pretty mysterious, the expansion at all (from the Big Bang) since by odds, it should have collapsed into a black hole, very early. Having extra energy (like explosion) actually increases the gravity, it works against you.
Expansion does not increase gravity. Only mass causes gravity. Not to go too far, but gravity logically only stays constant in a single body of any size. With multiple masses, it gets real complicated. And I'll bet I know what comes next in the argument...
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 05:31:35 AM
Expansion does not increase gravity. Only mass causes gravity. Not to go too far, but gravity logically only stays constant in a single body of any size. With multiple masses, it gets real complicated. And I'll bet I know what comes next in the argument...
Misreading. Explosion takes energy, but energy is mass. We don't disagree. You prophetic abilities fail. I am not randomly typing.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:17:20 AM
Misreading. Explosion takes energy, but energy is mass. We don't disagree. You prophetic abilities fail. I am not randomly typing.
Energy is not mass. It can be converted to mass, but that is not the same. It takes dividing by the speed of light squared and I defy anyone to explain the logic of that.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:36:32 AM
Energy is not mass. It can be converted to mass, but that is not the same. It takes dividing by the speed of light squared and I defy anyone to explain the logic of that.
Defiance accepted ;-). Energy comes in several forms, mass being one of them. The C^2 part is because of human chosen units. If mass and energy are in the same units, then C=1 or C^@=1 aka E=M. So in a way, all forms of energy are equal, because in principle they can be converted to each other (minus entrooy) ... but they are all dissimilar ... because they are.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 12:38:07 PM
Defiance accepted ;-). Energy comes in several forms, mass being one of them. The C^2 part is because of human chosen units. If mass and energy are in the same units, then C=1 or C^@=1 aka E=M. So in a way, all forms of energy are equal, because in principle they can be converted to each other (minus entrooy) ... but they are all dissimilar ... because they are.
I love the "because they are" ending. I am reminded of a cartoon with a blackboard full of equations and there is a small statement "and then a miracle happens" , and another professor suggests they might need to work on that part.
All that I am suggesting, without proof, is that a new way of looking at the universe will emerge in the future that makes more logical sense and still satisfy physics.
My school was so hard ... how hard was it? ... that the exercises at the end of the chapter did the same thing ... "then a miracle happens" and we are expected to fill in the gap ;-))
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:36:32 AM
It takes dividing by the speed of light squared and I defy anyone to explain the logic of that.
Simple, mass is in kilograms, velocities are in meters per second, and units of energy are in joules, which are in units of kg*m
2/s
2, so multiplying the square of the speed of light by mass directly gives an energy measurement.
Using this, you can even backtrack and calculate how much mass was converted to energy in, for example, the Hiroshima bomb. It released about 63 teraJoules of energy, which is 6.3x10
13 kg*m
2/s
2. The speed of light is approximately 3x10
8 m/s (which is close enough to 2.99792458x10
8 and much easier to multiply). Squaring that gives 9x10
16 m
2/s
2, by which we can divide the energy figure above so the m
2/s
2 will cancel and leave only kg.
And it leaves 0.0007 kg, or
0.7 grams of mass completely converted into energy. That's all it takes to flatten a city.
trdsf ... a 100 likes for one post, if I only could! I wait and wait for people here to show more intelligence than people on Facebook ...
Quote from: trdsf on February 17, 2017, 02:03:00 PM
Simple, mass is in kilograms, velocities are in meters per second, and units of energy are in joules, which are in units of kg*m2/s2, so multiplying the square of the speed of light by mass directly gives an energy measurement.
Using this, you can even backtrack and calculate how much mass was converted to energy in, for example, the Hiroshima bomb. It released about 63 teraJoules of energy, which is 6.3x1013 kg*m2/s2. The speed of light is approximately 3x108 m/s (which is close enough to 2.99792458x108 and much easier to multiply). Squaring that gives 9x1016 m2/s2, by which we can divide the energy figure above so the m2/s2 will cancel and leave only kg.
And it leaves 0.0007 kg, or 0.7 grams of mass completely converted into energy. That's all it takes to flatten a city.
And then energy is converted to mass by dividing it by light squared. Love it, always have. But why does that happen?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:43:43 AM
And then energy is converted to mass by dividing it by light squared. Love it, always have. But why does that happen?
Divide and conquer ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 04:43:43 AM
And then energy is converted to mass by dividing it by light squared. Love it, always have. But why does that happen?
Because... well, because it
is proper to think of mass as frozen energy, in many ways, and of energy as liberated mass. Which kind of breaks down to 'because it can', or at least 'because there is no physical law preventing it under those circumstances'. And it goes both directions, which is why CERN is able to see massive short-lived particles like the Higgs by focusing enough energy in a minute space to allow one to form -- and why black holes leak Hawking radiation. We just are more familiar with the matter-to-energy side since that's what powers nuclear reactors and the sun.
If A=C*B ... then B=A/C provided that C is never zero.
Cavebear might not be a random typing bot, but an HP calculator he isn't either ;-)
There is a theoretical particle known as a tachyon. It is described as a faster than light particle, and as a result it has some very unusual properties.
The first is that it takes as much energy to slow a tachyon down to light speed as it does to speed a regular particle up to light speed.
The most unusual thing is its mass. It is measured in imaginary numbers, the square root of a negative. Its existence is postulated by solving Einstein's equation for faster than light instead of slower than light, and having to take the square root of a negative in order to do so.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 23, 2017, 08:01:27 PM
There is a theoretical particle known as a tachyon. It is described as a faster than light particle, and as a result it has some very unusual properties.
The first is that it takes as much energy to slow a tachyon down to light speed as it does to speed a regular particle up to light speed.
The most unusual thing is its mass. It is measured in imaginary numbers, the square root of a negative. Its existence is postulated by solving Einstein's equation for faster than light instead of slower than light, and having to take the square root of a negative in order to do so.
Yeah, as long as you don't mind dividing by
i, superluminal travel isn't a problem. And you make an excellent point: using complex space, Einstein's equations work perfectly well on the far side of
c. For objects with mass, they blow up at
c, however, since you end up dividing by zero.
"dividing by zero" ... no problem for government finance ;-(
Which is why I managed the telecommunications for 14,000 people and didn't manage physics at NASA. But I still don't like an equation that can turn energy into matter, I don't understand WHY lightspeed SQUARED has anything to do with it, and I grudgingly accept that light can be particles and waves and the same time. I accept that the universe can expand faster than lightspeed somehow (it what please don't ask), that there are quarks and massless objects, and dark matter and dark energy, etc
But please don't expect that it makes any sense to me. ;) Sometimes I feel like a Flatlander trying to understand 3 dimensions. I'm getting too old for this. I want to hang on to a rational 3D universe. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 11:57:12 AM
But please don't expect that it makes any sense to me. ;) Sometimes I feel like a Flatlander trying to understand 3 dimensions. I'm getting too old for this. I want to hang on to a rational 3D universe. LOL!
I often feel much the same way about string theory. I was only just starting to get my brain wrapped around QM, and boom, everything changed. :)
Quote from: trdsf on February 26, 2017, 06:11:29 PM
I often feel much the same way about string theory. I was only just starting to get my brain wrapped around QM, and boom, everything changed. :)
This happened around 1900, with the new atomic facts ... electron, X-ray, radioactivity, the proof of atoms, the atomic nucleus and relativity theory. That and Marconi's radio telegraphy. Exciting times. But based on actual experimental data. String theory has no experimental data, not already explained by Quantum Field Theory. It is not the fault of QFT that theoreticians are still unhappy with it.
I expect that "things" will snap back to reality one of these days. We were all twisted up (literally) about earth-centric planetary epicycles until they finally made no possible sense and WOW, someone changed our perspective to heliocentric and things made sense again. It is obvious now, but it wasn't then. Until it was.
We are overdue for a change in perspective.
Someday (I hope soon, but you never know), dark matter and dark energy will make sense, spacetime will be resolved in a 3d Universe, and we will all say "oh well, of course, how obvious", etc.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 09:36:12 AM
Someday (I hope soon, but you never know), dark matter and dark energy will make sense, spacetime will be resolved in a 3d Universe, and we will all say "oh well, of course, how obvious", etc.
That's kind of the thing about the real game changers in science: in retrospect, they often look obvious. Which is why it takes a real genius to spot them.
Quote from: trdsf on March 02, 2017, 11:30:07 AM
That's kind of the thing about the real game changers in science: in retrospect, they often look obvious. Which is why it takes a real genius to spot them.
And I hope for a real game-changer soon. Things are getting too unreal and it is time for a revolution to reality.
dont get to frustrated cavebear. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light is still a ridiculous and unproven hypothesis. It matters not that it was proposed by the likes of Einstein. well.... we are a long time away from even coming close to the speed of light. It's a moot point in our lifetime.
There is also the idea that if you move at the speed of light then time slows down for you. Sorry but if time slows down then you are not moving at the speed of light. There is a serious flaw in the equation somewhere. The most likely way to find the missing piece is to solve the equation for when you are moving at the speed of light and time is a constant.
Quote from: fencerider on April 11, 2017, 01:03:10 AM
dont get to frustrated cavebear. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light is still a ridiculous and unproven hypothesis. It matters not that it was proposed by the likes of Einstein. well.... we are a long time away from even coming close to the speed of light. It's a moot point in our lifetime.
There is also the idea that if you move at the speed of light then time slows down for you. Sorry but if time slows down then you are not moving at the speed of light. There is a serious flaw in the equation somewhere. The most likely way to find the missing piece is to solve the equation for when you are moving at the speed of light and time is a constant.
Platonists never believe that reality changes, depending on your POV. Or in this case, physical measurement of the same event by different observers.
Traveling at high speeds is so 1950s. It became obsolete with artificial worm holes. No waiting for a shuttle to the space station, no drinking cup after cup of coffee while waiting for the next departure, and no need for all the magazines to read on the way to another galaxy. I refuse to go by space ship anymore, even when I can find a direct flight with no stops. In my business at my salary, my time is too valuable. And the food they serve these days is an insult. They are hardly ever on time, and getting bumped because the flight is overbooked just wastes my time. I don't even consider it. I only travel by star gate. For local travel between cities, I use Amtrak.
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2017, 08:35:57 AM
Traveling at high speeds is so 1950s. It became obsolete with artificial worm holes. No waiting for a shuttle to the space station, no drinking cup after cup of coffee while waiting for the next departure, and no need for all the magazines to read on the way to another galaxy. I refuse to go by space ship anymore, even when I can find a direct flight with no stops. In my business at my salary, my time is too valuable. And the food they serve these days is an insult. They are hardly ever on time, and getting bumped because the flight is overbooked just wastes my time. I don't even consider it. I only travel by star gate. For local travel between cities, I use Amtrak.
When United runs space travel, it will really suck when the overbooked passengers are shoved into the air-lock ...
Quote from: fencerider on April 11, 2017, 01:03:10 AM
dont get to frustrated cavebear. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light is still a ridiculous and unproven hypothesis. It matters not that it was proposed by the likes of Einstein. well.... we are a long time away from even coming close to the speed of light. It's a moot point in our lifetime.
There is also the idea that if you move at the speed of light then time slows down for you. Sorry but if time slows down then you are not moving at the speed of light. There is a serious flaw in the equation somewhere. The most likely way to find the missing piece is to solve the equation for when you are moving at the speed of light and time is a constant.
That's about as complete a misunderstanding of special and general relativity as you could ask for.
Time slows down for you
as seen by an outside observer. You traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light will not actually feel time slow down -- a second is still a second, a minute is still a minute, an hour is still an hour. And you observing someone back on Earth will think
their time has slowed down, because all motion frames are relative, and you can treat your moving away from them as equivalent to them moving away from you. Furthermore, your time and their time do not have to synch up again. Time is not absolute -- there is no such thing as a reference frame where it ticks away in measured, unvarying beats. There are only an infinitude of overlapping relative frames of reference.
And this time dilation effect has practical, real-world uses. The GPS in your phone or on your car's dashboard relies on it in a fundamental way. If the competing effects of the relative speeding up of time due to the satellites' altitude and slowing down of time due to their velocity weren't taken into account, your position would be wrong by something on the order of eleven kilometers. And not eleven kilometers total, but eleven kilometers error
per day.
Einsteinian relativity is one of the most profoundly confirmed theories in physics, from the explanation of the precession of Mercury's orbit in 1915 to the confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves last year. We're getting to be hard pressed to find places to break it, and it's starting to look like the only place we can is inside black holes. And those are a little tricky to get on a lab table.
Quote from: fencerider on April 11, 2017, 01:03:10 AM
dont get to frustrated cavebear. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light is still a ridiculous and unproven hypothesis. It matters not that it was proposed by the likes of Einstein. well.... we are a long time away from even coming close to the speed of light. It's a moot point in our lifetime.
There is also the idea that if you move at the speed of light then time slows down for you. Sorry but if time slows down then you are not moving at the speed of light. There is a serious flaw in the equation somewhere. The most likely way to find the missing piece is to solve the equation for when you are moving at the speed of light and time is a constant.
Reality tells me that time is constant and moving. I like your thoughts!
Of all the cockamamie theories and observations like QM and Relativity, the thing that is easiest to wrap my head around is that time is not the constant that the ticking pendulum of a grandfather clock suggests. If time didn't exist before the bang, why should we think it is some kind of constant? It's apparently much too wispy in nature to be continually existent, let alone constant.
I can even see the relationship between speed of light and time, and how moving at the speed of light affects our perception of the time we leave behind. It makes perfect sense, but it's still weird, suggesting there is an even more fundamental relationship between light and time, almost as if light and time are the same thing, but that we have evolved to perceive that single property of the universe from two wholly different perspectives.
Does that make sense to anyone besides me?
Maybe this is a poor analogy, but I'll try. I hope it doesn't wreck what I'm trying to say. What is an elephant? Is it a thing we see or a thing we hear? The perception of hearing is wholly different from the perception of seeing, as if we are experiencing two different things, but it's not two different things. It's just one thing perceived in two different ways. It's easy to grasp this, because it's something we know, and know well as second nature. But what of things that we don't know as well, could similar conclusions be reached?
Would there be a single property "light/time," just as when we talk about "space/time?" "Light/space/time" perhaps? They all seem related to me. Maybe they are not, but they seem to work together in unison, although often in inverse relationships. As light slows down, time speeds up, as space stretches out, time slows down. It reminds me of the law of conservation of mass and energy. One expands at the expense of the other.
"almost as if light and time are the same thing" ... they are. I can explain if you want.
"It reminds me of the law of conservation of mass and energy." ... that relationship is directly related to the space/time relationship. Mass is like space, time is like energy.
Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2017, 01:02:24 PM
"almost as if light and time are the same thing" ... they are. I can explain if you want.
I just looked this up. I don't understand it very well, so I assume I wouldn't understand your explanation either. I get the impression that the explanations are metaphysical and about as speculative as my own speculations; They are sort of thought provoking hooey. I found this one response to the question interesting, if not all that informative.
QuoteLight and time are not related, because the "speed of light" is just an accidental property of light. It is not really anything to do with light in particular, it is a geometrical quantity that tells you how to change units of space and time. â€" Ron Maimon Aug 31 '11 at 3:10
This site needs a special category for quasi-mystical, physics-struggles-with-metaphysics, category questions! BK, the simple fact is nobody has a clue about the absolutely biggest questions. But it's worth learning the "conventional" state of the art thinking; which (extremely generously) people here are happy to (repetitively) explain when "big question" questions arise. Enjoy! Why not read one of the many, many really outstanding popular mysteries-of-time-and-space books which are available today? â€" Fattie Jul 22 '14 at 10:34
Sorry, I can do physics too. But not like a teenage Mongolian girl contortionist. This isn't metaphysics ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpBL4SovbxA
Actual physics ...
1. A thing can be assigned a value, in some cases negative, or zero, or positive or some combination. For instance the distance between my home and work (about 5 miles).
2. When the context has more than one dimension however, in addition to a value, you also have another concept, that of direction. Work is 2 miles W and 3 miles S from home.
3. A thing with a value but no direction is called a scalar. It is one dimensional.
4. A thing with both a value and a direction is called a vector. It is two or more dimensions.
5. When I drive from home to work, it takes about 15 minutes. It isn't instantaneous.
6. We can take the ration of the distance to the amount of time it takes ... which works out to 20 miles per hour. This is called my speed.
7. The vector describing my travel has a length, which is equal to the speed. But it also has a direction. The velocity of a thing and the speed of a thing are related, but not the same.
8. The geometry of my trip has two axes, that run zero to a positive number on each axis, according to the scale I am using (assuming the same scale for both directions).
9. I can make a 3-d graph, with the horizontal axes being the spaces and the vertical axis the time. I can make the vertical axis start at zero, and based on some scale for time, have it increase positively as I go up the graph. Now my trip is a line in 3-d, but one axis isn't the same type as the other two. The space dimensions (conventionally taken at 90 degrees to each other, and angle measured positively from the X axis to the Y axis as I rotate about the vertical time axis looking down (right handed convention)) are related, they can be changed into each other or some combination by a change of frame of reference. Similarly I can rescale the time axis at will or the two space axes together at will (independently of the time rescaling).
10. Turns out that in extreme circumstances, the description in #9 is incorrect, it only works at low relative speed, but not at very high relative speed. This is because physics isn't something we construct independently of observation. A mathematician can get away with anything, so long as he is consistent.
So good so far. Turns out (and I will explain later why) it is necessary to change the relationship between that time axis and those two conjoined space axes, in order for the math to match the actual measurements. Einstein realized that there was a problem with this thought experiment, and that there was another, equally internally consistent model, which matched actual measurements better. He realized this while watching the tram, the clock tower and his cup of coffee .. while having lunch with his young friends while working at the Patent Office.
Sneak preview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6569GBcQKTs
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 09:51:37 AM
Perhaps .. dark energy and dark matter are extrapolations ... not experimental confirmations. And it is still pretty mysterious, the expansion at all (from the Big Bang) since by odds, it should have collapsed into a black hole, very early. Having extra energy (like explosion) actually increases the gravity, it works against you.
That's only a problem when dealing with a single universe. A metaverse of infinite universe would be geometrically self stabilizing.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 09:16:35 AM
I love the "because they are" ending. I am reminded of a cartoon with a blackboard full of equations and there is a small statement "and then a miracle happens" , and another professor suggests they might need to work on that part.
All that I am suggesting, without proof, is that a new way of looking at the universe will emerge in the future that makes more logical sense and still satisfy physics.
Have you ever considered the quantization of an infinitely spacial "singularity" rather than an infinitesimally small one?
The moncentric "Big Bang" scenario reeks to high heaven of point perspective bias. And what the hell is up with that black nothing space always shone out side the "singularity"??? They tell me it dosen't exist then show it me....bunch of illogical chuckleheads.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 09:36:12 AM
I expect that "things" will snap back to reality one of these days. We were all twisted up (literally) about earth-centric planetary epicycles until they finally made no possible sense and WOW, someone changed our perspective to heliocentric and things made sense again. It is obvious now, but it wasn't then. Until it was.
We are overdue for a change in perspective.
Someday (I hope soon, but you never know), dark matter and dark energy will make sense, spacetime will be resolved in a 3d Universe, and we will all say "oh well, of course, how obvious", etc.
If we are watching a balloon expand, most people would assume air pressure is increasing on the inside. The exact same relative motion of the balloon membrane can be achieved by lowering external pressure....
If all space time and matter were one before "inflation" (contraction)...the only valid place of beginning perspective is inside the singularity...and like Fantasia, it has no borders. Starting off in a surrounding nothing space is an error which affects all sebsequent transformations and perspectives.
Would you care for a nice cup of tea?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 12, 2017, 05:10:15 AM
Reality tells me that time is constant and moving. I like your thoughts!
As time is measured by stuff moving through space...stuff is orbiting, spiraling, and accumulating. Like a snowball rolling down a snowfield, the past is towards the center, the present is the current surface in the future is yet to accumulate. Time does not pass...it grows. We experience this nature of time mentally as maturation of consciousness. We accumulate information and make cross connections. Our field of total awareness grows and we can project larger fields into the future. A child does not plan 10 years into the future, a 30-year-old does....or should, lol.
Quote from: trdsf on February 26, 2017, 06:11:29 PM
I often feel much the same way about string theory. I was only just starting to get my brain wrapped around QM, and boom, everything changed. :)
Wait till you get a load of supra-string theory! It treats the strings as macro components of space time rather than micro. We are within one of six, the one that patterns for our specific type of atom. The others pattern for two heavier quark densities of matter and 3 anti-matter charge arrangements.
So the ratio of our matter type to the other hidden or "dark" types works out 1 to 5.
It takes the perspective that a total universe is "spectrumed" apart like a rainbow from light rather than an explosion of junk. Our type of matter is like the orange band....it does not appear independent of the other colors.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 05:01:09 PM
If we are watching a balloon expand, most people would assume air pressure is increasing on the inside. The exact same relative motion of the balloon membrane can be achieved by lowering external pressure....
If all space time and matter were one before "inflation" (contraction)...the only valid place of beginning perspective is inside the singularity...and like Fantasia, it has no borders. Starting off in a surrounding nothing space is an error which affects all sebsequent transformations and perspectives.
Would you care for a nice cup of tea?
Bodhidharma of Physics? Just don't overfill my cup please, I am already enlightened.
The interesting mind blowing of projective space cosmology is ... that the celestial sphere, is all one point, spread out over the interior of a ball. But the exterior of the ball isn't a problem, if you accept that the mapping isn't faithful, that the inside projection and the outside projection are duplicates of each other (like a quadratic equation where both roots are equal to each other ... then you only need one, the other root is free). In maths this is called a one-point compactification (there are more than one kind). Literally (if we loose scale for a moment) we are dealing with a projective space where the celestial sphere is one-point-at-infinity with two degrees of spherical freedom ... aka a horosphere or closed plane at infinity. In actual fact, it isn't an infinite distance/time away ... depending. Unless of course are farthest time/distance measurements are wrong. Very hard to make a yard stick that is billions of light years in size.
On an optical basis, the celestial sphere looks like an image that is completely out of focus. The math for this is a completely washed out mapping (the flatness problem) which greatly increases the entropy. Try a simple experiment with two magnifying glasses, and make a simple telescope where the image is completely out of focus.
Quote from: Baruch on April 15, 2017, 12:39:58 AM
Bodhidharma of Physics? Just don't overfill my cup please, I am already enlightened.
The interesting mind blowing of projective space cosmology is ... that the celestial sphere, is all one point, spread out over the interior of a ball. But the exterior of the ball isn't a problem, if you accept that the mapping isn't faithful, that the inside projection and the outside projection are duplicates of each other (like a quadratic equation where both roots are equal to each other ... then you only need one, the other root is free). In maths this is called a one-point compactification (there are more than one kind). Literally (if we loose scale for a moment) we are dealing with a projective space where the celestial sphere is one-point-at-infinity with two degrees of spherical freedom ... aka a horosphere or closed plane at infinity. In actual fact, it isn't an infinite distance/time away ... depending. Unless of course are farthest time/distance measurements are wrong. Very hard to make a yard stick that is billions of light years in size.
On an optical basis, the celestial sphere looks like an image that is completely out of focus. The math for this is a completely washed out mapping (the flatness problem) which greatly increases the entropy. Try a simple experiment with two magnifying glasses, and make a simple telescope where the image is completely out of focus.
Are you referring to the observable universe of light that has reached our point/planet in space since the ending of the opaque period of inflation?
As far as I have read the is no observable preferential distribution of poly-galactic fliments and super clusters at macro scale. No distribution relative to a central expansion point. But what we did find in the CMB is a hemispherical asymmetry, the background radiation of space has a hot side and a cold side relative to our position in space.
Consider a toroidal manifold for the shape of our section of the universe, spinning like an inner tube in a wheel. Our observable universe would be tiny sphere of space within the tube; there would be an incoming/compressed/hot side and an outgoing/stretched/cold region of space on either side of our observable bubble of universal phenomenon.
You are speculating, as I am ... and thinking ;-)
Yes, the flatness problem is reflected in the smoothness of the 3.5K radiation. The relative asymmetry is an interesting problem, but small in magnitude, supposedly due to galactic rotation. The conventional way to solve the flatness problem is to invoke "early inflation" ... but I don't see that as necessary, if it simply part of the large scale "optical" structure of the universe. A projective space analysis is hard on the head, but it is consistent with observations (if we idealize the initial singularity a bit). The classical Celestial Sphere didn't take into account the passage of time as we look outward ... and assumed that the points not he interior of the sphere are all different points. Projective geometry puts that on its head.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 11:57:12 AM
Which is why I managed the telecommunications for 14,000 people and didn't manage physics at NASA. But I still don't like an equation that can turn energy into matter, I don't understand WHY lightspeed SQUARED has anything to do with it, and I grudgingly accept that light can be particles and waves and the same time. I accept that the universe can expand faster than lightspeed somehow (it what please don't ask), that there are quarks and massless objects, and dark matter and dark energy, etc
But please don't expect that it makes any sense to me. ;) Sometimes I feel like a Flatlander trying to understand 3 dimensions. I'm getting too old for this. I want to hang on to a rational 3D universe. LOL!
Well, kinetic energy is defined as E=0.5*mv^2 (mass times velocity squared), and potential energy is E=mdg (mass, distance, acceleration due to gravity) leading to both of them being (mass*distance*distance)/(time*time). So the ultimate amount of energy would also be the ultimate velocity.
Quote from: SGOS on April 12, 2017, 03:30:24 PM
I just looked this up. I don't understand it very well, so I assume I wouldn't understand your explanation either. I get the impression that the explanations are metaphysical and about as speculative as my own speculations; They are sort of thought provoking hooey. I found this one response to the question interesting, if not all that informative.
I suspect that a century from now, we will look at spacetime as we looked at planetary epicycles in the past. Good math, but not not reality.
Quote from: Ananta Shesha on April 14, 2017, 05:26:08 PM
Wait till you get a load of supra-string theory! It treats the strings as macro components of space time rather than micro. We are within one of six, the one that patterns for our specific type of atom. The others pattern for two heavier quark densities of matter and 3 anti-matter charge arrangements.
So the ratio of our matter type to the other hidden or "dark" types works out 1 to 5.
It takes the perspective that a total universe is "spectrumed" apart like a rainbow from light rather than an explosion of junk. Our type of matter is like the orange band....it does not appear independent of the other colors.
This is why I leave the bleeding-edge research to the geniuses and just sort of hang on to what I do get until the new stuff filters down to a level my poor but interested brain can handle.
String theory, in broadest outline, I have -- the idea that everything is composed of even easier stuff than electrons and quarks, just different vibrations of one-dimensional strings making two-dimensional sheets as they move through spacetime. I can wrap my brain around that, though I need a little duct tape to hold it in place. Much beyond that, though, it gets fuzzier than the lettuce I forgot about in my fridge drawer.
In any case, string theory is too new for there to be much consensus on how it works, much less whether it's the path to unification. It may prove be in the long run, or it may just be a mathematically useful way of treating things until a better theory comes along. And it has nowhere near the confirmation of the theories of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model. So I'm willing to sit back and let the whole string thing shake itself out until a clearer picture emerges.
Quote from: trdsf on April 17, 2017, 12:51:38 PM
This is why I leave the bleeding-edge research to the geniuses and just sort of hang on to what I do get until the new stuff filters down to a level my poor but interested brain can handle.
String theory, in broadest outline, I have -- the idea that everything is composed of even easier stuff than electrons and quarks, just different vibrations of one-dimensional strings making two-dimensional sheets as they move through spacetime. I can wrap my brain around that, though I need a little duct tape to hold it in place. Much beyond that, though, it gets fuzzier than the lettuce I forgot about in my fridge drawer.
In any case, string theory is too new for there to be much consensus on how it works, much less whether it's the path to unification. It may prove be in the long run, or it may just be a mathematically useful way of treating things until a better theory comes along. And it has nowhere near the confirmation of the theories of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model. So I'm willing to sit back and let the whole string thing shake itself out until a clearer picture emerges.
There will be a new understanding that makes "reality" sensible again.
Try sticking your fingers up to a spinning table saw blade.. Your hand will move faster than light if you know what's good for you. That's why I want to someday invest in a Sawstop saw..
Quote from: Cavebear on April 21, 2017, 06:02:08 AM
There will be a new understanding that makes "reality" sensible again.
Popular science eventually catches up. It must have been interesting in the past, watching the public move from "the world is flat" to "the world is round".
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 06:20:20 AM
Try sticking your fingers up to a spinning table saw blade.. Your hand will move faster than light if you know what's good for you. That's why I want to someday invest in a Sawstop saw..
That is how my godfather lost his thumb in HS. Wood shop power saw. Never push with your hands, use a stick.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 21, 2017, 06:20:20 AM
Try sticking your fingers up to a spinning table saw blade.. Your hand will move faster than light if you know what's good for you. That's why I want to someday invest in a Sawstop saw..
A sawstop saw is amazing. Meanwhile, I keep my fingers carefully away from the blade.