Atheistforums
Science Section => Science General Discussion => Physics & Cosmology => Topic started by: Unbeliever on July 30, 2018, 06:19:59 PM

This stuff is pretty interesting, and may turn out to be important. It's not easily understood, but I think it's worth some effort to try.
For 100 years, scientists have been searching for the "Theory of Everything", the elusive link between the physics of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. A team of researchers believe they may have the key, and it all lies in a geometrical design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqu_uVgIcU
http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/
The beauty of E8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELC_l3gNuc
Experimental evidence for the occurrence of E8 in nature and the radii of the Gosset circles (https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0046)
Visualizing the 600Cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMGjvLoepE
Why Use an 8Dimensional Shape to Describe 3Dimensional Reality? by Klee Irwin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKXJb4Ok9hQ
Exceptional Lie Groups Explained Using NonInfinite Reflections by Klee Irwin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_w408y_3rw

That is some heavy (sarc) stuff you are laying out there. Usually, for the past 100 years, transformation symmetry aka group theory has been key in theoretical physics. So I would guess that The Monster Group might be key ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
since I consider Gd to be quite a monster ;)
The actual connection with quantum gravity is ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine
I did try to study regular quantum theory and QFT back in ... 2014. Worked thru all these lectures ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDkEiUDz8CA&list=PLWP0zoSOFqlN2x7Iw47MuCjpRrElQ8dXX ... in 88 parts.

I think I know about 12.3% of the maths needed to understand this.
It sure is pretty though!

I think I know about 12.3% of the maths needed to understand this.
It sure is pretty though!
Very hard to visualize above 3 or 4 dimensions. These things can only be held in the minds of mathematicians ... not by ordinary mortals. Bow down and worship the followers of Pythagoras ;) Otherwise Plato will kick you out of his Academy.

I think I know about 12.3% of the maths needed to understand this.
It sure is pretty though!
Yeah, it makes foe some nice visuals!

Very hard to visualize above 3 or 4 dimensions.
I'm ok up to about 5 dimensions.
The way I explained it to someone else was; Imagine a three dimensional array. From any cell, you can move up/down, left/right, forward/back.
Now imagine a four dimensional array. From any cell, you can move up/down, left/right, forward/back, widdershins/deosil.
Then I tried explaining 5 dimensions and we ended up drinking vodka.

I SEE IT! I SEE IT!

Well, maybe not.

More vodka may be necessary.

Bookmarking this for the next time I have something to smoke or eat...

For help visualizing additional dimensions, let me offer Dimensions (http://www.dimensionsmath.org/Dim_regarder_E.htm) (which also explains how the Mandelbrot set works), and Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php), which works its way up from three, although it takes a nongeometric tack.
Dimensions plods a bit and the narrators are uneven, but the visualization technique is effective.

My senior year in high school I was taking a speech class, where the class brain and nerd explained how to visualize the 4th geometrical dimension. He started with a 2 dimensional picture of a simple cube that we immediately can see represents a 3 dimensional object.
(https://drawinghowtodraw.com/stepbystepdrawinglessons/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/04cubes.png)
Then went on and showed us his three dimensional model of the cube he made out of balsa wood sticks. He surrounded the cube with more sticks going out wildly from the 8 vertices and joining together into a complicated visualization of how we could visualize the 4th dimension in 3d, just as we visualize the third dimension in 2d.
The drawings in this thread are way more complicated than his model because he stopped at the fourth dimension. But he did explain how further modeling could theoretically represent an infinite number of dimensions all occupying the same space. And the awesome thing about his speech, which was supposed to be stopped by the teacher if it went over 5 minutes, is that it went on for a half hour, and he did it so well, that he held the complete attention of even the most intellectually challenged class members.
During the questions and answers that followed, the teacher asked where he had learned about this, and he said it came out of a book called "1,2,3 Infinity," which must have had many other interesting concepts in it too. Although, I never looked up the book. That speech was one of the most interesting things I ever experienced in high school.

My senior year in high school I was taking a speech class, where the class brain and nerd explained how to visualize the 4th geometrical dimension. He started with a 2 dimensional picture of a simple cube that we immediately can see represents a 3 dimensional object.
(https://drawinghowtodraw.com/stepbystepdrawinglessons/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/04cubes.png)
Then went on and showed us his three dimensional model of the cube he made out of balsa wood sticks. He surrounded the cube with more sticks going out wildly from the 8 vertices and joining together into a complicated visualization of how we could visualize the 4th dimension in 3d, just as we visualize the third dimension in 2d.
The drawings in this thread are way more complicated than his model because he stopped at the fourth dimension. But he did explain how further modeling could theoretically represent an infinite number of dimensions all occupying the same space. And the awesome thing about his speech, which was supposed to be stopped by the teacher if it went over 5 minutes, is that it went on for a half hour, and he did it so well, that he held the complete attention of even the most intellectually challenged class members.
During the questions and answers that followed, the teacher asked where he had learned about this, and he said it came out of a book called "1,2,3 Infinity," which must have had many other interesting concepts in it too. Although, I never looked up the book. That speech was one of the most interesting things I ever experienced in high school.
One, Two, Three... Infinity is by physicist and cosmologist (and arguably shouldabeen Nobel laureate) George Gamow, who also wrote the Mr Tompkins books, which I remember reading at the age of ten and getting thermodynamics (I particularly remember the section on Maxwell's Demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon)) explained in a way that made sense to a ten year old. He was a brilliant science explainer; I should look those up again.

I remember having read that Gamow book long ago, but I too need to read it again. I remember how much fun it was to read! I don't think I've ever come across the Mr. Tomkins books, though. I think I'll see if my local library has them.

I remember having read that Gamow book long ago, but I too need to read it again. I remember how much fun it was to read! I don't think I've ever come across the Mr. Tomkins books, though. I think I'll see if my local library has them.
I saw those too, but was older. Read Gamow's book Gravity. Also his book in the history of Quantum Mechanics Thirty Years That Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory

Esoteric science that won't be effecting your iPhone design anytime soon ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iphcyNWFD10
Notice that this is a very fancy version of the MichelsonMorley interferometer, that triggered relativity theory (in many minds anyway).

Esoteric science that won't be effecting your iPhone design anytime soon ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iphcyNWFD10
Notice that this is a very fancy version of the MichelsonMorley interferometer, that triggered relativity theory (in many minds anyway).
Gravitational waves have been detected. Get over it. Actually, my question is "what speed do they travel"? If gravitational waves "travel", why not instantaneously?
Let's suppose a bunch of matter suddenly appeared (out of a severely rotating black hole or something  don't quibble). How long would the gravity of the spewed matter take (being not at the black hole) to affect/register on a nearby star? Light speed? Instantaneously? Some time less than light speed? And why?

Gravitational waves have been detected. Get over it. Actually, my question is "what speed do they travel"? If gravitational waves "travel", why not instantaneously?
Let's suppose a bunch of matter suddenly appeared (out of a severely rotating black hole or something  don't quibble). How long would the gravity of the spewed matter take (being not at the black hole) to affect/register on a nearby star? Light speed? Instantaneously? Some time less than light speed? And why?
You misread the video <sarc> ... you watched it. This supports the remarkable work done. But it won't be in your cell phone anytime soon.
Well, they said in the video, that gravitational waves propagate at "c" ... the speed of light. There are several reasons why this has to be (one reason is the graviton (not found yet) is zero rest mass). Yes, if a black hole, ran into our Sun, beside turning the lights out, it would disrupt the local gravity of the solar system (in particular if it continued moving in the direction it was already going). This would make a pulse of gravitational waves at that collision moment, though not as powerful as seen in the example (less massive case). The LIGO would detect it the same time as when we would see the Sun go dark.
Less than the speed of light? You are probably thinking of index of refraction. Light goes a bit slower thru transparent matter than it does in the vacuum. The ratio in speeds is the index of refraction. The index of refraction of the vacuum is 1.0. For material objects it is 1+. Since it is vacuum between the Sun and the Earth, then in our example there would be no slow down.

You misread the video <sarc> ... you watched it. This supports the remarkable work done. But it won't be in your cell phone anytime soon.
Well, they said in the video, that gravitational waves propagate at "c" ... the speed of light. There are several reasons why this has to be (one reason is the graviton (not found yet) is zero rest mass). Yes, if a black hole, ran into our Sun, beside turning the lights out, it would disrupt the local gravity of the solar system (in particular if it continued moving in the direction it was already going). This would make a pulse of gravitational waves at that collision moment, though not as powerful as seen in the example (less massive case). The LIGO would detect it the same time as when we would see the Sun go dark.
Less than the speed of light? You are probably thinking of index of refraction. Light goes a bit slower thru transparent matter than it does in the vacuum. The ratio in speeds is the index of refraction. The index of refraction of the vacuum is 1.0. For material objects it is 1+. Since it is vacuum between the Sun and the Earth, then in our example there would be no slow down.
Yeah, I know about light being slowed down through various media and all that. My question is WHY gravity takes any time to operate. And just saying lightspeed is "the limit" doesn't work. Until we know how gravity really works, we can't tell the speed.

Yeah, I know about light being slowed down through various media and all that. My question is WHY gravity takes any time to operate. And just saying lightspeed is "the limit" doesn't work. Until we know how gravity really works, we can't tell the speed.
That is explained in quantum relativity. Entanglement in quantum theory. You can get instantaneous change (a paired photon, has indeterminate status, until the other member of the pair is measured ... before that they are both indeterminate). The classical view of omniscient objectivity is the sound of one Schroedinger Cat dying. However, you can't use entanglement to communicate (unfortunately).
Everything else, change moves at "c" or less (see relativity theory). It gets deep. Feynman said, anyone who claims to understand quantum theory (he meant the relativity kind) doesn't know. The simplest level is the Dirac Equation, and I posted on that. Crickets of course. Velocity isn't ... velocity. There is phase velocity and group velocity, even without the relativity complication.
Yes, that is the problem with explanation. Gravity explains falling apples, but what explains gravity? Well we had Newton's explanation (but he admitted it wasn't an ultimate explanation). And we have Einstein's explanation (he tried to find an ultimate explanation and failed). With epistemology, if not the world, it is professors (not turtles) all the way down.

That is explained in quantum relativity. Entanglement in quantum theory. You can get instantaneous change (a paired photon, has indeterminate status, until the other member of the pair is measured ... before that they are both indeterminate). The classical view of omniscient objectivity is the sound of one Schroedinger Cat dying. However, you can't use entanglement to communicate (unfortunately).
Everything else, change moves at "c" or less (see relativity theory). It gets deep. Feynman said, anyone who claims to understand quantum theory (he meant the relativity kind) doesn't know. The simplest level is the Dirac Equation, and I posted on that. Crickets of course. Velocity isn't ... velocity. There is phase velocity and group velocity, even without the relativity complication.
Yes, that is the problem with explanation. Gravity explains falling apples, but what explains gravity? Well we had Newton's explanation (but he admitted it wasn't an ultimate explanation). And we have Einstein's explanation (he tried to find an ultimate explanation and failed). With epistemology, if not the world, it is professors (not turtles) all the way down.
Gravity might upset the entire applecart. I'll wait.

Gravity might upset the entire applecart. I'll wait.
It's in the Einstein field equations that c is the limiting velocity for gravitational waves as well as electromagnetic — although I couldn't say exactly where. Now, there is apparently no upper limit on the acceleration due to gravity; the definition of a black hole's event horizon is the surface at which escape velocity is exactly the speed of light. That's different from a gravitational wave, however, which is the periodic (wavelike) deformation of space radiating out from a massive object undergoing acceleration. The Earth in its orbit continually sends out gravitational waves because an orbit is a state of constant acceleration. However, the amount of energy carried away is so small, the sun will have long since burned out before Earth's orbit could decay.
Basically, think of the gravitational wave speed as being the speed at which the information about the gravitational field strength is carried, like a lightwave speed is the speed at which the information about the light's frequency is carried.

This may shed some light:
The speed of light is often cited as the fastest anything can travel in our universe. While this might be true, the speed of light is the EFFECT and not the CAUSE of this phenomenon. So what's the cause? On this week's episode of Space Time, Matt helps explain what the speed of light REALLY is and why it’s the cosmic speed limit of our universe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

This may shed some light:
After 4 minutes of that I gave up realizing it was unlikely that I would get any smarter. Maybe I would have, but I was getting more lost as the video went on, and I lacked the fortitude to continue. No matter. I will continue on surviving like the rest of the idiots in the world. And I can still be happy.

Gravity might upset the entire applecart. I'll wait.
Just don't jump off the top of your barn, expecting to fly. Unless you can produce tachyons, gravitons and other unseen particles, in a practical way. My favorite is the magnetic monopole. Half a magnetic field, looking for a opposite partner (not gay).

After 4 minutes of that I gave up realizing it was unlikely that I would get any smarter. Maybe I would have, but I was getting more lost as the video went on, and I lacked the fortitude to continue. No matter. I will continue on surviving like the rest of the idiots in the world. And I can still be happy.
It has been explained, in Einstein terms, in previous posts for years now, right here. But once quantum theory showed up (who ordered this, the physicists said!) you have to learn a lot more than classical physics, to come up to par. Only specialists of specialists can do it. And then they disagree once they get to the bleeding edge (aka that is how theoretical work goes).
i still have trouble with phase velocity vs group velocity, and you have that in classical physics (not even relativistic). And to understand messaging, you have to include information theory. Whew!

It has been explained, in Einstein terms, in previous posts for years now, right here. But once quantum theory showed up (who ordered this, the physicists said!) you have to learn a lot more than classical physics, to come up to par. Only specialists of specialists can do it. And then they disagree once they get to the bleeding edge (aka that is how theoretical work goes).
i still have trouble with phase velocity vs group velocity, and you have that in classical physics (not even relativistic). And to understand messaging, you have to include information theory. Whew!
There is probably some college student wondering why light speed is the best measure. And she may be right.

There is probably some college student wondering why light speed is the best measure. And she may be right.
You do think out of your box, sometimes ;)

Like Savoir Faire, quantum mechanics is everywhere! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMt3GOyRkU4

I can understand the shadow of a tesseract. Beyond that, no go.

Yeah, I know about light being slowed down through various media and all that. My question is WHY gravity takes any time to operate. And just saying lightspeed is "the limit" doesn't work. Until we know how gravity really works, we can't tell the speed.
Look at the observations. If gravity waves were detected before an event, then they'd be travelling faster than light. If they arrive a bit later, then they would be slower. If they arrive at the same time then the gravitational waves must be travelling at the same speed as the light from the event they correlate to.

Look at the observations. If gravity waves were detected before an event, then they'd be travelling faster than light. If they arrive a bit later, then they would be slower. If they arrive at the same time then the gravitational waves must be travelling at the same speed as the light from the event they correlate to.
So what evidence is there that they travel faster slower or equal to light?

So what evidence is there that they travel faster slower or equal to light?
Very hard to empirically prove, since there are so few observations so far, and the early ones were black hole mergers which wouldn't produce much EM radiation ... but a year ago ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817

So what evidence is there that they travel faster slower or equal to light?
Plenty (https://www.sciencealert.com/speedofgravitationalwavesandlightsame) — the detection of gravitational waves let us determine their speed, and it's c.

We may soon be able to use stars as gravity wave detectors:
Nearby stars as gravitational wave detectors (https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03212)

We may soon be able to use stars as gravity wave detectors:
Nearby stars as gravitational wave detectors (https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03212)
Maybe. "acoustic spectra of these stars" ... if it weren't for the vacuum of space, the roar of the sun, not just the light, would deafen us all.

My senior year in high school I was taking a speech class, where the class brain and nerd explained how to visualize the 4th geometrical dimension. He started with a 2 dimensional picture of a simple cube that we immediately can see represents a 3 dimensional object.
(https://drawinghowtodraw.com/stepbystepdrawinglessons/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/04cubes.png)
Then went on and showed us his three dimensional model of the cube he made out of balsa wood sticks. He surrounded the cube with more sticks going out wildly from the 8 vertices and joining together into a complicated visualization of how we could visualize the 4th dimension in 3d, just as we visualize the third dimension in 2d.
The drawings in this thread are way more complicated than his model because he stopped at the fourth dimension. But he did explain how further modeling could theoretically represent an infinite number of dimensions all occupying the same space.
Here is something I just blundered onto on the Internet. Carl Sagan explains the 4 dimensional cube and shows one to you, the exact representation I tried to describe from 123 Infinity, and it even has a name. Shades of Marvel's Thor and the Avengers, it's the Tesseract.
I guess Stan Lee doesn't just make up names out of thin air for his science/mythological gizmos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0WjV6MmCyM

The first time I ever heard of a tesseract was when I read the book A Wrinkle in Time (https://www.thewrap.com/wrinkletimetesseractsoundfamiliar/).
In the novel, Mrs. Whatsit explains that if we understand space to be threedimensional, and time represents a fourth dimension, then the tesseract is a fifthdimensional bridge between two points in time and space. ... A tesseract is the literal “wrinkle in time” from the title, which is also a wrinkle in space.

The first time I ever heard of a tesseract was when I read the book A Wrinkle in Time (https://www.thewrap.com/wrinkletimetesseractsoundfamiliar/).
You will always be 6 steps ahead of me :)

Yeah, that's why I so often trip over my own feet.

Yeah, that's why I so often trip over my own feet.
Well, if you put a foot into a tesseract, you never know where it will end up.
But seriously, I have a slight thought that we may be slowly improving our concepts of spacetime to begin to begin to grasp tesseracts and 4th dimensions. We are doing it in maths. Whatever becomes usual to the next generations will be easier for them to accept and deal with.

Well, if you put a foot into a tesseract, you never know where it will end up.
But seriously, I have a slight thought that we may be slowly improving our concepts of spacetime to begin to begin to grasp tesseracts and 4th dimensions. We are doing it in maths. Whatever becomes usual to the next generations will be easier for them to accept and deal with.
So you're ready for a fourdimensional Rubik's cube (http://superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm), then? XD

So you're ready for a fourdimensional Rubik's cube (http://superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm), then? XD
Soon as I solve the 3D one (any day now for sure). At least I couldn't do much worse. The problem might be that the 4d Rubic's cube has 2 colors I can't see without my "special" glasses.

Even Rubik, the guy who created the original cube, took 3 months to solve it. I cheated, and went to youtube to learn how. They didn't have youtube when he invented it, or I'm sure he would have too...

Even Rubik, the guy who created the original cube, took 3 months to solve it. I cheated, and went to youtube to learn how. They didn't have youtube when he invented it, or I'm sure he would have too...
I went to youtube and I still can't solve it. It actually annoys me more than Baruch does. And I have great spatial talent. I must have a defective cube.

That's actually possible, if it's been taken apart and put back together incorrectly. I did that as a prank on a buddy once.

That's actually possible, if it's been taken apart and put back together incorrectly. I did that as a prank on a buddy once.
Awesome! And I read about some person who actually rearranged the color stickies to solve it. Gordian Knot Theory I guess. Think about the outsides of the box, right?

I went to youtube and I still can't solve it. It actually annoys me more than Baruch does. And I have great spatial talent. I must have a defective cube.
It is group theory, not geometry.

Awesome! And I read about some person who actually rearranged the color stickies to solve it. Gordian Knot Theory I guess. Think about the outsides of the box, right?
I like the "corners first" method, it has fewer algorithms to memorize. Other methods are OK, I'm currently working to learn the "block" method. But the "first 2 layers" method has too many OLLs and PLLs to memorize, and it's harder.

I like the "corners first" method, it has fewer algorithms to memorize. Other methods are OK, I'm currently working to learn the "block" method. But the "first 2 layers" method has too many OLLs and PLLs to memorize, and it's harder.
You might as well be speaking Martian. But I WILL look up "Rubik corners first" to see if I can get mine "right".

You can take your pick from these:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=kCGUW6cnjLHQ8Qu2abgCw&q=rubic+corners+first+youtube&oq=rubic+corners+first+youtube&gs_l=psyab.3...2038.3528..4407...0.0..0.90.538.8......0....1..gwswiz.......0i71j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i13i5i10i30j0i8i13i30j33i22i29i30j33i21.0GY3tmkAiu4

You can take your pick from these:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=kCGUW6cnjLHQ8Qu2abgCw&q=rubic+corners+first+youtube&oq=rubic+corners+first+youtube&gs_l=psyab.3...2038.3528..4407...0.0..0.90.538.8......0....1..gwswiz.......0i71j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i13i5i10i30j0i8i13i30j33i22i29i30j33i21.0GY3tmkAiu4
I'm considering making a wood cube and painting the sides as a joke...
But the Rubic's Cube really annoys me. I assemble 3d puzzles, I solve those tavern puzzles where yo have to get the chained horseshoe out of the round space (an example), I do labyrinths, I did that stupid marble on the board thing. I can't figure out the logic of The Cube.
OK, once more into the breach, dear friends...

Practice makes perfect  but you won't get to Carnegie Hall...

Practice makes perfect  but you won't get to Carnegie Hall...
And neither will asking for directions. But 10,000 hours practice might.

And neither will asking for directions. But 10,000 hours practice might.
It might, but there are other more critical factors at play. For example, do you have both of your hands? Don't view this a ridiculous statement. Having no hands is just the extreme end of the continuum of physical abilities that must be in place. As we continue through the continuum toward the other end we can start measuring small differences in fine neurological skills, that don't even exist in 99% of the human population in the first place. This is the extreme end of the continuum where the Olympic medalists are separated into gold, silver, and bronze, sometimes by a hundredth of a second. In addition, these medalists are not just physically gifted. They have mental gifts as well. It's unlikely that even Hawking, Einstein, or Newton, have the specific mental gifts I'm referring to.
After you identify the person with the necessary so to speak birthrights, then you can start the 10,000 hours of practice, and only then you might make it to Carnegie Hall.

It might, but there are other more critical factors at play. For example, do you have both of your hands? Don't view this a ridiculous statement. Having no hands is just the extreme end of the continuum of physical abilities that must be in place. As we continue through the continuum toward the other end we can start measuring small differences in fine neurological skills, that don't even exist in 99% of the human population in the first place. This is the extreme end of the continuum where the Olympic medalists are separated into gold, silver, and bronze, sometimes by a hundredth of a second. In addition, these medalists are not just physically gifted. They have mental gifts as well. It's unlikely that even Hawking, Einstein, or Newton, have the specific mental gifts I'm referring to.
After you identify the person with the necessary so to speak birthrights, then you can start the 10,000 hours of practice, and only then you might make it to Carnegie Hall.
I made light before, but I take your serious point. Ability is not just a matter of practice, though it WILL get you to high skill, given physical necessities. Yes, if you have no hands, you're probably not going to win at Wimbledon. I was assuming normal attributes, practiced 10,000 times that achieves a high level of skill.
Practice does grant some skills. I used to be able to spin a top out of my hand into a bowl through practice. I USED to be able to juggle 3 golf balls in the air, to a partner, off a wall, and against the floor. With practice. I can't now (tried and failed recently). But I could if I practiced those skills again.
Beyond basic skills, there is mastery. I have mastered nothing. Mere basic competence in all things is sort of my talent.

Be happy. Many people never achieve even one basic competence, beyond breathing.