Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: faytmorgan on 15/04/2013 19:15:44
-
So there is LOTS of science FICTION on how to bend space time. Lots of different proposed (mostly bs) ideas. Now I am no nuclear physics phd albeit I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know. That last sentence is complicated seeing that I know nothing about anything nor does anyone else. We can only prove the science to a point. You don't even know that I exist. WHOO lets not go down that path eh?
Back on point. We have a lot of assumptions in science. One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force? Why do we assume that it is a substance thing? Also couldn't nuclear force be just centrifugal force that slowly breaks down over (time)? If that is the case then in theory a device can be made that spins(or vibrates) at an appropriate level to create a force that replicates what happens when there is a LOT of mass. Thus bending space-time.
Let throw some holes in this theory. You people (know) much more about this subject than I do. My major is certainly not nuclear physics. I come from a theology background. From what I see there is a fundamental correlation to the hologram principle and most mythology/theology/religion/etc. there is just one thing I am missing to build upon my theory. What is actually bending space-time. Like most of theology people tend to overcomplicated things, at this point I think people, perhaps, are over complicating the science here. For example why is there creation? Well in theology there is something that most people miss, if there is a creator, that is what the creator does. Like a painter paints, the creator creates. Don't over complicate it. Its that simple. The correlation I have found in science and theology is that the hologram IS the creator. People didn't have the science then to communicate what it was they understood. They gave the hologram a persona. And I am getting off track again.
SO in short, please throw some holes in my idea. Also if there is a more (logical) answer that I can research into. Please shout it out, kind sirs and madams!
Fayt~
-
Nothing bends it :)
Or mass do, and rays do, and relativistic mass do too, and 'energy', and 'motion'.
First you need to tell me what 'space' is, to make me bend it :)
There are geodesics in a space, those get their definitions from the things above.
But I don't know what 'space' consist of. If it 'consist' of anything.
-
What do you mean what is space? space (from my understanding) is the in between that the everything is held within.
-
ahh, but what is it?
-
What do you mean? You are being cryptic.
-
Well, space is nothing, or it is something. Is it a medium in where things propagate or is it just empty? An aether was one try for a (vacuum) medium, but the MM experiment killed that one. But as you say, it differs matter from matter, and it has a distance, as far as we can measure existing in four dimensions. Each point of a vacuum can be defined by those four, time and three other. Classically it is a 'nothing', presenting you with no resistance. Quantum mechanically it may be seen to contain energies, and bosons, as the Higg boson. That, although unmeasurable to us directly, still define the Inertia of a object, and possibly also the mass.
And in Relativity 'gravity' is nothing more than a preferred direction, as I think though. But Pete would give you a more solid answer there. But a lot of it hangs together with what ideas you have defining a vacuum.
-
Well, for my book I need to come up with a logical/scientific answer that explains how it is possible to;
have a portal on a planet that all the inhabitants go through to another to end up on another planet which also has a portal on it which the inhabitants come through. I also need to show how it is possible for a planet to have a portal at its core that is not accessible until the planet no longer exists (ie blows up).
Any thoughts?
-
... have a portal on a planet that all the inhabitants go through to another to end up on another planet which also has a portal on it which the inhabitants come through...
Any thoughts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole) [ hypothetical ]
-
You will need a lot of 'exotic matter' for a wormhole, to keep it from breaking up, also it is a function of gravity as I remember, which makes it a 'hollow world' maybe? You can always place some black holes in a stable configuration inside it, two might work. Maybe one would work better, placed in a perfect center, 'rotating' as being 'at rest' with the 'Earth shell'? I'm not sure there. You will have to assume a ideal perfect sphere, I think, to begin with which should make visitors rather suspicious.
=
Why not use a 'quantum machine' breaking you down into quanta, connected via entanglement to some other place, that then retrieve the information? It will need to use light speed though to send the code for that exact 'copy' that will be built up, each time. So those who use it will not only be lost in space, but also in time. And then it also becomes a question if toughts, and the way you think, will be the same? Although that one is highly philosophical.
-
I have posted a TOET (theory of every thing) that I think explains pretty well what gravity is and what matter is. just go to the new theory section to read it. it's quite simple, just think of it like this.
Imagine a pond, when you throw a rock into the water you displace it and as a result you get waves in exactly the same way the big bang displaced space to get waves of light when light forms a photon cloud/electron/quark it bends space like a whirlpool inward this effect is gravity.
-
ScientificSorcerer
No more links or adverts to your idea in New Theories please.
many thanks
-
I have posted a TOET (theory of every thing) that I think explains pretty well what gravity is and what matter is. just go to the new theory section to read it. it's quite simple, just think of it like this.
Imagine a pond, when you throw a rock into the water you displace it and as a result you get waves in exactly the same way the big bang displaced space to get waves of light when light forms a photon cloud/electron/quark it bends space like a whirlpool inward this effect is gravity.
that doesn't work on many levels. i really don't have the time to point out all of the reasons why it does not work at all. google leonard susskind (spelling) and hologram principle. if you understand theology the way i do. that makes way more sense and it answers way more questions than it asks.
-----------
i am dealing with the issue of mass gaining more mass at as the speed increases closer to the speed of light. where does the mass get more mass? does it suck in more matter and condenses it? etc-
-
ScientificSorcerer
No more links or adverts to your idea in New Theories please.
many thanks
thanks :)
-
You will need a lot of 'exotic matter' for a wormhole, to keep it from breaking up, also it is a function of gravity as I remember, which makes it a 'hollow world' maybe? You can always place some black holes in a stable configuration inside it, two might work. Maybe one would work better, placed in a perfect center, 'rotating' as being 'at rest' with the 'Earth shell'? I'm not sure there. You will have to assume a ideal perfect sphere, I think, to begin with which should make visitors rather suspicious.
=
Why not use a 'quantum machine' breaking you down into quanta, connected via entanglement to some other place, that then retrieve the information? It will need to use light speed though to send the code for that exact 'copy' that will be built up, each time. So those who use it will not only be lost in space, but also in time. And then it also becomes a question if toughts, and the way you think, will be the same? Although that one is highly philosophical.
i am not sure gravity isn't much like centrifugal force which is not a true force. Rather, its a fictitious force that you (or an object) feels when moving in a circle. However, there is something call centriPETAL force. This is the actual force required to keep an object in a circular motion and points toward the axis of rotation.
-
So there is LOTS of science FICTION on how to bend space time. Lots of different proposed (mostly bs) ideas. Now I am no nuclear physics phd albeit I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know. That last sentence is complicated seeing that I know nothing about anything nor does anyone else. We can only prove the science to a point. You don't even know that I exist. WHOO lets not go down that path eh?
Back on point. We have a lot of assumptions in science. One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force? Why do we assume that it is a substance thing? Also couldn't nuclear force be just centrifugal force that slowly breaks down over (time)? If that is the case then in theory a device can be made that spins(or vibrates) at an appropriate level to create a force that replicates what happens when there is a LOT of mass. Thus bending space-time.
Let throw some holes in this theory. You people (know) much more about this subject than I do. My major is certainly not nuclear physics. I come from a theology background. From what I see there is a fundamental correlation to the hologram principle and most mythology/theology/religion/etc. there is just one thing I am missing to build upon my theory. What is actually bending space-time. Like most of theology people tend to overcomplicated things, at this point I think people, perhaps, are over complicating the science here. For example why is there creation? Well in theology there is something that most people miss, if there is a creator, that is what the creator does. Like a painter paints, the creator creates. Don't over complicate it. Its that simple. The correlation I have found in science and theology is that the hologram IS the creator. People didn't have the science then to communicate what it was they understood. They gave the hologram a persona. And I am getting off track again.
SO in short, please throw some holes in my idea. Also if there is a more (logical) answer that I can research into. Please shout it out, kind sirs and madams!
Sorry, but could you formulate your question/idea in more direct terms? I sincerely haven't grasped which is exactly.
-
i am dealing with the issue of mass gaining more mass at as the speed increases closer to the speed of light. where does the mass get more mass? does it suck in more matter and condenses it? etc-
It is not that 'mass get more mass'.
The energy and momentum of particles are frame dependent.
E^2 = (m0*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2
E and (pc) are frame dependent, i.e. the amount of "E" a "p*c"you measure depends on your speed relative to object that you measure it.
The rest mass m0 and the energy associated with it E0 = m0*c^2 is frame independent, and the rest mass does not 'gain more mass'.
-
Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear :)
Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself.
-
... I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know.
What exactly does that mean. You just said that you "know what you know" which we all do.
We can only prove the science to a point.
Science is all about making observations, developing theories to describe what we observe then making predictions based on those theories and then testing those theories. We never prove theories. Science can't do that.
We have a lot of assumptions in science.
Such assumptions are referred to as either laws, principles or postulates.
One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force?
Nope. The nuclear force is very different in nature to gravity. It's incorrect to think of force as bending spacetime. The source of spacetime curvature is mass. The effect of spacetime curvature does not extend outside the nucleus. It's a short range force, quite unlike gravity. Also light is ueffected by the strong force whereas its defleected by mass.
Why do we assume that it is a substance thing?
Nobody assumes that spacetime is a substance. We use the term "fabric of spacetime" merely as an analogy to visualize it. It has no substance and that is well known by relativists.
No observation made in nature is consistent with what you suggested.
-
Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear :)
Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself.
The centrifugal force is an inertial force which is of the same nature of a gravitational force. However centripetal forces do not curve spacetime. Then again it take more than the presence of a gravitational force to curve spacetime. It requires at least having gradients in the gravitational force. Curved spacetime is a complicated thing.
-
how does nasa intend on doing it with that oval space-ship within their holdings then?
"Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear :)
Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself."
exactly- that is my idea. just- you worded it way better. i don't speak science as much as i do theology. i just found a potential problem that i will have to confront and would like to eliminate it by giving a scientific explanation of it.
-
Well, it's as Pete says, it can't be a centripetal force. But that doesn't mean that you can't construct a universe from your idea. As a writer it will be yours :) and I see nothing stopping you from constructing it. Unless you crave it to be a 'hard core' SF in which case you need to adapt to what science know and defines.
-
Well, it's as Pete says, it can't be a centripetal force. But that doesn't mean that you can't construct a universe from your idea. As a writer it will be yours :) and I see nothing stopping you from constructing it. Unless you crave it to be a 'hard core' SF in which case you need to adapt to what science know and defines.
after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.
any other ideas?
-
Check this out-
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140550-first-teleportation-of-macroscopic-objects-leads-the-way-to-quantum-internet
if we can transport this small information- perhaps when tech becomes more pronounced we can attempt transporting a plant seed or been then the plant then an insect then an animal (a rat) then maybe even a human being. or am i just way off base here?
can anyone give me a better explanation on how this work exactly? as in how do they or what do they use to entangle the bits?
-
Assume you want to port state A to some other place. You get two entangled objects, B1 and B2. One you keep, the other you deliver somehow to the place where you want to replicate state A. You can't measure on state A directly as that will interfere with its state, changing it. So what you do is to measure on the relation state A has to state B1, for example the way state B1:s spin has to state A, around some axis. Knowing the relation you haven't measured state A directly. but you have a relation that will be just as true for your friend 'over there' that you sent the entangled B2 too. The only thing he will need is a new 'photon' State C that he then put in the exact same relation to B2 that your B1 have to state A.
But it is indeed measuring involved, although on the relation between those particles state. And what you should end up with is two exactly correlated photons both in State A. But it is a tricky one. Check up Charles Bennet (1993) IBM if you're interested of it.
It's not a 'startrek procedure' but a indirect way to create a relation between what you measure on and what you want to copy, giving you as 'exact' a copy on the other side we possibly can imagine. And it opens for discussion as it builds on a assumption that I can measure on something being in a relation to something else without changing the relation, or else assuming that even if I do change the relation, I still won't have changed the original 'particle' which state I want to copy to the other side. Also, the sending of this information, or code, will still have to be done under light speed (in a vacuum)
-
And the entanglement in this case can be done with a beamsplitter, separating one photon into two, down converting the original photons energy 1 to two photons of .5, in where the subsequent photons now will have opposite polarizations (spin) and so be 'entangled'. The weird thing about entanglements are that they are supposed to instantly set their states as fast as you measure on one. Either you can assume some hidden parameter creating the 'spins', at their creation? Or you can assume a entanglement to ignore distance and light speed.
Also, there is no way for you to know what the spin will be on the particle you measure on, before the measurement. It has a 50% chance to be 'up' or 'down'. But no matter what polarization/spin it is found to be, the other particle will 'know' and set the opposite.
-
This sounds a LOT like how you project a hologram. Am I off base here?
-
You better explain how you think there, then we'll see what we agree on :)
-
Teleporting a photon (a photon is the smallest measurable unit of light) using quantum entanglement (QE). When two photons are entangled on a quantum level the changes in “particle A” create changes in “particle B”. Regardless of the physical distance between them. This has been proven at the particle level.
In 2009 scientists at the University of California manged to demonstrate QE by linking the electrical currents of two super-conductors which were large enough to be seen by the naked eye. Before this time QE had only been observed at much smaller levels.
The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact. Each object then contains information about the entire entangled system. The only other structures that exhibit this phenomenon are called holograms. Holograms are two dimensional surfaces that show precisely detailed three dimensional images of real objects.
Which makes sense to me going back to what I have already been thinking on how the universe is constructed - the holographic principle.
Leonard Susskind on the Holographic principle
UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso on the Holographic principle
And Wikipedia article on the Holographic principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
There are things in theology that I have linked to this in particular. I came across this idea when I was sitting on my front porch trying to figure out what tells the cement to stay/be cement and separate from the iron railing going down the bath that is grounded into it. So i closed my eyes and visualized a myriad of different possibilities. The only logical explanation I have found thus far is that on the smallest level (quarks/bits quantum/photon/etc) that the stuff at that level has a certain amount of programing of sorts. This programing can understand the programing -like a computer- from other stuff that may be slightly different. The slight differences in the programing pave the way for the stuff to put in one file and separate from other files. Although the stuff is all in one big folder in the end regardless of having separate files. That one big file being the computer itself. The computer at this level would require to understand all of the files within it and could accesses all of the files within it at will.
This made me think of how holograms are formed. I then asked a friend of mine about it who had mentioned about seven years ago about the holographic principle. He then told me what I was describing is very similar to the holographic principle. So I decided to do some research on it.
Throughout all of my research I had a nagging thing on the back of my mind. That thing was my memory of all the studies I have done in theology/mythology/legends/and the like. There are a few things that all of these topics (theology etc) have in common if you go to their furthermost roots in their development. There is a certain amount of "oneness" being connected to the "all", the "big spirit", a reference to being in (as in not "akin to", damn it, its WITHIN the image) the image of god, that this (god) greater consciousness was infinite. Then I remembered something I read about hermes trismegistus from the "Kybalion".
Wiki article on the Kybalion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalion
Aside from "the principle of gender" this train of thought actually relates to all of the things I have been thinking. We all know everything but we know nothing we are just figments of our own belief. In hypothesis, if we all stopped believing each other existed we would cease to exist. Our mind is a thing we can train. What are we training? The file system within our self- is the best way I know to describe it. This file system is similar to how the universe works (there have been multiple studies that have lead to the human brain works similar to a holographic storage device), and seeing that the everything (including us and rocks and trees etc) are part of this everything, "the all" we could, in hypothesis- train our mind to affect the stuff around us.
This is where my mind is going at this point. sorry for the terrible writing (run on sentences etc)- eek.
-
The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact.
Do you mean I am entangled with my brother every time he calls me by phone? [:)]
-
as long as that it is not lude- then yes. btw the dictionary here is not picking up the word lude- that indeed, IS a word...
-
after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.
any other ideas?
A centripetal force is merely the force required to move an object in a circle or a circular part of a trajectory. The force could be the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force. A charged particle moving perpendicular to the field lines in a uiform magnetic field causes the centripetal force in that case. For a satelite moving around the earth its the gravitational force. The force required to hold an object moving along a solid object (e.g. roller coaster) is electric in nature, as is the force exerted by a string.
-
after some further reading - yup- i was wrong there. if the force is just the string holding the ball from flying off than yup i was wrong. i may look into taking advantage of quantum entanglement, and i need to read general relativity again- its been too many years since i have brushed up on it thoroughly.
any other ideas?
A centripetal force is merely the force required to move an object in a circle or a circular part of a trajectory. The force could be the gravitational force or an electromagnetic force. A charged particle moving perpendicular to the field lines in a uiform magnetic field causes the centripetal force in that case. For a satelite moving around the earth its the gravitational force. The force required to hold an object moving along a solid object (e.g. roller coaster) is electric in nature, as is the force exerted by a string.
yep- i was wrong there. thoughts about the similarity to a hologram?
-
I'm not sure, A holographic image is a wave phenomena as I get it, and sure, you might think of photons as waves (wave packets) if you like. But the holographic theory? Would that be a wave definition then? As I get it the definiton expect two dimensions to exist, from where we get our third, and a arrow?
-
What I'm saying is that a wave is dimension less. Then again, I'm not that good on defining a holographic universe, maybe we have someone that can do it in simple terms?
-
Did you watch the you tube videos i posted?
-
Did you watch the you tube videos i posted?
Not yet. I've been having problems with my PC. Internet Explorer and FirFox have been running as slow as molasses for some reason. I can't figure out why. I scanned my system with Ad-Aware and found no problems. I tried to download Spybot but got errors so I can't use that program to see if there are problems with my system. Any ideas anybody?
-
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
avg
update spybot
go into safe mode and do this. sometimes you will miss stuff if you are not in safe mode. you wont be able to go to the internet in safe mode- so you know. beyond that if you have never done registry sweeping- you are better off handing it off to someone who has. you can really screw things up very quickly.
-
Do a 'system restore' if it's windows, set it to some days before you found the problem, if that doesn't help? Need to look at processes, assuming you don't have some corrupted, but you need to know what should be there preferably (cntrl alt del) and then close the ones you don't recognize, one at a time, to see if it speeds it up.
-
And no, I don't use U-tube at all with my connection :) Too expensive. So, either we need a good explanation, or we need to go out and create one here :)
-
the problem is with the nomenclature there. People using far and near fields either know when it's appropriate and have a physical meaning, or they don't, parroting it. I prefer as simple words as possible, some may seem simple, from studying the holographic principle, but it's bad practice assuming that everyone else will know.
-
That is unfortunate that you can't get on youtube- leonard susskind has the best explanation i have seen thus far of what is going on. can you access Wikipedia?
-
Well, I was on a site where it was extensively discussed for some years, that doesn't mean I know it though :) Me, I want it simple. Relaying 'c' to a arrow is simple, and logically deductible. Discussing Bomh, Aspen, entanglements becomes a lot more tricky, involving a lot of mathematics, that you better get for real :) if you want to see what they mean. And to then explain what you get, without the mathematics, making it logical, and understandable in words, is one big step further to me.
Have seen a lot of hand waving on the subject, but nobody has come near to make it logic in words for me.
-
And there is one thing more. It's not satisfying to me to assume one dimension replaced by a holographic principle. Why would we need the two others? I call that archetypes. Think that was my first instinctive response too :) either you have a universe where dimensions actually, and for real (whatever that is in this thinking) exist. Or you don't. doesn't mean that it has to be wrong though, just not fitting my taste.
=
And then there are the arrow too, would that be a result of a holographic principle too?
But I'm still waiting for the guy or gal, actually able to describe it.
Or I will be forced to do it :) and we all know where that will end ::))
-
There is one simple way to test is. If the universe gets blurry on a small scale, then you might assume this having to do with you using just some percent of the 'full information'. A hologram, breaking it into pieces, will still contain all information, but it will blur, the further down in scale you go. So if we are a hologram we will get out of 'focus' at a small scale. There have been one test I know of that says 'No', another that says 'Yes, or, at least Maybe' :) and then we have hogans holometer that is built for probing very small scales 'fuzziness'.
But the main irritation for me is the one keeping two dimensions, questioning a third. Also trying to see the arrow as a construct from it, or rather, observer dependencies, because I do not see how it explain 'c'.
Which one do we take away:)
Length, width or height.
-
Well, I was on a site where it was extensively discussed for some years, that doesn't mean I know it though :) Me, I want it simple. Relaying 'c' to a arrow is simple, and logically deductible.
The simplest way I know to define this is the comparison of our universe to a black hole. Susskind had a disagreement with Hawking on this several years ago and in the end, Hawking had to admit that Susskind was right.
No information is lost to a Black Hole because it is all retained at the event horizon. Susskind compares the surface of the event horizon to the outer limits of our universe. And argues that reality is very much like a Hologram, where events occurring everywhere in the universe are connected with copies of this information occurring also at this outer shell.
I agree that anyone interested should also watch the video.
-
BTW, Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics and Director of the Stanford Institute of Theoretical Physics. His expertise involves particle physics and gravitational physics at Stanford University.
-
I use word solely, images are manipulative, steering you into views. Words on the other hand needs you. It will be your brain making that image, or movie, and none will be the same. Because to me each brain have different views, and when you find a way to use it, you grow :) And books have that effect, if one have the patience to read them. I love books, but I stopped looking at the telly, decades ago.
-
Then again, I do use images, but sparsely. when I do it, it is to press home some view I have.
nobody's perfect :)
-
as long as that it is not lude- then yes. btw the dictionary here is not picking up the word lude- that indeed, IS a word...
You wrote:
<<The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact. >>
My ironic answer intended that what qualifies entanglement is not that, because we can transmit information with no contact with a simple radio transmission.
Second, and more important, with entanglement you cannot transmit information.
-
Interesting article regarding quantum teleportation:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129246-chinese-physicists-achieve-quantum-teleportation-over-60-miles
-
Yeah, you can copy and recreate states, possibly, by entanglements. But the information about the state will need to go by 'c' as far as I know. So it's not FTL, and imagine us doing it to some piece of matter? You must destroy it, to be able to copy it. Unless you find a way to use condensates, possibly? But then we're speaking bosons, or alternatively materials that becomes bosonic under extreme temperatures. Although I've seen propositions that define matter as entangled I don't see how they will become one Bose–Einstein condensate.
But then, as a alternative, we have this idea of micro states, able to present us with something similar, using exotic materials. What I'm aiming on is that either you search and destroy to copy, or you find a way to describe a 'composite state' simplifying it into one description that you can send by light speed to recreate. All of this also assume that 'c' is the limit for information.
-
Perhaps - instead of searching how the universe is a hologram, you need to first understand what a hologram is and how it works. the problem with you not using visuals is this. describe to me a birtch tree and the difference (in words alone, compared to a maple) as if i have never seen a tree before. good luck. visuals are there for a reason. i posted the video because susskind used a great set of visuals and honestly, if you didn't want visuals his set of word choices were excellent.
regardless of how your or anyone else learns, i think you need to understand what a hologram is first. one of the statements you made on page 2 of this thread was about is it "real" or not. a hologram is still real. just because its a hologram doesn't make it any less real. this isn't star treck. its a way to project and store information- is the best way i know how to describe it in my own words. I know that is not the entire explanation but i think for your sake, you should find an article on what a hologram is so you can find something that you understand. post the article so that we can see if there is any terrible flaws with it. then we can move on to talk more about what it would mean for the universe to store and project information in that manner.
-
on a slightly differing note although i believe this applies. here is an article my friend sent me in relation to this topic.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf
-
Well I think I know what a ordinary hologram is. It's something made from a dimension less property called light, in this case a laser. You let it light up the object, splitting the coherent light (laser) in two parts, one becoming a reference beam, the other becoming what illuminates the object. What you get is a 'film' that becomes a pattern, describing the light interfering with itself bouncing at the object, and then back to your film. And it is the way light interferes with itself that will give you the three dimensional representation. All from the pattern inscribed on that plate. But that's not what we call a three dimensional reality. To get from that to matter you have a long way to go as I think. And if someone know how to explain how we get to matter from light interfering, quenching and reinforcing, I'm really interested.
Light does that all the time, on its way from a sun to us, assuming waves and propagation.
So?
==
Forgot to point out that what it does illuminating, scattering and refracting, etc, on the object, is also to get redirected due to those very real dimensions the object have, as well as microscopically, its texture. So 'dimensions' are here, and so are light. but to get light as a dimension you need to lead into evidence how light produce a real, touch able, dimension. And also explain how that one differ from the two left behind.
-
The term "holographic" is unfortunate because it implies some connection between the holographic principle and visible light holography. The only real connection is that both describe a higher dimensional volume by information encoded in a lower dimensional surface. The physics behind both are completely different.
-
Nah, no slight intended but I'm actually getting tired on the way I find all and each one reasoning, more and more abstractly, using some theoretical hypothesis to prove new theoretical hypothesizes, also calling it science. Science is to me when you have a hypothesis, building it on repeatable experiments. From those and your new hypothesis suggesting a way to prove your concept by a experiment. To do it the other way becomes a sort of philosophy to me, not as stringent as what you can find on a good philosophy site as Stanford.edu, no matter what mathematics it use to then define new mathematics, relating to new ideas, defining another new hypothesis, searching for some more mathematics fitting your ideas, defining ..... etc etc
Hogans holometer is a earnest try for that experiment, although not all agree on his definitions around it, being equivalent to how SR defines it. Testing the Holographic Principle. (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4572)
This is a better order to do it from, than building assumptions on assumptions, ad infintium, to me. Make it a repeatable experiment, proving something not noticed before, but explainable from your hypothesis. Then you at least have a stepping stone existing in reality.
And here is a rather nice description of how you, and me, can make our own hologram.
How to Make Holograms. (http://www.holoworld.com/holo/howto.html)
-
Yes, I know JP, but so many connect it to a hologram, finding that one proving the next one. And I still stand by repeatable experiments being the grounding stone from where theory need to be proven, or a hypothesis.
-
Eh, the one after (your post) was not a reply to you JP, btw. It was a reply to the paper linked before. You're making sense, the paper though :) A hypothesis building on a hypothesis, to me that is.
-
Yes, I know JP, but so many connect it to a hologram, finding that one proving the next one. And I still stand by repeatable experiments being the grounding stone from where theory need to be proven, or a hypothesis.
No one is really connecting the physics of a visible light hologram to the holographic principle. Again, its just an unfortunate choice of terms due to the fact that both involve information in a volume being contained in a surface bounding that volume--the physics of how this works in both cases is completely different.
-
If Verlinde would have suggested it here, us not knowing who he is, I think it would have landed in New theories as he became more and more convinced :) also assuming less mathematics. Then again, Verlinde is interesting, also connecting a lot of stuff. Like he connects gravity to entropy. But to state that we have 'black hole physics' is to imply that we can experiment on it, but we can't. The closest we might have in terms of analogue, is experiments with light. And there I expect you to know that better than me?
-
And the entanglement in this case can be done with a beamsplitter, separating one photon into two, down converting the original photons energy 1 to two photons of .5, in where the subsequent photons now will have opposite polarizations (spin) and so be 'entangled'.
I don't understand this. You can't split one photon into two and you can't change the energy of a photon with a beam splitter. To change the energy of a photon at best you need to scatter if off a charged particle. But you can't say that the scattered photon was the same as the original one. As for energy there is a device which combines photons to increase their energy. They use them in the Nova fusion laser facility. I forget what its called though.
The weird thing about entanglements are that they are supposed to instantly set their states as fast as you measure on one. Either you can assume some hidden parameter creating the 'spins', at their creation? Or you can assume a entanglement to ignore distance and light speed.
As I understand it there are no hidden variables. If there were then Bell's inequality would be valid and experiments have shown that it isn't.
You can ignore the speed of light in regards to entanglement since no information can be transmitted using it, so the claim goes. At least nobody has figured out a way to do it. However there have been claims to that effect. E.g.
Faster than Light? Raymond Y. Chiao, Paul G. Kwiat and Aephraim M. Steinberg, Scientific American, August 1993
Also, there is no way for you to know what the spin will be on the particle you measure on, before the measurement. It has a 50% chance to be 'up' or 'down'. But no matter what polarization/spin it is found to be, the other particle will 'know' and set the opposite.
A good way to view this is to consider a box with two marbles in it one which is black and the other white. Two people take a marble but don't look at it. They agree to travel in opposite directions at near the speed of light for a period of one year and then stop and look a their marble. Just because one person sees his marble to be black and knows that the other person is looking at a white marble it doesn't mean that information is traveling faster than the speed of light.
If there really were hidden variables then charged particles moving around atoms would be moving on classical trajectories and radiating energy. Since they aren't then there are no hidden variables.
-
And the holographic principle still need to define what differs one dimension (and a arrow) from the two left, as I see it. To make one a expression you should be able to differ it in some physical way, preferably experimentally. If you can't you better be able to explain why you can't, in practice reducing it all to no 'dimensions' at all. I prefer ideas using strings/loops for describing it myself. They do not fit what we see, but they are at least coherent in the way they treat a universe.
-
I'm not sure the point your arguing here, Yor_on. I don't disagree with the holographic principle. I don't know enough about it to critique it. I am an expert in optical holography, though, and the two are not related other than the analogy that both describe information about a volume from information over a surface. The physics for how that information gets encoded on a surface is completely different (as is the nature of the information and the make-up of the surface...)
It's a bit like the (unrelated) case of using a rubber sheet as an analogy to general relativity. There's some nice conceptual points to be made by comparing the two, but no physicist would confuse space-time for a rubber sheet since they're physically two completely different things.
-
It's simply that beam splitter leave you two photons in stead of one, of half the 'original' energy Pete. Or do you see it differently? As for the physical process? Depends on how you define it, doesn't it? As waves, or photons, or both :) How would you define it?
Well, hidden variables are still a proposition, as I've read it, and I don't think it have changed. As for information being transfered, I've had a prolonged discussion on physics forums about it, also involving another scientist defining a proposition from where you might consider it 'information' being transfered.
I don't expect it too?
Do you?
As for the next statement, that one you better expand your thoughts on.
-
Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?
-
Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?
I wouldn't. I don't know enough about the theory to discuss it. I was just pointing out that there are errors in the arguments here that holography (optical) and the holographic principle are closely related.
-
And I think I said I knew it? I used it as reply not to you. Why not read the post above to see what I was replying too?
-
My main point still withstands, if someone feel itself qualified to define a holographic universe I will be very interested, as long as I get it in the clearest words possible.
-
My main point still withstands, if someone feel itself qualified to define a holographic universe I will be very interested, as long as I get it in the clearest words possible.
Not sure if I'm capable of generating the thought in word but I'll try.
The issue has to do with duality as I see it. On the one hand, we have a point particle but we also have the wave. This description is only an approximation and I'm sure many will find flaws. Just remember that it is only a picture of reality, the fine detail is something else.
Think of the photon first as a point particle. This point can be described as a locality in space. However, the wave has no precise locality, only a point of origin. The wave moves thru space at c, as a 360 degree shell from it's origin. Even though the wave can only move at c, the wave has constant communication with all degrees of this spherical shell. And this communication within the wave shell is not limited by c because, for the wave to exist, there must be a continuity between all sections of it.
At least, this is how I see it. I'm quite willing to accept my error on this but for this to occur, someone will need to explain how a wave can maintain it's integrity moving at c without loosing communication with all of it's parts.
-
And I think I said I knew it? I used it as reply not to you. Why not read the post above to see what I was replying too?
Yor_on, I think we have too many different thoughts going on in this thread and too many cross posts, which has confused me about who you're actually addressing in your posts. Do you essentially agree agree that optical holograms and the holographic principle are unrelated? My original post was directed at the idea that the two might be related.
I don't know much about the holographic principle, which is why I've stayed out of the thread, but I do know enough to pop in and point out when someone's taking a wrong track by trying to relate it to optical holography.
-
From the non-expert understanding I have of the holographic principle, it came from black holes and the idea that if a particle fell in, the information about it was somehow lost (black holes classically are supposed to only differ from each other in mass, charge and angular momentum, while particles have much more information than those 3 quantities.)
Those working on the marriage of quantum mechanics and gravity found that some theories predicted that a particle falling into a black hole would deform event horizon of the black hole in such a way that information about the particle was preserved. This would mean that information about the particle which is now inside the volume of the black hole is somehow encoded on its surface.
I believe that further work has extended this to the universe as a whole and suggests that the information inside the universe is the same as the information encoded on the boundary of the universe. If that's true, you should be able to do describe all physics in the universe by working on the surface, rather than within the volume of the universe.
That's the high level summary as I understand it, but I don't know details well enough to comment in any depth on it.
-
sorry JP, it's me mood :)
And yes, I agree. The holographic principle is an entirely different beast to me than a hologram, although it indeed can be seen as a analogue thinking of it. Anyone remember Beckenstein radiation? Apropos charges? Think we had a discussion about it before, somewhere here? And the Bekenstein bound. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound) That and Hawking radiation created a heated debate from where the holographic principle seem to have been formulated Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein-Hawking_entropy) And it is a question of entropy, and strings possibly?
And so extremely theoretical, although very interesting. Beckenstein have both suggested a modified GR, as well as questioning rest mass. And I still don't know what a holographic universe will be defined on.
-
Holy particle beam batman! I am not on this for about a couple hours and it blows up. OK. hmm- I think i said somewhere in this thread that its LIKE a hologram. Akin to a hologram. Not that it IS a hologram. More that the information stored and presented is akin to how a hologram works. meaning - YES, they are separate things. They are not one and the same, just very similar. its akin to saying "that shirt is red as an apple" rather than saying" that shirt IS an apple". The fact that the shirt is the universe and the apple and its visible color is an attribute comparable to the universe (the apple and its red{ness} are the hologram) we have a red apple principle.
I may just convoluted that even more- albeit this helps me personally visualize it. - yes, i am donning a red shirt. :)
either way, if you had watched either youtube video, and you understand quantum entanglement- I think the end result of this is after realizing this information, there ends up being another question to an answer, what does this mean? hence my thought pattern going to if you believe it does it become real?
have any of you seen the movie "hook" with dustin hoffman directed by steven spielburg? remember the scene in which robin williams as peter pan is at a dinner table and all these kids are eating this invisible food? then when robin williams finally starts "imagining/playing/believing" the food becomes real - actually real? that is my thought, what if this was taken to a larger scale. if we are part of the information storage device (the hologram storage unit?) then in hypothesis by thinking something is real it could very well become real if enough units (believed) it was real.
btw YES the hologram principle is a result of attempting to explain what we have studied (the very little amount...) and witnessed about black holes. at least, that is my perception- i could be incorrect. although at this point, none of you can prove i exist. you could be imagining all of this right now. you could be imagining me. although i think the real problem is - what the heck is wrong with you that you would imagine me ;)
-
for those that can watch youtube and haven't seen hook.
-
Morgan, try to find their sources instead, and use, link, them. I'm sure there are more than me wanting to stay out of too Megabyte eating environments :)
=
I like probability myself, not too hot on defining what a dimension should be. And then we have fields, I'm having trouble defining those from my own ideas of locality, although the concept knits very closely to the ideas of wave functions in my mind, expressed as 'dimension less' qualities/properties, and so also quantum mechanics. I mean, it seem to fit, doesn't it? Fields and wave functions, and probabilities/statistics aka quantum mechanics. But to those believing in a holographic principle fields might have to go, and if they go, what else?
Take a look here Information in the Holographic Universe by Jacob D. Bekenstein [July 14,2003] (http://ref-sciam.livejournal.com/1190.html?nojs=1) and no, it does not answer what matter is, not as I read it at least, it suggest how a universe might be built.
-
And it is still becoming hand waving to me, I'm afraid. Excellent hand waving, based on mathematics, but not describing my universe. And so theoretical, if it in any way is a analogue to a hologram, then we should be able to see it experimentally. testing small scales.
=
And if you did read the link, you can compare it to this statement.
"The maximization of entropy postulated by the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most general law of physics, remains one of the most puzzling issues in contemporary science. There have been at least twenty other different and often mutually exclusive definitions of entropy.
Thermodynamic entropy (Gibbs) always increases; statistical entropy Boltzmann) tends to increase, while informational entropy (Shannon) decreases with the arrival of a message. In Shannon's equation, entropy and information are positively related, but many authors consider information as negative entropy.
This terminological confusion reflects deep conceptual discrepancies. Contemporary science includes three contradictory models: (1) Mechanics (Newtonian, relativistic, quantic or statistical), postulating static structures and reversible change; time reversibility implies a cosmic symmetry and the conservation of information. (2) Evolutionary theories that postulate a temporal increase in complexity and diversity. (3) Thermodynamics, postulating involution toward resting equilibrium (Clausius) and disorder (Boltzmann).
Statistical Mechanics provides a scenario in which mechanism and thermodynamics can coexist by explaining entropy as a probabilistic phenomenon; however, it allows for reversibility (excluded by the second law), it fails to explain why either evolution or irreversibility occur, and it must explain the tendency to maximize entropy as the result of initial conditions, which are both arbitrary and untestable.
Two solutions have been offered to the contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics: (a) the expansion of space, both physical, and genetic; and (b) the hypothesis that entropy increases necessarily only in closed systems, whereas open systems such as biological organisms and other complex processes may reduce their internal entropy by importing free energy from the environment, and exporting entropy to it."
From "Entropy as symmetry: theory and empirical support". By Sabelli, H. (1994)
-
what exactly is your point
-
Well, it's about possible interpretations, and what they will do to ones formulation, and theory, relative experiments. I'm old fashioned :) I like experiments proving a point.
-
Well, it's about possible interpretations, and what they will do to ones formulation, and theory, relative experiments. I'm old fashioned :) I like experiments proving a point.
Absolutely yor_on, it's called the scientific method..............