1
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: 10/01/2021 17:18:25 »
Yeah, I know, kind of crazy :) Then again, it is a weird universe.
The following users thanked this post: charles1948
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the best explanation for Three Polarizer “Paradox”?
« on: 17/12/2020 05:29:39 »
You might find this interesting hamdani yusuf . https://skullsinthestars.com/2020/02/05/visualizing-the-geometric-phase-of-light/
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf
3
New Theories / Re: What causes Tunneling?
« on: 05/12/2020 03:54:26 »
When it comes to using 'c' as a imaginary number we have this.
" ABSTRACT
The quest to find faster‐than‐light particles has intrigued physicists for decades, though it has yet to turn up any real candidates. Even if a superluminal universe does exist, we have no way to reach it given that we must go through the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is impossible. In this paper, I show that by making speed complex, we can go around the speed of light in a manner analogous to the way a car faced with an infinitely tall road block might leave the road to go around that barrier.
The treatment is a mathematical device; no known physical interpretation exists for the imaginary part of a complex speed. However, it can provide an entertaining problem in special relativity, one that may encourage students to think about the connections between equations and the physical universe. "
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/12643-can-imaginary-numbers-solve-the-problem-of-faster-than-light-travel
and imaginary numbers do have their place in physics. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html
" ABSTRACT
The quest to find faster‐than‐light particles has intrigued physicists for decades, though it has yet to turn up any real candidates. Even if a superluminal universe does exist, we have no way to reach it given that we must go through the speed of light, which to the best of our knowledge is impossible. In this paper, I show that by making speed complex, we can go around the speed of light in a manner analogous to the way a car faced with an infinitely tall road block might leave the road to go around that barrier.
The treatment is a mathematical device; no known physical interpretation exists for the imaginary part of a complex speed. However, it can provide an entertaining problem in special relativity, one that may encourage students to think about the connections between equations and the physical universe. "
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/12643-can-imaginary-numbers-solve-the-problem-of-faster-than-light-travel
and imaginary numbers do have their place in physics. https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html
The following users thanked this post: Virtual State
4
New Theories / Re: What causes Tunneling?
« on: 04/12/2020 02:16:44 »
I suspect you have something of a new theory there. We have a place for that if you want to expand on it further. In the mean time this might be relevant. Fermat's principle. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/7010/CM_03_FermatLeastTime.html
The following users thanked this post: Virtual State
5
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does past, present, future exist at once? What is block universe?
« on: 01/11/2020 21:27:59 »
I don't know, nobody does. I still will try to define it. It's 'energy', and 'energy' is a coin of exchange. the way it works is called 'entropy' From that we go to relativity in where the only thing we can define is your local model. If that agrees with mine and others, we have a 'fact'. The same goes for any 'repeatable' experiments you create.
=
It's about building a world image. In relativity all models are local, they build up to a 'global' model in where we state this will be valid for all times, and at all places. In quantum theory that's not enough. that's where 'many worlds' come in
Block universes comes in various shades. The thing joining them is the idea of 'time' not having a arrow. And free will may exist or not in such a universe. As long as we define the choices as being 'infinite' in it.
=
It's about building a world image. In relativity all models are local, they build up to a 'global' model in where we state this will be valid for all times, and at all places. In quantum theory that's not enough. that's where 'many worlds' come in
Block universes comes in various shades. The thing joining them is the idea of 'time' not having a arrow. And free will may exist or not in such a universe. As long as we define the choices as being 'infinite' in it.
The following users thanked this post: John369
6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is our universe derived from the same details that created it?
« on: 06/10/2020 14:24:43 »
We have 'laws' in physics. Not materialistic things that you can touch but laws. You might wonder if those laws would be a 'origin', and the way we define them is that without them this universe wouldn't be what it is today. Statistics describes some of them, as the average rate of decay for something radioactive. then we have conservation laws, symmetries etc. We also have 'properties' of f.ex specific particles, as bosons and fermions.But it doesn't tell us if those laws is a result or a origin? Well, I might lean to immaterial laws but others won't. You can take a thought as a example of something immaterial that may have great consequences for us all.
=
spelling
=
spelling
The following users thanked this post: yovav
7
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?
« on: 23/09/2020 12:21:31 »
And if you think of it, I would call this a lot more mind boggling than any ideas of taychons existing. If it is correct, but it should be. Inside a Black hole, depending on how you define that 'center' you should disappear from any outside observer, and that is without 'wormhole technology'.
=
Locally defined it should look as if space becomes infinite, possibly? The event horizon won't exist for you any more as any direction you choose invariably will lead you only one way, towards that 'center', where or what -ever it is. Some define as if the 'center' is reached as soon as you passed your (real) event horizon. It's pretty weird, a black hole.
=
Have a read https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-big-bang-may-be-a-black-hole-inside-another-universe-79ce12613c60
=
One assumption I build it on (not the article, that's unrelated) is that 'c' will be 'c' wherever you are, and that 'c' is a equivalence to a locally defined 'perfect clock'. It's not the 'speed' I'm interested in there, it's like a conservation law, the speed doesn't matter, the equivalence do.
=
Locally defined it should look as if space becomes infinite, possibly? The event horizon won't exist for you any more as any direction you choose invariably will lead you only one way, towards that 'center', where or what -ever it is. Some define as if the 'center' is reached as soon as you passed your (real) event horizon. It's pretty weird, a black hole.
=
Have a read https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-big-bang-may-be-a-black-hole-inside-another-universe-79ce12613c60
=
One assumption I build it on (not the article, that's unrelated) is that 'c' will be 'c' wherever you are, and that 'c' is a equivalence to a locally defined 'perfect clock'. It's not the 'speed' I'm interested in there, it's like a conservation law, the speed doesn't matter, the equivalence do.
The following users thanked this post: John369
8
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?
« on: 23/09/2020 11:28:43 »
This " Inside the event horizon space and time change their roles " is about mathematics. It's a specific solution to the standard Schwarzschild coordinates. In reality it is about a zone from where noting escapes, not even light. You falling in wouldn't notice time and space 'changing place', and your wristwatch would give you the same clock rate, well, more or less if introducing tidal forces. But without them there would be nothing special happening to you, and you would reach whatever 'center' there is in a, for you, measurable time.
What happens to 'space' inside is that it conforms to gravity and 'shrinks'. And so do you and your meter stick, as defined from a outside far away. Not to you locally defined though. The same goes for the time component, as from a outside it 'slows down', and as the inside is a singularity the 'center' should be a place where a outside observer would say that your clock has stopped, as far as I see. And the same should then go for your 'size' as a guess. Aka, you 'disappeared'
And yes, the 'evaporation' is a quantum physical effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
What happens to 'space' inside is that it conforms to gravity and 'shrinks'. And so do you and your meter stick, as defined from a outside far away. Not to you locally defined though. The same goes for the time component, as from a outside it 'slows down', and as the inside is a singularity the 'center' should be a place where a outside observer would say that your clock has stopped, as far as I see. And the same should then go for your 'size' as a guess. Aka, you 'disappeared'
And yes, the 'evaporation' is a quantum physical effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
The following users thanked this post: John369
9
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would an immersed bottle be filled?
« on: 27/03/2020 21:18:45 »
Everyone seem to get it except me. I get stuck directly reading ' immerse inversely a sealed bottle ' Inversely meaning? A Klein bottle or?
The following users thanked this post: evan_au
10
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can quantum entanglement be proven?
« on: 10/11/2019 16:23:24 »
The whole point of a quantum entanglement is that you don't know what spin this particle you measure will have, it has a fifty fifty percentage in a simplest case of being 'up' or 'down', and you can do the a same experiment with a same collection of particles several times to find that sometimes they are 'up' and sometimes they are 'down'.
What you do know is that the other 'particle' split from the original through a beam divider of some sort 'instantly' will know its partners spin as soon as you measure the first one. Measuring it collapses the probabilities it contained, and for its 'twin' too. But before that measurement nothing was sure.
=
And yes, the whole question becomes one of how it could 'know instantly' what spin its partner would present. As for information the idea is that this won't be allowed as it is 'ftl'. Information is presumed to have a 'speed' no higher than 'c'. But then you have the injection of 'energy' as you measure it (bump it), and that's something I wonder about. Will its partner gain energy too? Or is there no 'energy' involved in this measuring?
the point of that question is one of if we still can 'separate' them from each other, or if they are 'indivisible'. There is a difference I think? You could also call it a question of 'information' and 'speeds' ..
And yes, if someone knows of a experiment checking this I would be very interested. But it has to be a classic one in where we separate the particles a fair distance. both in 'splendid isolation' before measuring, also defining their energy before a measurement, then adding whatever 'kinetic energy' we create in our first measurement, comparing it to its twin. As it is our interference with their indeterminate state that defines the 'wave collapse' the 'spin' of the first is not the interesting factor here, we can shoot the first one with a laser if we like as long as we know the energy it contained before. And it's not the spin of its twin that we are interested in anymore, just its energy.
=
spelling
What you do know is that the other 'particle' split from the original through a beam divider of some sort 'instantly' will know its partners spin as soon as you measure the first one. Measuring it collapses the probabilities it contained, and for its 'twin' too. But before that measurement nothing was sure.
=
And yes, the whole question becomes one of how it could 'know instantly' what spin its partner would present. As for information the idea is that this won't be allowed as it is 'ftl'. Information is presumed to have a 'speed' no higher than 'c'. But then you have the injection of 'energy' as you measure it (bump it), and that's something I wonder about. Will its partner gain energy too? Or is there no 'energy' involved in this measuring?
the point of that question is one of if we still can 'separate' them from each other, or if they are 'indivisible'. There is a difference I think? You could also call it a question of 'information' and 'speeds' ..
And yes, if someone knows of a experiment checking this I would be very interested. But it has to be a classic one in where we separate the particles a fair distance. both in 'splendid isolation' before measuring, also defining their energy before a measurement, then adding whatever 'kinetic energy' we create in our first measurement, comparing it to its twin. As it is our interference with their indeterminate state that defines the 'wave collapse' the 'spin' of the first is not the interesting factor here, we can shoot the first one with a laser if we like as long as we know the energy it contained before. And it's not the spin of its twin that we are interested in anymore, just its energy.
=
spelling
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals
11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?
« on: 07/11/2019 09:20:36 »
If you instead of that want to think about it as fields of different energy density interacting it becomes one more interpretation :)
In that case most of what we take for granted disappear. A hole isn't a hole, it's something of a 'energy density' or maybe lack of, looking as a hole to us. and a 'particle' is not a projectile, instead it becomes a emanation of either ' one field's ' interaction with itself or fields interacting. I think that suits my own taste better than the other approaches. As you wrote light has a wave particle duality, and I see that as absolutely correct.
==
there is one big hurdle with the field idea, to me then. And that is how to make it fit relativity. What that means is that our universe is 'observer dependent' looked at from relativity. You can 'shrink' this universe through mass f.ex or by speeds. And those effects are no artifacts but physical laws. So if we define a universe as a field interacting with itself, or fields, we still need to incorporate relativity in it. And that is where it becomes really weird.
What it means is that everything might be said to have different 'speeds' versus your observation/platform. Which means that every object you observe will have its own definition of a size and time of/in this universe. Scaling it down we meet particles and passing that 'breaking it up' fields. That's also where it starts to hurt my head.
there is one more dimension we need to add to fields and that is time. Depending on how you look at it it becomes a arrow pointing one way, or a ocean. If you think of it as a ocean then that can contain a lot of possibilities, and also catch the way Einstein defined SpaceTime, consisting of four dimensions. three double ended and one with only one direction. And if you set that together with observer dependencies you get not only one universe but a multitude, one each for each 'observer'.
If you conclude that neither Relativity, nor QM (and fields) are satisfied with what we naively think of as our reality and universe, I would agree :)
==
you could also think of it as an 'ocean' consisting of probabilities in where 'time' is directly connected to decoherence giving us outcomes which then becomes our arrow. But 'probabilities' is also a snake biting its own tail in that it comes from us collecting statistics. so defining it as probabilities doesn't lead us any further as I think, but that may be where I'm wrong?
It may depend on how we define time.
In that case most of what we take for granted disappear. A hole isn't a hole, it's something of a 'energy density' or maybe lack of, looking as a hole to us. and a 'particle' is not a projectile, instead it becomes a emanation of either ' one field's ' interaction with itself or fields interacting. I think that suits my own taste better than the other approaches. As you wrote light has a wave particle duality, and I see that as absolutely correct.
==
there is one big hurdle with the field idea, to me then. And that is how to make it fit relativity. What that means is that our universe is 'observer dependent' looked at from relativity. You can 'shrink' this universe through mass f.ex or by speeds. And those effects are no artifacts but physical laws. So if we define a universe as a field interacting with itself, or fields, we still need to incorporate relativity in it. And that is where it becomes really weird.
What it means is that everything might be said to have different 'speeds' versus your observation/platform. Which means that every object you observe will have its own definition of a size and time of/in this universe. Scaling it down we meet particles and passing that 'breaking it up' fields. That's also where it starts to hurt my head.
there is one more dimension we need to add to fields and that is time. Depending on how you look at it it becomes a arrow pointing one way, or a ocean. If you think of it as a ocean then that can contain a lot of possibilities, and also catch the way Einstein defined SpaceTime, consisting of four dimensions. three double ended and one with only one direction. And if you set that together with observer dependencies you get not only one universe but a multitude, one each for each 'observer'.
If you conclude that neither Relativity, nor QM (and fields) are satisfied with what we naively think of as our reality and universe, I would agree :)
==
you could also think of it as an 'ocean' consisting of probabilities in where 'time' is directly connected to decoherence giving us outcomes which then becomes our arrow. But 'probabilities' is also a snake biting its own tail in that it comes from us collecting statistics. so defining it as probabilities doesn't lead us any further as I think, but that may be where I'm wrong?
It may depend on how we define time.
The following users thanked this post: Lloyd
12
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?
« on: 07/11/2019 09:05:11 »
Don't need mathematics to think about it Lloyd. Only if you have another interpretation and then want to have it published. Most of the stuff at the QM level is probabilistic, everything is thought to be a result of that and decoherence. Decoherence can be seen as this small probabilistic level reaching some sort of threshold of interactions and scale leaving the world as we experience it normally.
So in a two slit experiment there is a probability of either one or both slits being 'engaged' by one particle. And the way it unfolds will be defined through your setup. The idea of indirect evidence is increasingly popular in those situations as every time you probe a particle you also force it into a set behavior aka a 'wave collapse'. Whether one want to think about it first as waves or as particles is more of a question of what you believe than what is right here. I've read physicists stating the particle view while other state the wave view.
So in a two slit experiment there is a probability of either one or both slits being 'engaged' by one particle. And the way it unfolds will be defined through your setup. The idea of indirect evidence is increasingly popular in those situations as every time you probe a particle you also force it into a set behavior aka a 'wave collapse'. Whether one want to think about it first as waves or as particles is more of a question of what you believe than what is right here. I've read physicists stating the particle view while other state the wave view.
The following users thanked this post: Lloyd
13
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?
« on: 13/10/2019 19:23:03 »
Maybe
But if it isn't then what is real? I have to go out from myself and I think I exist. I'm sure you do the same which makes it two of us :)
'photons' are a equivalence to energy as I think of it, and they are also a local effect in that no matter if they propagate or not the only way we can experimentally prove them are at their impact. There is no way to define them when 'propagating' experimentally.
But if it isn't then what is real? I have to go out from myself and I think I exist. I'm sure you do the same which makes it two of us :)
'photons' are a equivalence to energy as I think of it, and they are also a local effect in that no matter if they propagate or not the only way we can experimentally prove them are at their impact. There is no way to define them when 'propagating' experimentally.
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals
14
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?
« on: 13/10/2019 18:23:35 »
In a way CPT, then we have 'energy' that might be called a coin of exchange, as JP defined it. But at a origin you don't have particles of proper mass. You have this idea of 'energy' instead creating proper mass.
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals
15
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?
« on: 13/10/2019 16:40:19 »
He's interesting Bill. Time as such is a local definition, invariant locally. It questions what we mean by defining something a locally invariant. Or if you like , lifting up repeatable experiments to 'universal constants'. If you turn your head all universal constants are representations of that idea.
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals
16
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?
« on: 13/10/2019 07:12:39 »
Pretty sweet question Petrochemicals. My own take on it is that it is a part of something more.
That's what the two slit experiment tells us, and so called 'delayed choices'.
What it do is to present us with a 'speed', and looked at from my perspective a way to to define durations (aka a 'local clock'). That one seems to hold true at any experiment, but when it comes to how it will express itself in a outcome, as particles or waves is related to more circumstances than 'light' itself.
=
It's a little more complicated than that though as 'light' is a local definition, when it comes to 'speeds' and 'clocks' both. The same as we find other objects to have a varying time and so 'speed of light' when defined from our own local 'time and clock'. To it we can add that the only way you measure a light particle or wave is at a outcome. You don't see 'light' propagating, you see its results.
That's what the two slit experiment tells us, and so called 'delayed choices'.
What it do is to present us with a 'speed', and looked at from my perspective a way to to define durations (aka a 'local clock'). That one seems to hold true at any experiment, but when it comes to how it will express itself in a outcome, as particles or waves is related to more circumstances than 'light' itself.
=
It's a little more complicated than that though as 'light' is a local definition, when it comes to 'speeds' and 'clocks' both. The same as we find other objects to have a varying time and so 'speed of light' when defined from our own local 'time and clock'. To it we can add that the only way you measure a light particle or wave is at a outcome. You don't see 'light' propagating, you see its results.
The following users thanked this post: Petrochemicals
17
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Can This Black Hole Be So Big Ton 618 ?
« on: 21/08/2019 11:43:45 »
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/03/17/how-supermassive-black-holes-can-form-without-collapsing-stars/
The following users thanked this post: neilep
18
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what would connect chaos theory with multidimensionallity
« on: 31/07/2019 12:00:58 »
when I think of a fractal 'magnifying it' finding it not to end it's not about 'dimensions' being nested inside it. It's a self replicating system.
=
Maybe this is a good explanation of a Hausdorff dimension. https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-what-is-the-Hausdorff-dimension-a-measure-of
Then again, I'm not that particular to the idea of dimensions and this opens for another interpretation of what it is. I see it as a result, not as an origin. But it definitely confuse me trying to imagine how to translate this mathematic into a universe consisting of 1.5 'dimensions'.
=
Ok, Hausdorff did not question the 'dimensions' we find around us. He just invented a new mathematical approach to describing it in where the result of describing certain types of fractals gives you a fractional number using his definitions. That does not state that you have 1.5 'dimensions' because that is meaningless practically. .5 dimensions doesn't mean anything, the translation of it into a real universe fail to even describe a line. As long as we use what we see around us.
=
Maybe this is a good explanation of a Hausdorff dimension. https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-what-is-the-Hausdorff-dimension-a-measure-of
Then again, I'm not that particular to the idea of dimensions and this opens for another interpretation of what it is. I see it as a result, not as an origin. But it definitely confuse me trying to imagine how to translate this mathematic into a universe consisting of 1.5 'dimensions'.
=
Ok, Hausdorff did not question the 'dimensions' we find around us. He just invented a new mathematical approach to describing it in where the result of describing certain types of fractals gives you a fractional number using his definitions. That does not state that you have 1.5 'dimensions' because that is meaningless practically. .5 dimensions doesn't mean anything, the translation of it into a real universe fail to even describe a line. As long as we use what we see around us.
The following users thanked this post: Bill S
19
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two
« on: 02/06/2019 19:26:14 »
You're perfectly correct,
It can't, everything breaks down at 'infinity'
Although it also involves a arrow.
And it´f the arrow is'c' while 'space' is 'ftl'`?
It can't, everything breaks down at 'infinity'
Although it also involves a arrow.
And it´f the arrow is'c' while 'space' is 'ftl'`?
The following users thanked this post: Yahya A.Sharif
20
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two
« on: 02/06/2019 19:23:57 »
" f space-time is infinite ,how gravity extends to infinity?
we know infinity is unreachable because it continues forever and no-one reach a finite point.How gravity extends to infinite distances while infinity is unreachable? how gravity bends and curve space-time everywhere while space time end is unreachable? for gravity to bend space-time everywhere it should reach its end , how gravity bends space-time end while this end is unreachable? " By Yahya A.Sharif
we know infinity is unreachable because it continues forever and no-one reach a finite point.How gravity extends to infinite distances while infinity is unreachable? how gravity bends and curve space-time everywhere while space time end is unreachable? for gravity to bend space-time everywhere it should reach its end , how gravity bends space-time end while this end is unreachable? " By Yahya A.Sharif
The following users thanked this post: Yahya A.Sharif