[yoron]

But acting as I expect we will, with ‘short-time solutions’ sending what ‘relief help’ we’re ready to afford and then righteously ask ourselves ‘what more could we do?’ It will soon enough become like planning for how to ‘defend’ yourself from ‘suicide-bombers’. Quite difficult and leaving an extremely bad taste in your mouth, ethically as well as morally. Festung (that’s Bulwark for you:) Europe and Festung America, and you my friend as ‘Super/wo/man’ proudly defending our western civilization. Ask any ‘normal’ Israeli how (s)he fell about the restrictions forced upon them, and then try asking those not belonging, it’s a ugly unhappy situation for all involved. On the other tentacle, I’m sure that there already are ‘think-tanks’ looking at this, as well as how to best present the Arctic catastrophe as something ‘good for you, the ‘consumer’ And Santa too. “Yes Santa, the South-pole is soo roomy, you will like it there. Don’t you worry about your vodka, there’s still ice.” .. Did I hear someone call us myopic? ..

Of course, there is also that really good chance that it will lead to all out wars between nations as everyone’s living room shrinks. Can I blame those ‘poor nations’ taking to arms? They don’t have a choice, do they? Except to stay where they are, and lie down to die.. Perhaps they will ‘fight it out’ with each other before coming to us.. Don't rightly know there? If we’re ruthless enough, it may very well be us that keeps ‘feeding’ them with cheap arms, or even give them away to ‘simplify’ the ‘cleansing’ of mass migrations between poor countries. And to stop that further ‘polluting’ by those finding themselves without other means to keep warm and feed. You know, turning that blind eye to our armament industries. Don’t you give me that innocent look buster, we already do it, only depending on what ‘values’ we believe in for the moment. It’s just another tiny step for us. It even has its own name.. ‘Realpolitik ‘ (or ‘cannon boat politics’)

Still, if there is enough able and willing to make that stand for ethics and those newfangled ideas of ours, like ‘moral values’ and ‘sharing’, there might be some slight chance for us all, and if not? Well, good riddance to it all. Earth’s time-count is definitely not ours, she can ‘wait’ fifty thousand years, or a million, before starting anew, creating that concept of ‘intelligence’, preferably incorporating the concept of ‘wisdom’ too that time. And you know what, to her you’re not really that ‘unique’, and she don’t care for your nationality either, furthermore, she has a sharp sense of humor. Don’t you too find that somewhat embarrassing? The way she gets rid of us I mean. Death by ‘farting’? It’s kind of hilarious, fitting perhaps considering over-consuming, but hilarious in a slightly sick way.. And while you’re out there ‘consuming’, do try to remember what ‘economy’ really stands for, rich as poor. Some clothes, somewhere to sleep, food for today, and food for tomorrow. It’s really that simple, it’s only us forgetting it, repeatedly. And seen so, how much do you need?


.. Ah well, my views, --- Enough of Doomsday Prophesies.—


 And. Yes, I do have the sources for all citations I’ve done. Most of the links I’ve stated in ‘Global health’. Or if you look at what I wrote earlier on this site. As I said I’m ‘out of net’ for the moment so it’s a real hassle linking you. And the sources are ‘reputable ones’, by all ‘standards’. I’m too aware of the ‘paid debunking’ done on the Internet to risk my sources to be ‘only green ones’ That’s, if I may add, a real pain in the posterior with you American debunkers.  Everything seems to turn into ‘politics’ for you.

“And then Sir, he came back out from that Black Hole Sir, holding the blueprints for a perpetual machine!”
“So? be more pertinent to the real issues involved here Sir. Was he, or was he not I ask, a Liberal?” 

Politics may be a good thing at times, but some things, like survival, is not, really, a ‘political’ issue.
As Death and his scythe doesn’t, really, care for your political views.

( “No I say, go away, I’m a voting Democrat, go find you one of them Liberal’s.”



----------------------End of Conscience, well, sort of----------------

Btw: I reckon he’s Finnish..

[yoron]

My idea of 'time' is that everything is 'time' and that all we can observe is what happens after those 'transitions' expressing themselves as 'events' or 'causes and effects'. As the transitions takes place in themselves without any observers 'arrow of time' existing for the transitions, they can't be defined as other than 'indeterminate/nonexistent' to that observer. And that's what HUP seems to say to me. And it sounds quite weird to me too But, hey. What about one dimensional strings ? Maybe those are the mathematical foundations of what I think of as being ‘energy/time’? As for proving that all is 'time' I'm not sure on what type of experiments could show it, as all we can do is anchored through our 'arrow of time'. The only way I can think of, is observing what we can and draw conclusions through that deduced as 'missing'. In one way you might say that we, and the universe, is an expression of 'ideas' more than any secluded 'reality' that comes to be through that macroscopic arrow of time. On the other hand, what will it make of the concept of 'development' and 'free will' etc. if those assumptions were correct? 

To me they would stand as we always assumed them to be, realities of our world rather than 'ideas without form'. That goes back to my view stating that there is constant 'jumps' outside of our arrow of time creating what we observe. We exist –inside-> that arrow, and the observations we make as well as the arrow itself is the only thing 'valid' for our existence. That there might be other and wider explanations to us existing won’t change a thing about that. We are somewhat like goldfishes in a bowl. It doesn't matter that there are other stuff outside that bowl, they doesn't change the bowl. If it is so entanglements might just be a cause of something working behind that 'arrow' hiding its true process for us. Even at a quantum mechanical level without that timely arrow we still observe chains of events, those we can understand as they relate to our world of reason, and those that won't. A Feynman-diagram is still a worldly description making sense to us as you can see the chain creating that 'final effect' no matter which way you read it, and no matter what effect you choose to see as being the last.

Entanglement consists of the property of spin or polarization of two particles being connected, due to them consisting as one originally, but split by the use of a so called ‘beamsplitter’ f ex, a prism or a mirror reflecting half of the light falling in on it simultaneously allowing half to pass through, splitting the light .
And spin refers to the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle and the direction of its velocity. If the spin is aligned with the velocity it’s seen as having "positive helicity." If the spin is anti-parallel (oppositely directed) to the particles velocity (speed and direction) the particle will have a "negative helicity." If used on photons we instead talk about its polarization as all light is polarized, that’s why your sunglasses is ‘polarized’. To stop approximately half of the sunlight if I remember right. You can test it by having two polarized glasses rotating against each other. At some point of rotation no light will be able to pass through.

---Quote----------

The spin of a particle is quantized, so when we make a measurement at any specific angle we get only one of the two results UP or DOWN. This was shown by the famous Stern/Gerlach experiment, in which a beam of particles (atoms of silver) was passed through an oriented magnetic field, and it was found that the beam split into two beams, one deflected UP (relative to the direction of the magnetic field) and the other deflected DOWN, with about half of the particles in each. This behavior implies that the state-vector for spin has just two components, vUP and vDOWN, for any given direction v. These components are weighted and the sum of the squares of the weights equals 1. (The overall state-vector for the particle can be decomposed into the product of a non-spin vector times the spin vector.) The observable "spin" then corresponds to three operators that are proportional to the Pauli spin matrices:

Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or -h/2p is imparted to the object. Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons. Polarization behaves in a way that is formally very similar to the spin of massive particles. In a sense, the Schrodinger wave of a photon corresponds to the electro-magnetic wave of light, and this wave is governed by Maxwell's equations, which tell us that the electric and magnetic fields oscillate transversely in the plane normal to the direction of motion (and perpendicular to each other).

It may be worth noting that light polarization and photon spin, although intimately related, are not precisely synonymous. The photon's spin axis is always parallel to the direction of travel, whereas the polarization axis of a wave of light is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It happens that the polarization affects the behavior of photons in a formally similar way to the effect of spin on the behavior of massive particles. Polarization itself is often not regarded as a quantum phenomenon, and it takes on quantum behavior only because light is quantized into photons.

--------End of quote-------------

[yoron]

There are other more ‘obscure’ ideas of how to create a ‘split’, but the ‘idea’ hovering behind it all I believe to be as described here. That as that as soon as you measure the spin/polarization of one of those ‘split’ particles the other particle will ‘fall out’ to begetting the opposite spin/polarization. How can it know this ‘twins’ choice? What really bugs people is the proofs showing this phenomena happening ‘instantly’, no matter how far apart they are. In other words, ‘distance’ becomes a meaningless factor having no relevance to the phenomena. As we know that light have a ‘barrier’ for its ‘speed’ this phenomena questions the concept of SpaceTimes arrow. There are few things known to be ‘instant’. One I know of is the supposed ‘instant’ acceleration of photons which in fact is a statement saying that there is no ‘acceleration’ at all. The other I know of is entanglement, and a third I presume to be quantum tunneling, although there I’m not sure. To me entanglement and the photons ‘instant’ acceleration is two signs pointing the same way. They both question or ideas of ‘distance’ and their combination ‘dimensions’ creating SpaceTime’. But there is another interesting question to my eyes, If I consider a light wave (photon) and an entanglement as needing to be containing ‘information’ to be said to be part of our arrow of time? What do that make to the part of a light beam going ‘FTL’? And to that ‘distant’ part of the entanglement that only will ‘fall out’ under our observation of the near entanglement. They are there even without our observation as being ‘real phenomena’ inside SpaceTime. Or is SpaceTime some blend of ‘information’ and ‘non-information’? Remember that I defined SpaceTime as the part where you have that definition of ‘work being done’ for this question. Do SpaceTime then contain both? Can it have parts of it that in fact doesn’t fall under ‘cause and effect’ and not are doing any ‘work’ under our arrow of time, but exist observable to us never the less? Why?

It is after all our 'arrow of time' that creates what we experience as 'distance'. And keeps it true even in QM, no matter your choice of  reading that 'time-line' (beginning and end). Take the veil of cause and effect away from your eyes and what have you left. Disjointed 'processes' superimposed on each other without beginning and end? And that is what’s on that ‘dimension less’ level hiding behind space. Everything’s there and we achieving what’s called our free will, freedom of choices, constantly constructing our ‘future’ through them. And I don’t expect us to proof it other than ‘negatively’ by observing what’s ‘not’ there in our experiments. I have always considered gravity to be a ‘field’ of sorts but not the other ‘forces’ we had, but now I’m starting to wonder as all ‘propagating’, if seen like I do here, becomes..? That as it consist of something outside observable ‘time’ like a thinly woven gauze covering all ‘distances’ made to vibrate with what ‘propagation’ we observe inside our ‘arrow of time being those ‘waves/gravitons etc’.’ In fact already existing at all points even though not ‘there’ for us until we somehow ‘disturb’ it. And so it may be with all propagation of force if so. Being all there and at all ‘times’ but without ‘distances/sizes’ being involved.  And as for how it utter itself to involve/create ‘distance’ and a resemblance of order?

Yep, that one freaks me out too..
The only thing coming to mind is those processes that seems to go from the simple to the complex.

And to create a ‘linear process acting from ‘A’ to ‘B’’ from such ideas I think you first need to decide that time can’t have a arrow, although we observe it otherwise in our ‘closed case?’. It’s possibly possible to define mathematically, either if you see it as a more ‘complex’ process falling out into a simplified reaction to create ‘distance’ and ‘propagate tracks’ in SpaceTime, or if you see it as a inherently simple ‘timeless’ process, acting increasingly more complex until it resolve itself inside our ‘arrow’ as something to us comprehended as ‘moving’. As all ‘growth’ I know of seems to make that statement, but then again, that’s like my view of a photons choosing the  ‘straightest/shortest line’ ‘traversing’ SpaceTime, isn’t it? It’s all a matter of interpretation. And thinking of all small movements I do in my daily life it boggles my mind how something without ‘distance’ can coordinate it all into such a seamless experience for me. But I can’t see a ‘simpler’ explanation, for now that is And whatever your idea is, it will have to consider all of mine ‘congestion’s’ too. Like mass, time, consciousness, distance (dimensions), ‘living’ and ‘dead’ things,  virtual photons etc. And then relate it in a comprehensible way to you moving in your daily life experiencing ‘reality’. As it otherwise won’t be a TOE (theory of everything) to me. As for how to see the Universe, if thinking like this, I would call this the ‘real dimensions’ existing. Not our 3D + times arrow  (distances) but the idea of something existing without ‘distances’ at all unfolding into our ‘dimensions’, and more? I also think that the border from where all ‘distances’ evolves lies somewhere around Planck size for us, or perhaps ‘particle size’ is the right word? So to travel faster than light you just have to accept that at one level you already are ‘everywhere’, the same as everything else existing in SpaceTime. And one question then will be how to define what it is that creates the ‘sub-set’s’(?)’ of SpaceTime. If we found out what creates distance perhaps we could find some way to manipulate it. Probably not to ‘teleport’ humans or even , ah, cats? Well, perhaps Schroedinger’s then, but no more I say.

. . .Maybe ‘information’?

And if that is right, there ‘already’  ..is..  ‘messages’ waiting for us there.
We just need to learn how to read them, as for who’s sending them?
You? God? The ‘future’?

That loses its definition if so, doesn’t it.
And if everything will be ‘there’ when/if we succeeds in communicating, maybe we won’t succeed, ever.
Or maybe there will be some ‘rule’ disallowing us to read it all.

To sum it up, If distance is gone so is dimensions. without it time cease its arrows.
Then a photon takes up a whole universe and what you surmise to be life will be, just your divine madness
And ‘time’ will always be ‘now’. . .

(Don’t confuse that ‘now’ with the one some see to exist in SpaceTime though.
SpaceTime to me can’t have a ‘observable’ ‘now’ . Instead it have what’s called its ‘time cone’, like a flashlights light-cone, turned backwards from your future, growing bigger through its ‘history’. But its not you holding that flash-light, you’re always inside that light-cone and the ‘time’ you realize the ‘moment’ it’s already your ‘history’. The nearest we can come to a ‘now’ is the idea of it, never the significance of observing it. We do have a ‘future’ waiting, as well as our ‘history’ unfolding behind us but no consciousness can hold the ‘now’. We’re just not built for it, nothing ‘biological’ is

( Maybe one could see photons as champions of ‘now’, as they always are ‘there’?

We have another thing. Our ‘expectation/planning’ for the future, that always ‘push the envelope’ of SpaceTime.  Molding it into our ‘likeness’, if you like. But, what we can’t ever observe, does it really exist? We tend to build Science on the idea of ‘observable and repeatable’ don’t we? So what if its not ‘observable’ even though you find it to be ‘repeatable’ Like that abstraction, the ‘future’, always coming at you, but never the same.  Coming until your ‘best of, date’ expires.

And my final question.
If ‘times arrow’, according to my thoughts, don’t really exist?
What is it that makes it not so.

How, and why?

[yoron]

Ah..
If you’re looking for something more ‘sane’.
There is also ..That Idea.. that possibly is.. The ..Answer.. To it all..
Might it, I mean, could it possibly be

..42..?
I've seen it presented in several works of great scientific value.
Defiantly better than mine Yes my friend, I've seen it proved..
Have a look at this.

- - - - - -

Pick a number between ten and a thousand.
Don't tell me what it is.

[Thinks... 575]

Add the digits together.
[5+7+5 = 17]

Add them again.
[8]

Add 3.
[11]

Subtract this from the original number.
[575-11 = 564]

Add the digits together.
[15]

Find the remainder left when you divide by nine.
(15 modulo 9 equals 6)
[6]

Square it.
[6*6 = 36]

Add 6.
[42]

"And the number in your head is ... 42?"

----------

Now, you don't have to agree to anything of this.
Well, except 42 that is.

Let me prove it otherwise..
4/2*2= that's right.. 4Too, and correctly expressed in mathematical notation.. 42
Voila.

In fact, I'm not that sure of what I’ve written either. Some of it I really hope to be wrong, but I doubt it is. Then again, I find myself being of two minds almost daylily. Does that make me a flaming schizophrenic? Nope, just twice as good, bad? ..Ah, whatever.. As that actor going politician said. “There will be time’ or was it “I’ll be back”?

We’ll see.

Ps: I do like comments, and if you keep them concise it will help.
And no, “Buthead” won’t cut it with me.

And as I have a extremely bad internet connectivity.
And as it take me ‘quite some time’ to see what you wrote.
And as it takes me even longer to deliver that reply you then so rightly deserve.
(“U2”) 

So, don’t count on me answering in time
Cheers.

[Mr. Scientist]

Yoron

Information cannot be lost. Stephen Hawking finally retracted his statement on the information paradox, saying that black holes in fact tunnel the energy back into our own space and time.

Google it. I'm sure you will find plenty on the subject.

[yor_on]

Well, it all depends on how you see it I guess? To my eyes we have two kinds of communication in SpaceTime. One where we 'interact' inside SpaceTime, the other one is what I deem to be 'one-way' only. And a black hole or a entanglement is both nice descriptions of that last idea

As the 'communication' Stephen Hawking refers to is a 'happening' outside or at the edge of the EV (event horizon) I still see it as a interaction with space more than with a Black Hole itself. It's a local effect not a 'far' effect if you see my drift? A singularity will not allow (two way) communication. If it does it will no longer be a singularity. To me it seems that one have to differ between what I see as 'sources' of a disturbance of 'equilibrium' and what acts on it. We both agree on that it is the Black Hole creating it though, but if you look at it as a 'rift' in SpaceTime having a one-way --> communication then that Black Hole will still be a 'singularity' and what we deem as 'communicating' should be searched for inside SpaceTime. So I'll keep to this, for now

[yor_on]

Okay

Here is some more material. As usual I can’t give you the direct link but it’s from a pdf with the caption “All Matter Instantaneously Senses All Other Matter in the Universe”. And no author(s) in it which sort of P*es me off Again.. Because it’s just that kind of ‘essay’ that I love to read, well written and argumentative with interesting thought experiments.. So I’m condensing most of it and afterwards comes my questions and ideas. And no, I’m still without any internet which makes it quite hard to ‘argue’ comprehensible with you. So It’s still just an ‘essay’ I’m afraid. And as I said in the beginning, thoughts, not certainties. Yes, I will include my view on Global warming there too, even though it to me seem all to ‘true’, as well as late. (((Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read them though At the very least it will give you some ‘direction’ in life ) Getting miffed and all. . Just follow that yellow brick road.

Let us continue with taking a historical look at ‘action over a distance’. Aristotle as well as later Galileo didn’t think that this phenomena could exist (Far action), and Galileo was very disappointed at Kepler who, due to his interest in magnetism, thought otherwise. “But among all the great men who have philosophized about this remarkable effect (the attraction between celestial masses), I am more astonished at Kepler than any other. Despite his open and acute mind, and though he had at his fingertips the motions attributed to the earth, he has nevertheless lent his ear and his assent to the moon’s dominium over the waters (tides) and to occult properties, and such puerilities.” With Einstein as another disciple of Aristotle. His EPR experiment tried to refute the idea, but as we read, it opened for ‘entanglements’ instead.


But this question is still not decided. Take a look at this experiment.

---Quote----

We have two horseshoe magnets sticking to the vertical sides of a copper plate. The magnets are held up, against the pull of gravity, by their attraction to each other and friction on the copper plate. If we wish to explain the attraction with modern physics, we have to call upon quantum electrodynamics (QED). One of the originators of QED, Richard Feynman [1.4], claimed it explains everything except gravitation and nuclear forces. Hence it ought to cover the attraction of two magnets. In QED, forces between particles of matter are mediated by the collision of photons with electrons and the accompanying momentum transfer. So streams of photons must leave each of the two magnets of figure 1.2, spontaneously and forever, and then pass through a copper plate, finally colliding with electrons at the surface and deep inside the opposite horseshoe magnets. A simple collision between two particles produces repulsion, therefore in order to generate attraction between the magnets, the photons must navigate around the magnets, turn and strike them in the back.

(The ‘horseshoes’ are placed against each other N-S  and S-N with a thin copperplate between them and the ‘QED photon trajectory’ will then leave one horseshoe, somehow travel outside the opposite horseshoe to turn and strike it from its back to create the needed attraction between them.)


 

This mechanism is so ludicrous that it will not be found discussed in textbooks. Nor will most professors mention it to a class of students.”

-------End of quote---

Now, think of that ‘Newtonian apple’ falling towards the center of Earth’s gravity. How did it know where that Earths-center was? Could it feel all those atoms creating Earth and from there locate the ‘center’? According to Newton it seems it should? On the other hand, in a ‘Einstenian’ universe the Aristotle’s principle stating that ‘matter can not act where it is not’ will still be true. The path that apple takes to the ground will be due to its geodesic path in a curved SpaceTime following the Newtonian forces of gravitation and inertia, also called ‘Einstein’s theory of local action’. So, looking at it this way we find two ‘visions of reality’ colliding. In the Newtonian universe the ‘spooky attraction of particles’ exists. In our ‘Einstenian’ it won’t. ‘Far action’ or ‘Local action’? Which one is ‘real’?

To my eyes both are correct. As I see it, if we have a distance-less background to all phenomena we can observe, then you will find Newton’s idea correct, but as we also inside our ‘arrow of time’ have the curved SpaceTime as described by Einstein then he too is correct and the apple will follow the effects he describes, and both do place the apple at the center of that mass. The main difference as I see it being that Newton’s idea of a unchanging ‘inelastic’ speed of light being wrong inside SpaceTime. That he never considered the possibility that light both could have a ‘true speed’ at the same time that it would be observed to keep to that speed no matter the relative motion of frames measuring it is nothing particularly strange, to make that sort of ‘jump’ without any pointers to build it on? So what some people like to see as a ‘statement’ of certainty from Newton is more a case of ‘missing information’ to me. And if we have a SpaceTime where both far and local action exist then the differences seems more to relate to ideas we haven’t defined yet, for example how entanglement is supposed to work no matter its distance? Although I’m not sure how to test that statement about entanglements ‘limitless distances’ experimentally, I have assumed it to be true in my essay, and so I will find ‘far action’ to be true for our apple, and the idea of it and Earth’s Atoms ‘interacting’ or as I say ‘observe’ each other. On the other hand Einstein’s concept of curved space and how mass /time /motion /distance interacts is also true and have a clearer definition inside SpaceTime than our Newtonian description which even though being ‘non-local’ to its nature still is found to be ‘most true locally’, as on Earth, if you see my drift.

To me both ideas seems closely related to my idea of ‘observers’ with Newton defining them as being without ‘distance’ as they communicate/interact directly and Einstein defining them as needing to follow SpaceTime geodesics, but in both cases we find them needing to exist inside our ‘SpaceTime’ to interact, then again you will have phenomena like entanglement that can ‘communicate’ over great distances instantly but without  being able to transmit what we call ‘information’. So my ‘observers’ needs then also to be defined by the information they interchange, and that’s why a Black Hole shouldn’t be a part of those ‘observers’ to me. If you somehow could prove that the ‘information’ coming from the possible hawking radiation wasn’t a product of interactions with ‘virtual particles’ inside SpaceTime, that is, outside or on the ‘edge’ of that EV, and instead becoming from the inside of that EV, now that would imply some sort of ‘two way communication’. But as long as it’s only a result created inside SpaceTime, no matter what you see as the ‘instigator’ (Black Hole:) then that Black Hole will be closed to me containing a ‘one way arrow’ only. SpaceTime thrives on interactions, defined as two way communications here. As soon as you find a ‘one way’ you will find some sort of ‘singularity’ waiting there. The way to ‘communicate’ with those will not go through applying and receiving ‘information’ as that only seems correct inside SpaceTime. You will have to look at the way they ‘builds/emerges’ instead and then read the information holistically as a pattern, not as ‘information’ having a interactivity with SpaceTime, and probably also keep it out from any known ‘cause and effect chain’ that we might relate them to? Also the ideas seem to relate to ‘magnitudes’ or ‘fractal behavior’ to me. Einstein described SpaceTime, Newton described Earth and the solar-system, doing so both went out from what they knew and made huge ‘imaginative jumps’ that they then backed up with experiments and mathematics. So when it comes to SpaceTime and its ‘elasticity’ time-wise I think Einstein is correct, and the’ absolute time underlying the space-time continuum’ that Newton trusted to I believe to be wrong. But when it comes to the way he saw everything ‘communicating’ inside SpaceTime I believe that to be true, with those exceptions defined as ‘singularities’ that just as the photon is a integrated part of SpaceTime but still seems to be ‘outside’ of it . And if we want to talk about really ‘far action’ behavior I believe we see it clearest at a Quantum mechanical level where we notice such phenomena as ‘black body radiation’ with its unexplainable ‘jumps’ creating the need for particle like ‘photons’ to explain it, as well as the ‘infinities of information’ needed for describing QM correctly and tunneling, entanglement, etc.

As for using Entanglement to send and receive information inside SpaceTime? I don’t think so, I’ve seen really weird statements from IBM amongst others suggesting that you might use entanglements to ‘teleport’ information, or other things.

----Quote-------

In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. Later, by applying to C a treatment depending on the scanned-out information, it is possible to maneuver C into exactly the same state as A was in before it was scanned. A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.

---end of quote-------

I ‘know’ we entangle light. You know that ethereal thing without mass, size or ‘localization’ except when ‘impacting’. That we do through its polarization as mentioned above. But be awake when reading this please “  Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1 particles), but since photons travel at the speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always parallel to its direction of motion, pointing either forward or backward. These two states correspond to left-handed and right-handed photons. .  Each photon "in transit" may be considered to possess, in addition to its phase, a certain propensity to exhibit each of the two possible states of spin when it interacts with an object, and a beam of light can be characterized by the spin propensities (polarization) and phase relations of its constituent photons.” But when it comes to particles of ‘restmass’ we only talk about its ‘spin’ as I understands it.. Spin is a intrinsic property of a particle “described using a family of objects known as spinors. There are subtle differences between the behavior of spinors and vectors under coordinate rotations. Rotating a spin-1/2 particle by 360 degrees does not bring it back to the same quantum state, but to the state with the opposite quantum phase; this is detectable, in principle, with interference experiments. To return the particle to its exact original state, one needs a 720 degree rotation”. Why is that? Why do you need a double rotation to bring it back to its ‘original state’?  there must be something defining it even at that level for us to be able to draw that conclusion. But the ‘geometry’ seems not as ours. And if you have a different geometry, and if that geometry is defined by the way your ‘arrow(s:) of time’ defines you, would you then say that we have more or less ‘distances’ being involved in it? Remember that ‘space ball’ I played with who had its axis of ‘distances’ going out everywhere infinitely? Would that be enough to explain this? Does it ‘translate’ up into more ‘dimensions’ than my ‘space ball’ or can you translate it ‘down’ to fewer ‘dimensions’ or ‘distances’ and get this result? Like if I keep ‘width’ and ‘length’ and look at what that would do with a ball, but then again is that a correct description? When we speak of dimensions we deem SpaceTime spatially as being of three ‘dimensions’, right? From that I can imagine/create this ‘space ball ‘which have an infinite amount of different axis’s to it creating ‘distances’, if I now take away one of them ‘dimensions’ what happens to my ‘space ball’? I’m left with a two-dimensional figure with a suddenly extremely limited amount of ‘distances’ to it, even if possible to define as ‘limitless’ too they still would belong to a ‘smaller infinity’, wouldn’t you agree?

[yor_on]

But what more am I doing when I do like this? That’s right, I’m acting as if the ‘arrow of time’ still is there, same as in our three-dimensional SpaceTime and with the same ‘rules’ defining it. If I had a two-dimensional circle/space ball but no ‘arrow of time’ would that change its properties? Sure would, without the arrow you can’t expect any ‘distance’ to exist. And if the arrow instead would point ‘both ways’ as it seems to do in QM? Would you then have a object that is there but not there at the same ‘time’ fluctuating sort of? And furthermore, if I would treat the idea of ‘time’ as I do distances and say that it also in itself have an infinite amount of axis’s time-wise ‘originally’, then limited by it’s possible ‘emergence(s)’  why wouldn’t that ‘time’ if ‘down sized’ then act differently as we change the ‘dimensions’, or as I like to see it, ‘distances’. The difference between what I call ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions seems to me to be that our three ‘distances’ is the smallest ‘dimensionality’ I need to create a infinite amount of axis’s from every point of ‘origin’ in SpaceTime, creating that ‘space/distances’ within our arrow of time. So if you now lay one more ‘distance’  to those ‘three’ you trust in? If you laid it into my ‘space ball’ I wouldn’t expect it to be noticed at all, the various ‘distances’ going out from that ‘point’ are already limitless. But If you treat it as solely ‘dimensions’ instead, defined as three (+ time)? Well, then I guess you will need to step out of SpaceTime spatially? And there I feel stymied, I have great trouble imagining that universe. And also it seems to imply that if I was correct in my thought experiment about ‘space balls’ you can’t have what you call a ‘two-dimensionality’ in SpaceTime, as that then would invalidate it. But a universe of ‘ space balls’ combined with ‘time balls’ I would expect to be able to produce almost any combination of effects that we observe, yep, as a guess of course, nothing more.  And of course, you can call me a ‘odd ball’ if you like

Anyway, let’s go back to IBM and their ‘teleportation’ scheme above. Let us say I create two ‘particles’ from one through a beamsplitter. Now I want you tell which one is the ‘original’ object? Can you? The spin of those two will fall out to the opposite of each other as soon as I observe one of them, but I can’t tell you which ‘spin’ it will have before observing it. To teleport something I assume that you mean that it will be an exact replica, and that a entanglement is not. A entanglement is a mirrored representation of something you only will have the knowledge of as you observe it. Assuming that they are ‘identical’ even if mirrored you still haven’t transferred any known information. The statement above is very doubtful to me, that you can ‘scan out part of the information from an object A’. What exactly do they mean by that? Does it mean that you would be able to know the spin of any particle sent through that beamsplitter, just by observing the ‘original’ before sending it? And if that were true you would also have some way to know which one was the original ‘particle’  as that will be the one with the ‘known’ spin. Clearly strange? And what are the information ‘scanned out’ from the original? Its ‘spin’ perhaps? and that you then apply to C, now defining C to be as A was before? Well, maybe I could call that a ‘exact replica’ but I can’t break ‘the speed of information’ inside SpaceTime with it, as I will need to apply that ‘information’ on C manually. So it’s not a teleportation, to me it seems a manipulation inside ‘the speed of light in a vacuum’ a.k.a. inside our SpaceTime creating two ‘identical’ particles from one through an inter mediator. Entanglements are to me ‘one-way’ communications, therefore similar to singularities and not able to ‘interact’ inside SpaceTime, that means sharing a two-way communication inside it.  ‘Teleportations’ obeying ‘c’ is what you have when you send your text to several locations ‘simultaneously’ if so, as long as you then destroy your 'original' in the process? They will be the exact same, containing the same ‘information’ to you no matter where you read them, but to me teleportation should be ‘instantly’ just like that entanglement seems to be. But the real problem is to define what ‘information’ is here. As we saw ‘entanglements’ does not contain any applicable information for you when just watching one end of it, as you can’t know the spin before observing it. That you know that the opposite spin falls out for the mirrored twin as soon as you observed it does not tell you what spin your particle will have before? If you could find a way to know that first spin without observing it, then you would have a way to send superluminal information, with the addendum that you still would need a way to inform your counterpart on Sirius what ‘spin’ you defined as being ‘informative’, but that you could decide together as before he left Earth. The point being here that as far as I understand you’ll never know a spin or polarization without observing it first. If you would be able to do so then you also would be able to instantly ‘know it all’ as neither time nor distance would be a hindrance for ‘information’ inside SpaceTime any longer. Can you see what I mean?

If we go back to the idea of  what renormalization is. When you look at those ‘infinities’ describing our electron another way to see it might be to say that you have a infinite amount of statements defining the same thing, all true but never ending. To me it implies that what we have done as a first step, using renormalizability, limiting the outcomes, is not wrong, just as neither Newton or Einstein is wrong. But to me it’s still a ‘limiting case’ wherein we try to circle in ‘reality’ from a quantum mechanical point of view, just as Newton did from a more macroscopic point of view, and then Einstein. The real question to me will be if we can use mathematics to describe what I believe to be that ‘distance-less point of origin’ unfolding into us. I hope we can but I’m not sure. Is there a possibility of defining something without times arrow(s) constantly mirroring/expressing QM and SpaceTime. How do you explain times arrow ‘emerging’? That it is a ‘flow’ for us may be explainable as it come from something without ‘distances’, and you can’t divide null, can you? On the other hand it might be a slightly flawed null, if we look to CP-violations? The question then might become if you can have something without size but unsymmetrical? Or maybe something that won’t be able to find a equilibrium without our SpaceTime? The time and space like direction(s) it expresses through its ‘emergence(s)’ may be more complicated to define, even though we can see its relation to invariant mass/space inside our macroscopic universe.

And if ‘energy’ as I suspect is a ‘local SpaceTime definition’ expressing itself through time as disturbances of equilibrium’s then that too may be what I call ‘time without arrows’ emerging due to symmetry breakings. And that seems to imply that ‘time’ and ‘clocks’ is not the same. SpacetTime is to me like that fountain coming from a single size-less ‘spot’ unfolding itself into clocks and mass, space and distances. So, what do you think? Do you remember that I was asking about what inertia was? Well I said that I believed it to be bound to invariant mass, didn’t I and momentum to be something not bound to anything at all, well sort of. Could momentum be seen as an expression of the geometry of SpaceTime in a Einstenian universe? Like the heights and troughs of space with momentum becoming in our straining of the same by acceleration, although in the fact of a later ‘uniform motion’ it will be integrated in SpaceTime as it no longer ‘strains’? And the consequences of that only will be seen as it once more apply a strain by for example by colliding with ‘something’ or otherwise disturb SpaceTime ‘equilibrium’. But inertia then?

-----Quote---------

It can be generalised as a force which counteracts any acceleration of an object with respect to the frame that Mach described, in which the bodies of the distant universe are observed to be at rest. This instantaneous force appears to be related to the mass of the object and its acceleration with respect to the Machian frame. An interaction between an observed object on earth and one in the distant universe must be a non-local interaction. The stars in our galaxy are far enough away from us that however fast they are moving, they form a virtually fixed background upon which we measure the motion of our much closer planetary companions. In the same way the relative motion between the galaxies other than our own also can be considered a fixed background relative to which we can measure acceleration. Further, since the laws of
inertia appear to be the same for all directions of motion, then we can assume that the parts of the universe that significantly contribute to the inertia force are distributed uniformly in all directions. This is called an isotropic distribution.

The most familiar manifestation of the force of inertia is the linear resistance to acceleration. This is the force that appears whenever an object is subjected to an applied force either by contact or by gravity, electrostatics or electromagnetism. The inertia force precisely opposes the applied force in such a manner as to allow a finite and predictable acceleration. It is the reason that all objects fall toward the earth with the same acceleration regardless of their mass. If this force did not exist, then any applied force would produce an infinite acceleration and the universe would have collapsed long ago due to the force of gravity. If however, a force is applied to an object which is already moving perpendicular to the direction of the applied force, then the inertial opposition becomes known as a centrifugal force. This is the force that stretches and sometimes breaks a string used to swing a weight around our head. It is also the force that pushes a race car off a high speed corner and most importantly prevents the earth from falling into the sun. Possibly due to the fact that the inertia forces are so uniform and also that a search for their source implies the currently unfashionable non-local interaction principle, they have been treated differently from the other forces in modern physics textbooks and are often only described as “pseudo-forces”.. .

If indeed, objects are directly pushed and pulled by all of the bodies in the universe, then a perfect demonstration of these forces is the space compass, better known as a gyroscope. Once the axis of a flywheel is aligned to point from one fixed galaxy to another and is held in gimballed bearings which are secured to a space capsule, it will point in this direction forever, whatever maneuvers the space ship will perform, so long as the gyroscope is kept rotating and no electric, magnetic, or contact forces can apply a torque to the axis of rotation. The atoms simply feel where the fixed stars are and are pushed and pulled by them. It is not the inertial or gravitational interaction with the nearby stars that stabilizes the gyroscope alignment. It has to be other isotropically distributed matter arranged in an unchanging way with
respect to our galaxy. Every time we become aware that we are accelerating, it is because the distant universe noticed it and has pushed us.

-------End of quote---------

Newton describes inertia in Newton's First Law of Motion as: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." Or ‘stays’ if not ‘moving’. Inertia is ‘disguised’ by friction on Earth, which is why Aristotle believed that objects moved only as long a force was being applied to them. So is ‘Inertia’ ‘instantaneous’ or is it the result of a gravitational ‘field’ interacting with invariant mass? A.k.a. ‘far action’ as it will react at every point in SpaceTime, making me look at it as ‘space’ observing ‘space’. Do you remember that I spoke about ‘tunneling’ before as one of those ‘possibly instantaneous thingies’.

---Quote—

 Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."

---End of quote---

Well, doesn’t that point to ‘instantaneous displacement’?
As we see it ‘go up in ‘speed’’ with thickness?
Or/and non-locality?

Never mind no matter if what I read above is correct then Inertia seems much as I thought, something specifically bound to invariant mass, versus that ‘momentum’ that then have no such demands ‘resting’ on it. The Newtonian universe makes sense to me, as well as the Einsteinian, although Einstein’s SpaceTime is the one I trust to describe it best macroscopically. The problem with our understanding seems our need to relate what we know to how we observe our SpaceTime working with our ‘forces’ acting. Which I presume to make our observations slightly flawed as they rest on what I expect to be ‘partial truths’. That won’t hinder that there may be one ‘truth’ existing outside our ‘arrow of time’ containing all the ‘truths’ we observe inside it, but to manipulate that ‘truth’ as we do with our ‘forces’, well, I doubt it as that ‘reality’ will not be ours. And just as it is with ‘flows’ and ‘events’ both can be seen as ‘truths’ from an observers perspective, depending on his choice of observation, although in the case f flow versus events I still lean to a ‘flow’ myself being what ‘time’ really is. Not that I expect it to ‘flow’ behind that veil. To me ‘time’ is more like that ‘monolith’ we all are immersed in, and from where SpaceTime becomes as a ‘partial truth’, even though being the only one directly observable for us. So if you think as me it may be time for us to stop looking at SpaceTime as a solely ‘mechanical’ being working by/on the ‘forces’ we deem to exist. So why not start to look on how objects ‘emerge’ and what ‘laws’ we might deduct from that. Well, that’s my view, as crazy as it might be. And I prefer it as it allows for both ‘theories’, with a few exceptions, as Newton’s ‘inelastic’ time won’t ‘do’ inside SpaceTime. As well as it, to me that is, makes sense of us emerging as ‘intelligent beings’, creating ideas and concepts as ‘Ethics’ and ‘morals, right and wrongs’, as that then could be seen as the next step in a unfolding ‘information space’ where we at the end might find ‘problems’ with defining what’s ‘really real’, and which is where we rightly belong as conceptual tinkers. Us and our ‘forces’ will then be something relating to, and inside, SpaceTime, but for what will be waiting ‘behind/outside it’? That should be really interesting to see. Hope I haven’t made to big an ass out of myself here, as I said it’s thoughts, and possibly hypothesizes, created from my needs to get a slightly less headache, not any holy grail. Anyhow, I hope I made my views clear enough to get a grip? As for finding a ‘nexus’ to waves in this case? I don’t know, I don’t think so though, not if we look at those properties of light as ‘emerging’. On the other tentacle, it do makes ‘photons’ seem questionable too

Another thing that’s interesting to me is the question when ‘time’ might get this arrow. As I said before I expect it to involve what we call Planck-distances.

[yor_on]

--Quote---

On the scale of the Planck length, it's possible that the structure of spacetime becomes quite different from the four-dimensional manifold we know and love. Spacetime itself becomes a foam (according to Wheeler) or a bucket of dust (according to Wheeler) or a bubbling sea of virtual black holes (according to Hawking) or a weave of knots or tangles (according to Ashtekar, Rovelli, and Smolin). In short, it's weird, but beyond that nobody really knows. To be more precise, the Planck length is the length scale at which quantum mechanics, gravity and relativity all interact very strongly. Thus it depends on hbar, c, and Newton's gravitational constant G. …

----End of quote--

So you might loosely say that is a definition of where our SpaceTime ends
But there are other ways to search for times shortest ‘arrow’ too.


---Quote----

“The only fundamental theory that picks out a preferred direction of time is the second law of thermodynamics, which asserts that the entropy of the Universe increases as time flows toward the future. This provides an orientation, or arrow of time, and it is generally believed that all other time symmetries, such as our sense that future and past are different, are a direct consequence of this thermodynamic arrow.”

In their study, Feng and Crooks have developed a method to accurately measure “time asymmetry” (which refers to our intuitive concept of time, that the past differs from the future, in contrast with time symmetry, where there is no distinction between past and future). They began by investigating the increase in energy dissipation, or entropy, in various arrangements. Feng and Crooks wanted their new measurement method to explain how time can move forward even at points when entropy is decreasing. To do this, they analyzed the folding and unfolding of a single RNA molecule attached to two tiny beads. By controlling the distance between one bead and an adjacent optical laser trap, the scientists could stretch and compress the RNA molecule. Initially, the RNA starts in thermal equilibrium, but, as it’s alternately stretched and compressed, the total entropy of the RNA and the surrounding bath increases on average. “We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.”

--End of quote---

What I think they are doing is treating entropy as a measure of when times arrow becomes fuzzy, like we see in QM.

--Quote---

“We use an ensemble, or large number, of RNA trajectories to measure the time asymmetry,” Feng explained to PhysOrg.com. “Using work measurements for both forward and reverse experiments, we simply plug these measurements into an expression for A, or time asymmetry, in the paper. Assuming we know the free energy change, this gives the square of the length of time's arrow.” To measure time asymmetry in this arrangement, an observer watching the RNA’s trajectory of unfolding and folding should be able to tell if the trajectory was generated by stretching or compressing. The scientists quantify this observation in terms of the “Jensen-Shannon divergence,” a probability which gives a “0” if stretching and compressing are identical, a “1” if they are distinguishable at every moment, and some fraction of one if they overlap occasionally. This probability, Feng and Crooks explain, can more accurately describe time asymmetry than a simple measurement of average entropy, since the average entropy is sensitive to unusual events. For example, if the RNA becomes tangled, it resists being unfolded when the beads expand. Because the tangled RNA is pulled apart very slowly, the process is essentially time-symmetric. The scientists show that a model of this process has large average dissipation, or entropy increase, but small time asymmetry, as one intuitively expects due to the slow pulling.

-------End of quote---Feng, Edward H. and Crooks, Gavin E. “Length of Time’s Arrow.” Physical Review
Letters 101, 090602 (2008).


It’s strangely interesting to me. It hasn’t anything to do with whether time is a flow or events though. To me it seems as a statistical approach to measuring when we first can see a ‘distinctive’ arrow emerge from ‘nothing’. Also they wanted to see how time can move ‘forward’ when you see entropy decrease, as it seem to be able to do in very small systems momentarily. Macroscopically though, entropy constantly is seen to increase as ‘times arrow’ moves SpaceTime into the ‘future’. So to see it as a smallest ‘times arrow’ might be true, as defined inside SpaceTime. But it won’t be a ‘shortest time segment’ we will see, only its arrow taking shape.


As a environmental sidekick

Here’s how I understand how Earth’s ‘radiation’ works discussing H2O and CO2. (And I’m not discussing ‘convection cycles’ now.)

Think of Earth as a ‘black body’, I absolutely refuse to go into the mathematics of it but just as that black body Earth radiates. The heat Earth frees from the sun’s warming and its own inherent heat goes up in the atmosphere as infrared radiation, to eventually disappear in space.  That infrared radiation will be taken up by all molecules (air) between space and Earth, with them radiating it back again in all directions, down as well as up and sideways. The higher in the atmosphere you come the less density there will be, that means fewer molecules to take up that radiation. So what happens when we add ‘man made’ CO2 (carbon dioxide)? Well the concentration/addition of molecules will get our atmosphere to become denser or thicker if you like, that in its turn will push that releasing ‘edge/surface’ where that heat finally leave our atmosphere upwards to even colder layers, higher up. As those is colder they do not radiate heat as well as those layers that already is becoming ‘satiated’ by heat. And the whole time we have a constant creation of more manmade CO2 joining the atmosphere that we are ‘creating / transforming’ into CO2 from the Earth’s hidden/buried ‘sinks’ in form of coal and oil and natural gas (methane) . You’re with me so far?  Each ‘layer’ of air in our atmosphere will reach ever new equilibrium’s of warmth as the heat and molecules radiates / get freed from Earth, that as molecules in each layer also warm each other as they radiate.

As this is happening Earth will slowly become a place where the radiation from those molecules, reflected in all directions, will cause the Earth to start conserving this energy by building up ‘heat’ in the air layers as the heat gets more and more ‘trapped’ by our new molecules. - And - - This ‘imbalance’ creating evermore warmer layers will keep on, until the highest level of our atmosphere is so ‘warmed up’ that it reflects as much heat in space as the planet is receiving from the sun and ..Us. - That as it is only in that highest layer Earth can regulate its temperature through radiating out in space -. Did you know that before we started our industrial era we were actually in a slowly cooling period on Earth? As for water-vapor it is well known that the higher up you come the ‘dryer’ the air will be, that means that most of the water-vapor falls out as rain further down. As the Co2 and H2O molecules drifts upward their mode of absorption changes. At a sea level the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes with narrow gaps between the spikes and ‘shallow’ valleys. The ‘spikes’ we’re talking about is light (heat) absorbed in very specific wavelengths shown as dark lines in a spectrum. When the molecules are at the higher layers this absorption will change as the air-pressure goes down. Then their ‘spikes’ becomes much more defined and closer together (more heat absorbed per molecule) And CO2 won’t fall out as water vapor does (H2O-humidity-rain) at those lower altitudes, instead it will stay mixed no matter the height even though it will ‘thin out’ the higher we come just as our atmosphere. That’s why climate scientists talk about amount of heat conserved in different molecules and of global warming potential (GWP).

“Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). “ And that’s why methane is a ‘killer of life’ even in small quantities. Also you should know that CO2 when taken up by the oceans create acidity in them, creating a marine environment where our fishes, reefs, etc starts to die. And as I wrote earlier, they are already becoming saturated. "A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. " http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926488.htm

“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise. . Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. "

And now I will quote myself from 2007 in ‘global health’  “Now I'll make a wild guess ) In five to ten years we will start to see a accelerating release of Methane into the Atmosphere, and the linear thinking of how the climate works will break down (again Earth ain't linear. Earth is a dynamic nonlinear system, and even if mostly stable , we are throwing a big monkey wrench into its cyclic gears. When a nonlinear system change 'state' it can do so very quickly.”


---Quote—

Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature. Before the ice core record, direct measurements do not exist. .

Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that just before industrial emissions started, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume. From the same ice cores it appears that CO2 concentrations stayed between 260 and 280 ppm (Parts per million) during the preceding 10,000 years. However, because of the way air is trapped in ice and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures are long term averages not annual levels. . .

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm).

The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973.

The next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.

--End of quote--

If I look at the worlds coal consumption 2008 of 3 300 million ton, then 2 000 million ton was consumed by Asia. And you know what, we are coming out from our recession now says our ‘economists’. So now we can start all over again. The steel production is up as from August 2009 to 106.5 millions ton according to ‘World Steel’. And China have in ten years gone from 124 millions tons, to now over 500 millions ton steel yearly. And its coal consumption have raised from 1998, 652 million tons to over 1400 millions tons last year according to the oil company BP energy-statistics. And sixty eight  percent of the worlds electric power is generated by fossil fuels today, mostly coal and ‘natural gas’ (methane).

Now? - Anybody want to guess how long it will take for the next 50 Parts Per Million (PPM)?

---Quote—Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.--

Here's a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas . . . . . . . .  .Lifetime years . . (100-Year GWP)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . …. . . . hundreds .. .. . .1
Methane (CH4) . . . . . . …. . . .. . . 1 . . .  . . . .25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . .114 . . . . . . .298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) . . . .264 . . . .. . .14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . ..3,200.  . . . .22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) . . . . . . . .. . . . . .50,000 . . . . .7,390

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is "hundreds of years", rather than a specific number. The IPCC ‘Third Assessment Report’ defines a gas's lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process. Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades (- Acidity -). The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:  About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports: (CO2) Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate: “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.” ("How long will global warming last?")

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

    * Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
    * Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

----End of Quote----

So yeah,
high time we create something better than this.

[yor_on]

As a thought experiment in ‘teleportation’ . Assume that you will be ‘teleported’ somewhere as an exact ‘copy’ of your ‘original’. To me it doesn’t really have an importance if there will be two of you inside SpaceTime, not in this experiment. Will the new you and your original have the same thoughts? No way, you will have two different ‘realties’ surrounding you and so your experiences/thoughts will differ. So? Can there be a ‘exact copy’? Of dead matter, yes. But of living? But if you then become ‘entangled’ in the process? How will that show itself? opposite spins? How about thoughts?

Let us discuss the idea of virtual particles and our idea of restmass some more. Let us first look at those ‘virtual ones’. In a way they do not exist, they are a metaphorical ambiguous descriptions of something that somehow ‘craves to exist’, as we see results inside SpaceTime that have no other known explanations, as far as I understand. One interesting example of virtual particles and energy is the how the presence of Casimir plates can affect the fluctuations, so that the ‘negative energy’ density between extremely close plates when compared to the ‘positive energy’ outside the plates leads to a measurable effect. We have a definition of energy as coming from ‘zero’ energy and rising inside spaceTime, but this ‘negative energy’ mentioned, what is that? “To understand how energy can be negative, set aside the classical interpretation of empty space, which is a vacuum with zero energy density. Instead, think of the vacuum as having only an average energy density of zero, in deference to the statistical fluctuations quantum mechanics says underlie fields. Given those vacuum fluctuations, zero energy is no longer the lowest energy state possible. Why? Because in order to average out to nothing, sometimes the vacuum must have tiny amounts of positive, and other times tiny amounts of  negative, energy. “

And “ the Casimir effect has been posited as a force produced solely by activity in the vacuum. The Casimir force is also very powerful at small distances. Besides being independent of temperature, it is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between the plates! Therefore, as the plates are brought closer, the virtual particles outside the plates increasingly overpower the decreasing quantity of virtual particles appearing between the plates with an exponentially increasing force.”  This leads to some speculation about the possibility of get ‘free energy’ through it.  “ Physicist Robert Forward, working at the Hughes Research Laboratory at the time, published a paper in 1984 with a clever thought experiment that demonstrated the conceptual possibility of extracting such vacuum energy from the zero-point field using the Casimir Force but with a slight twist: using electrically charged plates. Charging the plates will not affect the Casimir force, but doing that will provide a way to derive energy from the force which is pushing the plates together. If the two plates are given the same polarity charge, they will electrostatically repel each other. Adjust the charge so that the electrostatic repulsion and the Casimir attraction almost precisely balance, but always let the former be slightly smaller than the latter. In this way the Casimir force will slowly push the plates together, thus doing work against the electrostatic force and thereby adding energy to the electric field between the plates. This build-up of energy is at the expense of the zero-point field. Since the zero-point field is enormous, this energy is never missed. It just flows back almost instantaneously. It is like taking a bucket of water from the ocean. Forward’s "vacuum fluctuations battery" will not provide useful energy because to make the energy extraction happen a second time, you have to pull the plates apart, and that takes at least as much energy (because of frictional losses, actually slightly more) as the original gain. So as conceived, the experiment has no practical use. But its conceptual importance is clear. It demonstrates that in principle there are ways of extracting energy from the vacuum. What is missing is the engineering to do so. “

So that is a very optimistic statement. Then again, as I see it as another ‘reality’ outside our arrow of time I personally don’t believe it, as it then would violate ‘emergence’ and allow ‘a two way information’ to flow between something outside our ‘arrow of time’ and SpaceTime. There is support for my view in the experiments done by Noah Graham and Ken Olum ‘trying to optimize the possibility of ‘negative energy’’. Apparently there seems to be a ‘hidden principle’ now named as  AENC  (Averaged Null Energy Condition)  hindering this. And that is as it should be in ‘my universe’

---Quote----from “Charting the river of time” by Ken Olum ---

The ANEC (Averaged Null Energy Condition)  essentially says that, though you can borrow a little negative energy on your route through space-time, you wind up paying it back with the positive type. Exotic phenomena are unlikely because they require some form of energy with a density that violates the ANEC “they require that the total energy density be negative when we add up all the contributions over the complete path of the light ray,” as Olum describes it. Which is to say, a little trading in the energy margins is fine, but the end result will still be positive—or at least not negative enough, for long enough, over a large enough region to make any difference.. ..

Along with Noah Graham, a Junior Faculty Fellow at Middlebury College, Olum has already shown that the ANEC still obtains between Casimir plates, even if you put holes in the plates so a photon can pass through in the most negative energy-friendly direction. “What we found was the striking result that the region near the hole always contributed enough positive energy to overwhelm the ANEC violation,” said Graham. “This result could be a coincidence of this particular system, but it certainly suggests there is a deeper principle
at work.” With Fewster and Pfenning, Olum showed that there is such a principle at work in flat space, a finding confirmed by his work with Graham. If it applies to more complex systems as well, that principle
may be the barrier to time travel. “No collection of Casimir-type systems in flat space can violate the ANEC,” Olum said. “This we succeeded in showing. So the next thing to do is to try this for interacting fields, and curved space.” Olum is skeptical of any exotic outcomes, however. There is no free negative energy lunch in the special case and, he suspects, there isn’t going to be one in the general case. “I have tried to construct these exotic things before, using what seemed to be promising ideas, and I have not been able to construct them. So I think that it’s impossible. And I have good reasons to think that it’s impossible,” he said. “Without constructing the proof, though,” he added, “one can’t be certain.”

----End of quote--------------

Restmass then? Well let’s consider that Electron once more. “ For example, all electrons are identical, a situation for which there is no macroscopic parallel. To say that two electrons are present at a given moment may therefore be indistinguishable from saying that the same electron is present in two locations. Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward (Feynman diagrams). Indeed, decades ago, such considerations motivated the theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler to wonder whether all electrons may in fact be the same particle, hopping endlessly about in space and time. Resolving temporal paradoxes at the quantum level may thus turn out only to be a matter of choosing a suitable frame of reference.”

So what is not possible macroscopically becomes possible at a quantum mechanic scale? But can we ‘transfer it’ to the macroscopic scale? In ‘my universe’ I expect that to be impossible. Why? Well, if it was possible we should already have ‘time-travel’, also it would violate my idea of ‘one-way’ and ‘two-way’ communication as I see ‘virtual particles’ as being as much a ‘singularity’ as our ‘Black Holes’, the difference here being that ‘virtual particles’ arrow is directed towards SpaceTime versus a Black Holes arrow being directed from SpaceTime, towards its own ‘singularity’. There are more things to say about this but let us jump to my next question first. What would you call the ‘origin’ of mass? Let’s start with how we once thought of it

---Quote—Frank Wilczek- -The origin of mass--

The concept of mass is one of the first things we discuss in my freshman mechanics class. Classical mechanics is, literally, unthinkable without it. Newton’s second law of motion says that the acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. So a body without mass wouldn’t know how to move, because you’d be dividing by zero. Also, in Newton’s law of gravity, the mass of an object governs the strength of the force it exerts. One cannot build up an object that gravitates, out of material that does not, so you can’t get rid of mass without getting rid of gravity. Finally, the most basic feature of mass in classical mechanics is that it is conserved. For example, when you bring together two bodies, the total mass is just the sum of the individual masses. This assumption is so deeply ingrained that it was not even explicitly formulated as a law. (Though I teach it as Newton’s Zeroth Law.) Altogether, in the Newtonian framework it is difficult to imagine what would constitute an “origin of mass,’’ or even what this phrase could possibly mean. In that framework mass just is what it is a primary concept. Later developments in physics make the concept of mass seem less irreducible. Einstein’s famous equation of special relativity theory, written in that way, betrays the prejudice that we should express energy in terms of mass. But we can write the same equation in the alternative form . When expressed in this form, it suggests the possibility of explaining mass in terms of energy. Einstein was aware of this possibility from the beginning. Indeed, his original 1905 paper is entitled, “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?”

---End of quote---

If I remember right I have already discussed the ideas describing Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and its ‘offspring’ Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) somewhere on this site. --- http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19886.0 ---.

--Diverse Quotes—

“The full description of the electromagnetic force between elementary particles was formulated by Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Richard Feynman  and Julian Schwinger in independent works in the 1940's. They formulated Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED). This is a theory that takes full account of quantum physics and special relativity (which is the underlying symmetry of Maxwell's Equations). It is very elegantly formulated by so-called Feynman diagrams, where the elementary particles exchange photons as was described above and where each diagram constitutes a certain mathematical expression that can be obtained from some basic rules for the propagation of virtual particles and from the interaction vertices. The simplest diagram for the interaction between two electrons is electrons interaction. This diagram in fact leads to Coulomb's law.

Feynman now instructs us that we can combine any line for a propagating electron (or when it travels backwards, the positron) and any line for a propagating photon tied together with the vertex where an electron line emits a photon to make up new diagrams. Every other diagram differing from the one above constitutes quantum corrections to the basic force. It was through the work of the three scientists above that it was shown that every such diagram can be made to make sense to give finite answers. It is said that QED is renormalisable. The strength of the force as in Coulomb's law is governed by the magnitude of the vertex which is the electric charge e in QED and for the diagram above it is proportional to the square of e and is the Fine Structure Constant = 1/137. Since this is a small number it makes sense to write the amplitude in a series of terms with higher and higher powers of since that factor will be smaller and smaller for ever increasing complexity of the diagram. The higher order terms are higher quantum corrections and the perturbation expansion that we have defined will have smaller and smaller terms as we go to higher quantum corrections.”

“The strong Nuclear force is explained by Quantum ChromoDynamics, or the colour interaction. The colour interaction, QCD, is such that there are three colour charges, red, green, and blue, and a proper interaction only occurs between all three when they are together.(There are no actual inherent colours and in fact they are always changing, its just that the sum of three results in neutrality)

Even more interesting, however, is that the colour force gets stronger with distance. If one were to try and extend particles interacting through QCD, he or she would find that the force between said particles would increase to infinity. This poses a problem for those scientists who want to observe quarks, which interact through a colour charge. The quarks cannot actually be separated. The solution to this is to observe the quarks when they are very close together. Thus the force between them shall be weak. Using this principle, scientists were able to rattle protons and neutrons to observe their constituent quarks.”

“At this most primitive level QCD is a lot like QED, but bigger. The diagrams look similar, and the rules for evaluating them are similar, but there are more kinds of sticks and hubs. More precisely, while there is just one kind of charge in QED —namely, electric charge— QCD has three different kinds of charge. They are called colors, for no good reason. We could label them red, white, and blue; or alternatively, if we want to make drawing easier, and to avoid the colors of the French flag, we can use red, green, and blue. Every quark has one unit of one of the color charges. In addition, quarks come in different “flavors.” The only ones that play a role in ordinary matter are two flavors called u and d, for up and down.

(Of course, quark “flavors” have nothing to do with how anything tastes. And, these names for u and d don’t imply that there’s any real connection between flavors and directions. Don’t blame me; when I get the chance, I give particles dignified scientific-sounding names like axion and anyon.)

There are u quarks with a unit of red charge, d quarks with a unit of green charge, and so forth, for six different possibilities altogether. And instead of one photon that responds to electric charge, QCD has eight color gluons that can either respond to different color charges or change one into another. So there is quite a large variety of sticks, and there are also many different kinds of hubs that connect them. It seems like things could get terribly complicated and messy. And so they would, were it not for the overwhelming symmetry of the theory. If you interchange red with blue everywhere, for example, you must still get the same rules. The more complete symmetry allows you to mix the colors continuously, forming blends, and the rules must come out the same for blends as for pure colors. I won’t be able to do justice to the mathematics here, of  course. But the final result is noteworthy, and easy to convey: there is one and only one way to assign rules to all the possible hubs so that the theory comes out fully symmetric. Intricate it may be, but messy it is not!

-----End of quotes---

As for why their exact ‘colors’ was chosen? If I remember right it had to do with the way they ‘neutralized’ each other color-wise just as our color charts do?

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVII3/quark.html

----Quote-----

These aren’t real colors visible to the eye, of course, but they do exhibit a similar bit of behavior—one blue, one green, and one red quark add up to be colorless, just as equal parts of blue, green, and red light add up to white light. All observable particles—your protons, neutrons, pions, kaons, and what have you—are color-neutral. And just as all particles, including quarks, have antiparticles, colors have anticolors: antiblue (yellow), antigreen (magenta), and antired (cyan). A bound pair of a color and its anticolor is also color-neutral. To make things really interesting, every gluon carries two units of color charge—a color and a (generally different) anticolor—and when quarks trade gluons, they usually change color as well. By analogy with quantum electrodynamics, which explains electromagnetism on a quantum level, Gell-Mann christened this Trading Spaces nightmare quantum chromodynamics, or QCD.

-------------------End of quote-----

So what does those theories say about mass? Do they explain the phenomena? They give us good and detailed theories for how the interactions seems to work, but, do they give me an understanding for what matter is? Nah, not really. So, what is matter? That invariant mass we see all around us, living and dead. I see it as an ‘emergence’ through distances, like disturbances in a field that due to ‘laws’ getting created by their emerging/appearance draws them together, ‘coagulates’ them inside SpaceTime. But here a really infuriating problem exists. If I have something without ‘distances’ creating this ‘disturbance’, well that’s one thing, but when we ‘move’? How the he* does that ‘work’? And to up that problem further, why not also add those of us with ‘a free will’ choosing our direction in SpaceTime ‘independently’? Could I look at it as a ‘law’ from the simple to the complex perhaps? Could I also look at is if what we see as ‘forces needed’ is only applicable in SpaceTime? I mean, it would simplify my headache enormously if I could assume that when certain preconditions is fulfilled outside what we know, then a so called ‘emergence’ take place, creating a ‘SpaceTime’ with its own rules. Then SpaceTime even if directly connected to this ‘distance-less’ reality will have a life of it’s own, not needed to coordinate what we see as ‘motion’ to its ‘parent reality’. Can you see how I think here? Like if what we see if seen from that original point of view only is an ‘illusion’.  Inside SpaceTime it’s not, naturally, just as the ‘distances’ created by a Black Hole will be all to real if you were there. But it would simplify life for me, as I otherwise would have to expect that, if I’m right, all motion inside SpaceTime will be directly ‘interacting’ and coordinated with/to a ‘dimension less point’. And that, that would really make my headache jump up and down in excitement and destroy all ‘one and two way-communication’. So yes, I think what we see as ‘asymmetric freedom’ inside SpaceTime only is valid inside it, even if bound to ‘distance-less-ness’. So maybe we are everywhere? If seen through Alice’s mirror. But as we can’t traverse to that side we won’t know.

[yor_on]

So let’s go back to what I see as the differences between ‘distances’ and ‘dimensions’. We live in three ‘dimensions’. When we pick up a object (book) we can directly confirm that it has a length, a width and a height, right? Well I presume that this is how we decided on what a ‘dimension’ was. But is that the same as my assuming those ‘space balls’ And possibly ‘time balls’? It seems to me that working from ‘dimensions’ you always will be able to add/create new ones, and each one will take ‘SpaceTime’ through a ‘geometric twist’ creating an invisible ‘distance’ of its own that we then will have to add to those we see as our ‘reality’. My idea of it doesn’t concern itself with ‘unseen dimensions’ at all, well, at least I think so . Even though we have a dimension/distance less ‘mirror’ to us, what we have inside SpaceTime will be the only ‘distances’ possible. If you have a ‘point pushing against a point ad infinitum’ creating us, all of them acting as if they had a ‘sphere-like’ force with its axis’s directed everywhere as observed by us, how would you add a ‘dimension’ to that? And why would you need too? And that idea of ‘time’ as originally being the same as ‘distances’? ( I kind’a like it It has a symmetry to me. Those time-axis’s all exist at that ‘empty plane’ as a ‘possibility’ but when emerging in SpaceTime they ‘combine/fall out to’/emerge(?) into finally one ‘arrow of time’ for us.  And take notice that ‘things’ seem to ‘simplify/focus’ themselves for us as they ‘grow’, isn’t that strange? As the effects ‘add up’ macroscopically they somehow becomes ‘less’. That I use the word ‘dimension’  to describe what’s without it? Well, I don’t have a better word. ‘Distance-less’? So what we would be then is a ‘closed bubble’ directed and constructed through ‘emergence’ with what we call motion and acceleration, as well as our ‘forces’, as something specific to SpaceTime.

And the ‘red thread’ running through it all? Something opening into a interactive two-way communication, ever growing into ‘complexity’ and self-awareness. We won’t get away from ‘Singularities’ in my universe, they are part of it, the ultimate one-way ‘strains’ on SpaceTime, and neither will we get away from those ‘infinities’, they too are a part of what SpaceTime is. Strange, when I started writing I didn’t know it would end like this? I thought I had my own view of it, and as I wrote in the beginning I primarily started to write it for me, not you. Sometimes it truly feel like I’m two persons One ‘normal’. Here as always slightly bored, not caring overmuch about what we do to ourselves, the other one only showing its face as I write?  And that one do seem to care? So, maybe I created this universe just to ‘rant’ about ‘Global Warming’ then?  (never mind no matter, take it as you please No, not really, but I’m pleased it ‘fit in’ so nicely. And I hope you found it possible to make some sense of it. As for if dimensions exist? Probably, according to the mathematics we use they do, right? And that book you read do have a width, length and height, so maybe I’m bicycling in the blue younder here? But maybe we see them slightly ‘wrong’? Due to the way we once thought to define them from SpaceTime? I don’t really know. Your choice. But if I was right (goofy space balls:) then the question might be, what is it that limit those ‘distances’ to three (and times arrow) for us macroscopically? My guess would be that this is the ideal solution to ‘life’, biological life needs a one way arrow to live in, as well as all other logical processes we constructed. Consider living in a universe like the one we see at a QM level seen through that Feynman diagram. I can’t see how one would make sense of it biologically? Where you might wander through your birth as you grow old, probably loosing yourself in the process as that seems to be best analogue to what we see happening in one of those diagrams (Further, an electron moving backward in time would from one perspective be equivalent to a positron moving forward.) I just can’t see anything biological or electrical prosper in such a universe. And if time do have two ‘arrows’ at a QM level, would you then say that this ‘time’ now contains ‘another dimension’? You would have to, wouldn’t you? (The other choice seems to be immersed in my ‘monolith’). So then ‘time’ to you would need to have a ‘height’? As well as a ‘width’? And you think I’m…?

If you on the other tentacle consider my description, then time to its nature have no arrow at all, or if you like, have all possible arrows there is, but in a equilibrium as they take each other out at that ‘lowest state’ of existence. Then it has to be something similar to a symmetry breaking creating ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’, and that seems to fit in with those CP-violations too. So what can create that asymmetry? If I consider that explosion taking place in the engine, then what created the ‘force’ as well as the asymmetry was ‘density’, the engines wall. If we assume that this ‘first state of no-time’ if isolated would consist of all ‘energy there is’, then, could that ‘energy’ be seen as ’pushing’?. Not if I defined it as a size-less point of origin, then it would not have anything to ‘push’ against, right? So what other ways can something without size express itself through? I don’t know, if I could understand how that photon (and virtual particles) can exist and deliver its energy inside SpaceTime, while still being size-less, time-less and mass-less intrinsically perhaps I would get an inkling as how that works. But I think it to be so anyway, and either we have some sort of ‘symbiotic’ system where both states is needed to exist, which then would make it a symmetric solution as we look at it as a ‘whole’ system, even if possibly to us ‘asymmetric’ as we only observe one side of it. Or we have a asymmetric system for real, which then craves a symmetry break, which then seems to crave a ‘times arrow’ preexisting for it to have happened? I mean, how can you say that something have ‘happened’ without allowing that ‘one way arrow’ to play a role? We could also have a ‘breathing system’ cycling through both sides of course, but I don’t think so. What we se as cycling is from our side of the mirror and that follow an ‘arrow of time’. So, it may be so that what I call ‘no way’, ‘two way’ and ‘one way arrows’ is ‘emergent’ properties defining a symmetry, uneven as seen from our side, but symmetric when studied as a whole. That’s what I think for now, at least. But if so, how is it balanced on that other side? Then there should be some opposite ‘principle’ creating a asymmetry if observed on that side too I presume? And there’s another question involved here, can you have a asymmetric balance that falls out to a symmetry when involving a larger ‘system’? Look at Earth climate system and then on the weather at different geographical locations, I think it’s perfectly possible myself, especially when not being able to ‘see’ the whole symmetry.

So I believe ‘time’ to be a emergent property. I believe that we have a ‘symmetry’ of sorts as a ‘whole’ in SpaceTime even though when observed from our arrow expressing itself as a asymmetry. I think I can understand my idea of ‘distances (arrows)’ and ‘times arrows’ and how that might relate to SpaceTime. I’m not sure how it fits in with ‘dimensions’, though it to me seems to crave three ‘dimensions and a ‘one way arrow’ to create SpaceTime, then again, two ‘dimensions’ with a ‘one way arrow’ might work too? What we see at a QM level seems to be the opposite though? A two way arrow of ‘time’ but still ‘three dimensions’. If you like you might consider both examples as a ‘emergence’ to our three dimensional reality. But I still think that for any electrochemical biological systems to emerge we will need what we find here, 3D ‘space-balls’ creating distances inside a ‘one-way arrow’. And if that is correct your ‘two-dimensionality’ won’t exist inside SpaceTime as I expect those ‘goofy 3D space-balls’ to originate from ‘size-less points’ (a.k.a. Plank-size probably?).  Also you have to remember that if you really consider some QM phenomena as ‘two-dimensional system’, then what you observe should also be able to ‘disappear’ from certain angles of observation. And if you don’t get what I mean by that you need to reread this essay, however confused it may be. And as long as that ‘2D system won’t disappear’ I will have great problems to accept that definition as valid. And if it did? Well, then you would have a true experimental proof defining dimensionality, wouldn’t you, making my ‘proposal’ highly dubious.

But as long as it doesn’t your proposed ‘two-dimensionality’ seems to me just another ‘limiting case’  made up for the needs of a experiment. Equilibrium seems also to be something describing SpaceTime with what we call ‘forces’ being the disturbance/straining of the same. Now you might want to point to electrons and particles and say ‘but they ‘disappear’, don’t they?’ I don’t think so, to me they’re not ‘there’ at all. What we observe is the ‘disturbances’ creating matter, and they will be ‘flickering’ even if homogeneous when observed to take up a certain spatial place coherently in time. And that’s a real mystery to me, how they do it, and what allows us ‘biological systems’ to constantly break the laws governing motion inside SpaceTime by our locomotion and use of ‘free will’. To allow for that I use the idea of ‘information / fractal behavior’ and the idea that all goes to a ‘higher information density’ (from simple to complex). And that you will find a ‘asymmetric freedom’ to SpaceTime allowed by its ‘emerging’ from that ‘distance-less’ definition. And if you look at ‘information density’ too as a sort of ‘emergence’ then they will create new ‘immaterial properties’ in SpaceTime as they emerge. It may be that this kind of ‘immaterial emergence’ have effects we can not evaluate directly in time, but we all know the ‘force/impact’ of immaterial ideas, don’t we? As for what consists of ‘simple’ or ‘complex’? I’m not sure on that one, what we see defines our views, right? So we have a definition and expectation of what we call ‘simple’ as compared to ‘complex’ but when you look at it as ‘emergence’ then there might not be any such thing. There might just be ‘whole processes’ that will be lifted forward for us to know/observe when we are ‘ready for it’, like us being those ‘fire-flies’ lightening up inside that monolith of ‘time’. As seen from inside our ‘SpaceTime’ though, our definitions have a validity and we will find processes to walk from the ‘simple to the complex’ as judged by us inside our arrow of time, at least that’s my expectation. Even though you might find QM to behave differently ‘momentarily’ it will still obey our arrow of time, and if it stops doing so? Well Ops, we’re gone..

( There is one thing more, highly hypothetical that I would like to add. I like to think of ‘photons’ as ‘holes’ in SpaceTime, have you noticed that? If you do that and then consider my proposition of ‘emergence’ as ‘whole processes’ when considered outside our ‘arrow of time’ combined with my view that ‘distances/time/mass/momentum/forces etc’ all is properties only valid inside that arrow/SpaceTime. Then maybe photons really are ‘holes’ inside SpaceTime. Fluctuations of ‘energy’ created as needed by those ‘laws’ we see govern inside SpaceTime but not ‘there’ at all. Like if we all was a homogeneous emerging ‘information field’ where each photons ‘emergence’ inside it would be some sort of rift in that field created by SpaceTime’s needs/laws expressed through its arrow. And then the ‘forces’ we use would be SpaceTime’s need to close those ‘rifts’. Crazy, ain’t it

--------------

And now for some environment again

Now, when it comes to the ‘economy’ of it. What we need to do is to change our priorities when it comes to infrastructure, we need to dismantle our coal driven power-plants. To keep them and try to ‘clean up’ the smoke will leave us with the option of ‘CO2 pipes everywhere’ which to me is no option? And if you let your common sense lead you it’s no option to you either, that can only be a extremely short-time solution. As for using batteries to our cars? Seems that we are building up to new problems there with the residuals that will be left to dispose of when those batteries are ‘dead’. Don’t fool yourself, it’s not a easy problem and it will ‘cost’ you personally, as well as the industry to solve. I prefer if we could make water our fuel, that would be the best solution from a longtime perspective. What would happen to our ‘economy’ and hierarchy’s of power if we could? Ever wondered about that? You should, as it is now people tend to think that ‘economy’ is like some wild beast, best left to those few that ‘lead us’. But the truth is that it is us all that is the economy, and without us neither ‘money’ nor ‘economy’ exists. You have two choices here. Keep on to the beaten path, nuclear power, batteries, centralizing power of all kinds, all those things that will create future waste problems for your kids, but, will keep your centralized economy intact, clearly defined and hierarchical, or you could start build for something that to me is a better long time solution. Nope, not ‘communism’. I’ve never felt comfortable with the ideals there, we need some ‘living space’, all of us do, we’re no ants. But neither am I pleased with the notion of unequal living standards, war, starvation and ignorance, and that is what our ‘free markets’ seems to offer instead. What they like to call a ‘fierce competition’, but what we all know to be secret ‘power deals’ and money greasing the ‘representative politics and dictatorships’. So I’m not impressed with that either. The real question may be if you’re ready to take responsibility for your own actions? If you are then there might be a hope for us. And if you are, you will realize that we need to share our resources trying to make the best we can of this situation. But it will get better, that sharing will grow as Earth’s resources ‘recharge’ themselves and in a hundred years we will be on a better path.

Ask yourself, why would we ever need a Concorde to fly in? We could use modern equivalents to a Zeppelin instead to make that same journey, so much cheaper and environmental for us and the ‘economy’. I mean it, do ask yourself why? Time pressures? Come on, you have the internet, set up a video conference instead. That’s comparatively ‘instantaneous’ looking at the hassle with flying and arriving and setting it all up. Where’s the need for it? ‘Personal contacts’, ‘power-deals’, your ‘importance’ as a small predator rubbing hide against your ‘peers’? Is that it? Give that up and become a human being instead, try to look past that short nose of yours to what might come. We need an end to ignorance and greed, we need live-able solutions, clean water and air. And that won’t come through any ‘revolution’ I’ve heard of, it can only come through education and self-questioning. Why not try to wake up? ‘Honor and prosperity’ is not birth-marked for only a few, it’s meant for all, and we have it in reach using Earth’s resources wisely. There’s new research showing that domestic violence lowers your kids ‘intelligence’, strange isn’t it? Why should it? A good whack now and then to teach him or her the ‘reality’s’ of life, that’s only ‘educational’ isn’t it? Builds character, doesn’t it? One reason for it could be that this kid will be so occupied with ‘surviving’ that (s)he won’t have the time, or dare, to build an interest for other things, also it creates a vicious circle in that they too might find ‘brute force’ a quicker solution to the ‘problem’ than using their mind, as that’s what we taught them, not forgetting those other kids that will ‘hide’ forever more, believing their slightest mistakes punishable. It seems a terrible waste of minds and honor to me, wasting their minds, and your honor. So, is that what we are like? Kids, too occupied with ‘survival’ to see what we do to ourselves? Or too occupied with what our ‘economy’ will bring perhaps

And if you feel that the Earth nowadays is to small? Simple, one kid a family for the next ten generations, if you count on twenty years between every ‘generation’ then that will give Earth a breathing space of two hundred years, and our ‘over-population’ will shrink dramatically, without any war or genocide’s involved, just use those ‘preventives’. And it will make that kid coming loved as (s)he might be the only one you will have. We can solve all problems just using common sense, if we want to. But it depends on you reading me, and your ‘maturity’ as a human being. I won’t solve it for you, you will, if so. But to make it possible we need ‘education’, all of us do, and that’s where we have the internet. After the wheel I believe the internet to be the most important ‘technology’ available today if we allow it to breath freely. Flood it with education, make sure that it is there with footnotes and sources available. Stop locking it in, there might be someone in Liberia that could be our next Einstein reading you on it. So, we have those ‘sick people’ using it too, I know we do, but that’s the price we pay for ‘unlocking information’. Someone will always use it shortsightedly or/and wrong. But they are ‘track able’ if we pool our information, furthermore, my view is that we need a ‘crime’ before we can talk about ‘justice’. I’m expecting you reading me to consist of enough ‘real human beings’ for it all to fall out to good solution, but then again? Maybe you don’t agree? Only you then? And your ‘peers’ perhaps? Harder measures you say, trust no one, and, ah I see, you’re no ‘personal Jesus’? Well, then I presume we others will have to ‘make do’ without you for the time being. The rest of you reading I do hope to see my point.

[Mr. Scientist]

Only a reserved universe would not permit the singular regions of spacetime predicted by general relativity.

[yor_on]

Sorry, that one you will have expand on?
What is your definition of a 'reserved universe'?
If we are we talking about a 'closed' SpaceTime?
If so I agree, but I can't see how it invalidates my thoughts?
If you see it as a 'emergence' then they will all create new 'properties'.

Or do you mean that SpaceTime is open?
If so that won't invalidate it either.
To see my idea you still have to look at SpaceTime as something 'emerging' with its own rules. Those rules will be 'real' for us, and clearly defined (ah, macroscopically that is . As for if SpaceTime is 'open or closed' that is still (to my eyes) a limited case. If there would be a 'original region' without 'distances' creating what we deem as such, then the question if SpaceTime is open or closed loses its context as your only definition will be according to a 'limited set' of rules inside SpaceTime. As Distances don't really exist If my idea would be correct. But I would still look at distances as something finite, at least from that other 'outside' view, but as for how it will express itself inside?


That is if it was that you meant?
There may be something I missed here?

(Singularities is a direct result of Einsteins theory's and do seem to exist.
Although a lot of people didn't expect it to be so.
And they are as far as I know no 'mirages'.)

[yor_on]

Can't hold this from you.

And this.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-25-warming_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html


State of the Climate Global Analysis August 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=8&submitted=Get+Report

And if you did read those.

Then check out this guy.

( I would call him optimistic
But then again, that's me not you.
And he's right in his conclusion.

[yor_on]

And here is the 'Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States' by the USGCRP Scientific Assessments 2009 . It's optimistic and I like it, even though I expect it to be a closer shave than what we expect now.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

"In the United States, the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 mandates that every four years an assessment of the impacts of global change in the U.S. be conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Responding to this mandate, the USGCRP carried out during the late 1990s the first National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change in the United States. Between 2004 and 2009, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which incorporated the USGCRP, produced a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products(SAPs)."

[yor_on]

When a heavenly object or a rocket moves in a uniform motion does it have a different 'energy level' depending on its ‘speed’?
If you see it as such, why won’t we notice it as radiation from those 'excited atoms’ creating its invariant mass?

And how does ‘Momentum’ relate to 'Energy'?
As energy is nowhere to be found here.
But then again, so is our momentum?
As well as ‘Inertia’.

They will only become ‘present’ when manipulating the objects equilibrium. That in the case of our object meaning impact or observation/comparison against another frame of reference. So are any of them definable without that ‘Impact/frame of reference’? (Inertia craves a change of velocity which also is a manipulation relative another ‘frame of reference’, namely SpaceTime itself, even though we don’t need to observe that ‘frame’ to observe the consequences) The other two though seems to crave more direct comparisons with other ‘frames’?

How do we define the ‘energy’ of a particle? By impacting it first perhaps, measuring and then counting on various particles speed, velocity and mass? And then generalize it. Do you see that as the same as proving what ‘energy’ is, or do you see it as a ‘tool’ for describing and defining a idealized concept?

And do Plank-time ‘flickers’?

Think of three Plank lengths as a ‘distance’, then take a plank of two Planck lengths and push it over those three. At some time this plank will be ‘displaced’ between those three Planck lengths not covering it in even ‘spaces’ (as I tend to see it).  Looking at this, even if Planck sizes is a truly ‘objective measurement’ inside ‘SpaceTime there, according to my thinking, there still must be a ‘flow’ when considering our plank traveling ‘past them’. But then again, you could argue that this example only will be true as long 'time' is a ’flow’.

If you somehow succeeded in proving that 'time' is created out of ’events’ (f ex. ’Planck time sized’) then this plank should be forced to  ‘flicker’ between those frames, won’t you agree? Never to exist in it’s movements/jumps between those ‘Planck sized’ frames making up SpaceTime. But, if that was the case, where would ‘reality’ be. Only inside those ‘still pictures’ of ‘Planck time sized size’? Wouldn’t you too constantly ‘flicker’ then? As well as your thoughts, movements etc, ad infinitum.

And what would then bind those ‘still frames’ together?
Time perhaps?

Again, you mean?
Then it can’t be the same type of ‘time’ we are defining inside those slices as outside can it?
I will argue that you are comparing oranges and apples.

If we define time as something belonging to Plank size (Planck time), those also defining all other Plank measurements (as they all hinge together). Then what we deem ‘time’ will always be situated inside those still frames and never be found ‘outside’ those ‘frames’. Think about it and you will see my point. And I believe it will fall out the same way no matter your definition of ‘times size.’

So what do you then expect binding them?
A ‘force’ or ‘field’ of some kind perhaps?
But?

My definition says that all ‘forces’ are created from measurements made in ‘time’, using its ‘arrow’.
And as I just argued that ‘time’ won’t be outside those still frames?
Can you prove it otherwise?

Then that 'field' becomes more and more inviting, right
But won't you need an arrow of time present for a field.
And what would it consist of?

Can one see SpaceTime as somehow ‘floating' in a sea of bigger, ah,  ‘glue'  that then produces some undefiably quality of ‘lesser times’ useable for getting situated inside those Planck sized SpaceTime frames only? And creating what we call SpaceTime? Now, that  'field of glue' is your new obstacle as that too will need to be explained as containing some kind of direction or casuality chain to create and order the 'framework' for SpaceTime. And that field holding SpaceTime together will then either consist of my 'flow', or if you think 'events', will need to be 'glued' together in its turn. Ad infinitum.

That is, if you think 'events/frames'.
Don’t make sense to me.

[yor_on]

For me it seems easier to see the ‘background’ as a ‘emergent quality’ creating our arrow of time. And 'time' as something being a flow not divided in 'frames' or 'events'.Then our arrow could be seen as something emerging, created out of SpaceTimes macroscpic demands. There is still that question of ‘energy’ though, and ‘momentum’, and if they are the same? It all comes down to what you define a ‘force’ to be. Also if you think it can be one thing inside SpaceTime and another ‘outside’ that ‘arrow’. Force to me seems a ‘strain’ placed on a equilibriment creating momentary changes. By us defined as ‘energy’ resuting in 'work done' manifesting as we manipulate SpaceTime, or its 'equilibrium' otherwise gets disturbed.

So, you tell me?

Another thing

Do you remember me asking about the definition of a circle?
Like consisting of an innumerable  amount of straight lines subtly angled against each other or as something ‘truly bent’. And said that SpaceTime will differ depending on your view?

I se the ‘straightest line’ as the one following ‘SpaceTimes geodesics.
Consider the ‘path’ of any ‘particle’ or ‘photon’.

I see that path as the straightest possible, energy as well as distance wise. That as ‘energy’ is ‘distance’ to me. You will always need ‘energy’ to get your ‘distance’, no matter how your definition of its ‘length’ might differ by applying 'force'. And if you accept this, what will it make of those ‘straight lines’ we trust to construct f ex. a room with? Are they ‘straight’ or ‘crooked’ when defined as I do? And as earth comes closer to the sun? Will they then ‘deform’ even more?

I mean, if you try to imagine SpaceTime that way what would you expect to see? You could make a simulation where you create a ‘particle path’ as we normally see it. Bending to ‘masses’ like our sun.

Then color the space around that path an even grey.
Why? Well it's my thought up ‘tension measurement’

 And as I say that the shortest path is the one without ‘forces’ acting on Space as seen from that ‘particle’ (think uniformly coasting rocket instead if you like) then the ‘tension’ surrounding its ‘path’ will be the lowest. So an even grey color please.

Have you done it?
Good.

Now ‘stretch/deform’ that line so that it from our ‘point of view’ becomes what we would deem a ‘straight line’. What do you think would happen to that ‘even grey color space’ surrounding it? I say that to make that path fit what we call a ‘straight line’ we would apply a tension on space itself deforming it changing that color. Why, well to get that 'straight line' in reality would either need us to apply an force (acceleration) or 'twist' space to force that line. Acceleration seems the easier path here btw And that is what we do when applying ‘force’ by f ex our acceleration. I think it is possible to see that as a 'twisting' of space, highly localized from our point of view inside SpaceTime. And I also think that if there was some way to catch/define that phenomena in a simulation it would present us with a truer image of SpaceTime than what we observe with our eyes as that is what space really looks like ‘energy’ wise.

And if you 'quirk' to that

I see that simulation, as when your path-line got ‘stretched straight’ and if rightly done, as showing you different ‘gradient pressures/shades of grey’, in fact questioning the idea of space as something intrinsically ‘empty’. Like if what we call 'empty space' in reality could be a kind of equilibrium, With space always using the least common denominator energy-wise. As those 'natural' paths are the ‘energy thriftiest’ they also becomes the ‘time and distance thriftiest’. ‘Distance’ can be exchanged for mass, time, energy, velocity, speed and acceleration, but it will always cost you some manipulation and ’energy’ to ‘decrease distances’. And that’s why space to me will be a ‘equilibrium’ no matter where you look, near a black hole or in ‘outer deep space’, can you see my point here?

And it makes another thing 'stick out' if you look at it this way. As you can’t say that space is ‘empty’ when looking at it my way. If it was we shouldn't have those geodesics. So to prove it empty you will have to fall back on ‘gravitons’ to ‘prop’ SpaceTime up. With ‘gravitons’ you can keep a ‘empty space’ but then also, as I see it, question Einstein’s idea of ‘geodesics’ as well as maybe even questioning the idea of relativity. As you then might want to propose that there now can be a ‘objective’ ‘eigen’-(intrinsically true)-distance existing, as gravitons now is the 'ping pong balls of force' bouncing around, expressing itself as ‘gravitation’ inside a ‘empty space’. Then you will find two concepts instead of one, gravitons and space, and I don't hold to that idea. I believe the idea of space 'wrapping itself around mass' to be the correct one and that gravity and space are the same undividable property expressing itself differently through different 'densities'. SpaceTimes natural ‘shape’ defined by what I see as its ‘’least action’ relative its ‘energy levels’ and not 'dividable' as a singular force. Why?

1. It fits the observations.
2. And it seems a 'simplest explanation'.

(well, for me, for now:)

I like those two criteria and think they provide a 'best answer' inside SpaceTime, at least as related to my current level of knowledge. That there always is more to know? Lovely, ain't it. That our definitions might be wrong if we could observe what's outside too? Well, it won't invalidate it's 'truth' inside SpaceTime. Can you see what I mean here? That what is important for us from a 'practical point of view' is what happens inside where we exists. So the use and definitions we have 'inside' will work there, even if 'flawed' as a whole.  And when I extrapolate what I understand into my weird view then that is a result of me wanting to keep those two concepts as good as I can. And accepting the conclusions doesn't make me 'understand' the concepts created any better than you But we are already accepting a lot of strange behaviors without needing my views to be counted in. In fact most of you doing physics build your work on them. Black holes, entanglements, discrete black body radiation, photons and waves, momentum, matter and 'mass', tunneling etc. Zebras and horses, they are all black in the night

When it comes to mathematics the 'truth' is slightly different I think. Mathematics as we use it seems to build on a idea that math can be intrinsically true. 1+1+=2, and damn you if you say anything else, well, at least without any valid axiomatic proof (archetype). With one you might get away with it though, and better still if it becomes a theorem   So math is a glorious science in that it seems able to describe/adapt to all 'realities', ours as well as those we haven't even observed existing. String theory seems to me a try to make that 'jump' from only 'validating' what we already observe to actually create something totally new that might create test and provable postulates, by new observations engineered from those postulates. And so it rests on that first assumption that math have a 'universal truth' too it. I'm still not sure what string-theory is, some say it craves gravitons? But I'm guessing that a gifted mathematician could do without those and still keep the concept valid mathematically? But the real question to our mathematics, at least to me, is whether it is able to describe by causality, as that is what all logic seems to come down to, something that has no 'causality chains' at all?

We do our thinking from our arrow of time, and it is what builds all logic we use, so how do we 'break out' from that. Now you might want to tell me that it won't be necessary as there must be a 'causality' even with ideas like mine. Maybe you are right, but, you could be wrong too. If you're right its no big deal for science (Well, relatively seen:), but if you're wrong you will spend an eternity proving a false concept. So it is a little like considering Global Warming. Assume that I'm wrong but that we still do the 'right thing' as I see it, stopping CO2:s manmade sources? Now, where is the harm done I ask? Okay, a worldwide recession as we change course, but the result will be worth it to me, as we will use what's called 'environmental and renewable forces' (discounting nuclear energy for now, as we still haven't found a solution for the waste disposal) Then consider if I'm right? Well, then we might save a species, namely ours, as well as a whole planets ecology,  fauna and flora. But if turned around, with us doing nothing? Well. if I'm wrong we will still have to change our power-sources sooner or later to 'renewable' ones, and if I'm right we will all be dead soon enough. So for me, using simple logic, the problem seems solvable no matter if you're a 'denier'  'doubter' or 'believer' and no matter any 'absolute truth' about Global Warming.

So to me gravitation is no ‘force’. Neither am I expecting ‘photons’ to be a ‘force’
They are ‘emergence’s’ following SpaceTimes geodesics according to a principle that I, for want of names, like to see as  ‘least action’ for now, at least as observed from our inside. To me it seems as we have a equilibrium with my ‘distance less points’ expressing itself as a ‘asymmetry’ inside SpaceTime, but, if judging by what I think here most probably a equalized ‘symmetry’ if we could observe both sides simultaneously.

And photons would probably be a phenomena binding our ‘reality’ together, with ‘virtual photons’ being the exact same but closer to, or in, that ‘distance less’ reality that is our ‘mirror image’ (As in 'Alice’s mirror’ that is, not your toilet mirror:). And with all ‘forces’ we manipulate/apply inside SpaceTimes arrow becoming ‘causality chains’ creating ‘emergent reactions’, or if you like, creating a ‘disturbance of equilibrium’ inside SpaceTime.

So what would ‘forces’ in themselves be defined as, if so?
Well, they seems all ‘equilibrium’s’ to me when untouched, it’s when we break their ‘symmetry’ we apply/create what we call ‘force’ and get what we define as our humanly created ‘work done’. And as a ‘objective distance’ existing in itself must be an illusion as I see it, even though existing inside SpaceTime, then neither can any ‘objective time’ be true. 

But there is one 'time' that always will seem the same to you, no matter what kind of frame you are in, your own time experience. And that is a universal 'truth', and to me, explains why those muon's will support both ideas. Inside the muon its ‘time’ will be the 'same as always', therefore supporting the ‘length contraction’ but outside it we can observe its ‘time contraction’. Also this seems like another indirect similarity with both 'momentum' and 'energy' as we look to the 'energy levels' in our accelerating, or coasting, rockets atoms. They do not jiggle more, although we know that there must be a higher 'energy level' and 'momentum' to it as I understands it. The only thing making those atoms want to 'jiggle', as far as I know, will be resistance/density and deep space is comparatively 'empty', right:)

And what you see as ‘motion’, for example when radioactive material ‘frees energy’ in form of radiation, will then be a 'equilibrium' to me and the only ‘forces’ existing will be those ‘short timed’ manipulations we do, and even them in a greater perspective only SpaceTimes search for restoring its equilibrium. SpaceTime can also produce those ‘manipulations’ spontaneously (stars colliding f ex or exploding) so perhaps there is no real ‘forces’ at all, but they will all ‘strain’ SpaceTime when happening and so create what we see as ‘forces/events’.

That principle of ‘least action’ combined with ‘energy levels’ a.k.a. what I suspect to be ‘time’ seems to me to be what creates us. And the way it does it is through ‘emergence/fractal behavior’. And it’s possible to consider it a ‘information density’ too,. Possibly defined as something optimal at our macroscopic size as a black hole seems to take itself out of that ‘information interaction-flow.’

Although ‘emergence’ is not ‘work done’ but maybe ‘fractal behavior’ can be seen like it?
After all, it may be what creates our ‘arrow of time’? Nah, both definitions (emergence/fractal behavior’) should be seen as the same I think. As all ‘work done’ only is a definition by us, as observed inside SpaceTime. But ‘fractal behavior’ seems to me as a better description of it as soon as we passes that ‘dimension less point’. And ‘Emergence’ then being the way it just seems to ‘pop up’ begetting new ‘properties’

To see how I think about it you need to consider that.

Density is an ‘emergence’ of ‘condensed/coagulated’ energy as I see it.
And ‘energy’ is the thing we manipulate by what we deem as ‘forces’.
And the results of those manipulations we deem ‘work done’.

Furthermore. ‘Time’ and ‘Times arrow (s)’ is to me two different things.
Time is the ‘holy grail’, and the ‘arrow (s)’ its ‘emergence’s’

[yor_on]

And ‘dimensions’ may be a stranger concept than what I thought.
Or simpler, as I define them as size less slightly goofy 3D-space balls emerging ‘as is’.
Not as one or two dimensional objects somehow ‘joining forces’ with other ‘dimensions’ .

And why I think so?

Remember how I discussed how to name something 2D you should also, if incorporating such an object in SpaceTime, be able to see it ‘disappear’ from certain angels of observation. That is a true statement and easy to understand. And a one-dimensional object existing inside SpaceTime won’t exist at all as far as we 3D ‘objects’ are concerned. That as it can only have what we deem as one property. F ex length (but no width, and no height to it.)

So whenever someone claims something to be a ‘2D system’ of invariant mass (restmass/proper mass) you might ask if they have observed those ‘disappearing qualities' to that experiment. If they haven’t they’re wrong. Nope, I don't see that as negotiable, it's just plain wrong. And what they have will still be a 3D object (system) that they, by some quirk of experimental need or want, define as a 2D system to explain its properties.

It is somewhat irritating to me to see a whole formalism built on what I presume to be a archetype. In this case that the fact that we observe three properties (and time) to SpaceTime somehow is seen as guaranteeing that you can pick them apart. I don't see SpaceTime pointing in that direction and I have yet to see the experiment proving that it is possible to have a one and two-dimensional system inside SpaceTime. Shouldn't we have something more than just archetypes by now? There should be some possible experiment to do with invariant mass/restmass proving the concept. I don't see my thoughts invalidate Einstein's SpaceTime though? It seems as acceptable when having 3D 'emerging' from Planck-size as when using the idea of picking them apart. I'm guessing that the thing making us think that this was the way dimensions 'worked' was that you could observe as you thinned out a material it becoming thinner and thinner, in the end being very hard to observe any thickness to it. But that is not the way I see Quantum mechanical processes. To me all invariant mass will be 3D as soon as it 'emerged' as such. But if you have a experiment proving that other concept I would be very interested.

Would that mean that those ‘dimensions’ then is ‘inseparable’? Don’t know, but possibly so inside SpaceTime, I would guess it to be so. Does it mean that we won't, ever, create a ‘true’ 2D object. I think so, as if you really succeeded in doing it you would then be able to argue the idea of ‘dimensions’ as something we can use as some sort of ‘Lego slices’ building it into different models. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 10009918D, ad infinitum ~

Although understand that my idea doesn’t disavow the ‘concept’ of dimensions, It just gives us a way to understand why we won’t see them inside SpaceTime. They are not ‘hidden’ inside SpaceTime as I see it. They can’t be here at all. Which won’t inviolate a 2D, or if you like, 1D ‘SpaceTime’ ‘emerging' but won’t, as I see it, ever allow us to observe them as they will be their own ‘bubbles’ if so, having unique ‘emergent properties’ of their own. I would love for someone to prove that they can have a 2D object of invariant mass inside SpaceTime. If someone did so it would be a proof that my idea of what ‘dimensions’ might be is totally, utterly, wrong. But as long as I haven’t seen this concept proved experimentally I will go on believing that what we call ‘2D’ systems is ‘generalizations’ .

When it comes to holographic reproductions we are not discussing 'invariant mass' any more. And as some do, to draw the conclusion that light and mass is the exact same I doubt. They are not, light in itself may seem to have 'boundaries' when observed as 'photons' but it will still be light, not matter. Matter have a higher complexity it seems to me. And my concept of ‘time’ then? Well, if ‘time’ can be my ‘monolith’, (Yes proprietor, a ‘slab’ of time please:) then I do expect it to have an unevenness to it, if looking solely on my known ‘half’ of ‘reality’ (SpaceTime). And that 'unbalance' then creating us through  ‘emergence' with our 3D and ‘arrow of time’. And as I said before, it seems to suit those CP-violations. But seen together (3D and my '0D') I still expect it to be a symmetry defining it. As for how many ‘possibilities’ of different 'SpaceTime'-dimensions it may be able to 'emerge' I won’t even dare to guess.

So in my world you still have 'dimensions' but not like 'building-blocks' that 'glues' together. The only thing I’m reasonably sure of here is that you won’t ever, never, prove my suggested experiment of how to define your concept of ‘dimensions’ curled up inside ‘dimensions’, inside SpaceTime. That is, by using what you deem a ‘2D system’ of 'restmass' and then observe it from different angles, watching it disappear from some. And that experimental proof should be fairly simple to devise if you really had a ‘true’ 2D system within your reach. (So I expect my goofy space and time-balls to survive for some ‘time’ yet:)

Another proof for it comes from our insight that according to the theory of relativity there can be no ‘true distances’. Not objectively seen, not as any 'gold-standard'. And without any objective ‘distance’ possible where will  ‘width, length and height’ be? And how will one further divide them into ‘three’ singular properties, and then use those as a proof for further ‘pieces of dimensions’? (Well sort of, Lego-wise)?

But space itself then, does that have a dimension? Well, inside our 'closed bubble', space is just like 3D to me, meaning that it has a depth, width and length as all other things inside SpaceTime. In itself we 'create' space by reducing the 'mass/particles' from any closed system and the 'amount of space' is then defined by the systems size as observed from the outside and its 'emptiness'. So is there a 'perfect vacuum'? Probably, but as such not involved in any dimensionality at all. That we observe the 'emptiness' and also 'creates' it doesn't tell us a thing about what it is. Sometimes I think of SpaceTime like a field, it's such a nice concept. And just like any field it gets its 'distances' by its, ah, 'intercourse' with our times arrow. Those 'distances' are not absolute concepts but a interaction with mass, velocity, speed, and time (and energy itself as expressed through those concepts naturally). And it all comes from 'nowhere' according to me. So what we have is just different densities, vacuum seeming the 'thinnest' most immaterial one, well that and 'photons' then. But all created from the same concept with invariant mass and black holes at the other side. And if mass creates space then there should be some rule for how much space it creates as we otherwise would have a cosmos consisting of one big clump of mass (Black hole?) with space around it. As I said it's no holy grail

Another thing I'm wondering over is the conservation laws and invariant mass. If I have a gas that's excited (heated) we will still know its invariant mass if I'm getting it right (in a closed system). Just how do we know that? Considering that my impression is that uniform motion of any given system can't be isolated and defined? Even though we may have a number for that mass as weighting it inside our frame in a non-excited condition how do we guarantee that our frames motion won't play a role in our measurements. I suppose you could say that our frame and the gas is in a equilibrium and therefore will have a general non-changing relation that still would be the same if we moved our frame from earth to the moon, but if we moved to our closest neutron star then having another uniform motion? We could know it relative our original system but we can't say at what uniform velocity our 'original' really are at. Am I right here? Consider having a planet system moving very fast, half the speed of light as observed from our original 'inertial frame'. Assume it's like our solar-system. What would the sunlight be like as it 'hit' its own earth, would it change in any way. As the whole 'solar-system' is having the same uniform speed here? Would there for example be a length and time contraction in the direction of its motion noticeable from inside that frame (solar-system)? It would wouldn't it? Not only for observers outside the system but also for those inside. Am I right there? I think I am, and therefore. Could one use that as a measure of uniform motion? And therefore guarantee a invariant mass unchanging properties no matter what frame you measure from? So would light without contraction in any direction guarantee a 'absolute rest'?


Yep, as I see it, that is, for now.
And now they're coming to get me again.
Sorry, gotta hide under that table. Hey, come join me

[yor_on]

So I've gotten myself involved in magnetism.

The mainstream explanation seems to be 'magnetic domains' where the 'spin' of electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and force. And I expect you to get as big a headache from this as from all the rest together

1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?
2. And what was that electrons spin?
3. And do electrons really, really orbit?

4. And this 'force' they are acting with is mediated by?
A . Photons? - - B. Glue? - - C. Your mama? - - D. Not your mama at all?

Let's start with Spin. (2) and (3) the orbital of a electron

So what is this property. I'm guessing most of you love that word as it sounds as it mean something 'real'. Even those of you knowing better treat it so. In reality it is a mathematical definition describing a property first seen in the emission spectrum of alkali metals. Now, there is a word called 'angular momentum'  that we already mentioned here, alike the force of a carrousel in motion 'forcing' you out from its center.

Let us start with assuming that electrons do orbit the atoms
Then they will be 'objects' even though we can't pinpoint them (HUP)
Why not then assume that those electrons also 'spin' as they orbit?

Well.

---Quote--

" Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity."

--End of quote--

Didn't work out that one, so?

Well. Ok so they can't be what we deem 'physical', like really turning that 'electron ball' around and around, right. But how about defining it as something 'intrinsical' to that 'electron', you know like those photons being 'intrinsically' massless, sizeless and yet filled with 'energy'.

Why not?
(exchange 'intrinsical' for 'magical' if you like, in those definitions intrinsical really is magical:)

---Quote------

Elementary particles, such as the photon, the electron, and the various quarks are particles that cannot be divided into smaller units. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by these particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as can be determined, these elementary particles are true point particles. The spin that they carry is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to a particle's electric charge and mass.

---End of quote-------

This is a true problem with all use of mathematics

You can define a problem, narrow the solutions and in the end find something that makes 'sense' mathematically without really making it explainable at all. A little like you needing to know a puzzles picture but only can lay it out in a dark room. You may succeed in putting the puzzle together, but as you try to get a feel for the 'whole' image there is still something missing isn't there? Light.

Our definition of spin as such is then mathematical, not relating to anything alike a real 'angular momentum'. Can you follow how I see it? I mean, you can't both expect it to 'spin' FTL (faster than light) and be 'real' can you?

As for how it is explained mathematically I still have to find out?
It should be explainable as a property not violating lights speed in a vacuum though.
Perhaps hinging on HUP?

But The Real Problem Is That It Works

Yep, it does. So now you have to choose. Either electrons are real 'orbiting' particles spinning FTL to create that spin. OR. They still 'orbit' but instead of 'spinning' they now have some Gods send secret intrinsic property not needed to be defined but able to produce a 'angular momentum' faster than light.

Or as I see it, they neither 'orbit' or 'spin'.
How about the electrons  'orbitals' then?

Well.

This definition I found elegant.

---Quote----

A true electron orbit is not nearly so simple as a circle or ellipse.
According to quantum physics, there is no set motion.  We can talk about an
average radius of an orbit.  We can talk about the angular momentum and
energy of an orbit.  We can talk about how much of the orbit is in the
horizontal plane.  In reality, the electron's orbit is not any specific
motion.  It bounces all over the place.  Higher energy electrons have a
greater average radius.  Different electrons have different angular
momentums.  Exact path cannot be determined.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College

---End of quote---

 OR if you prefer this.

---Quote---

"An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons, in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus."

And..

"Because of the difference from classical mechanical orbits, the term "orbit" for electrons in atoms, has been replaced with the term orbital—a term first coined by chemist Robert Mulliken in 1932.  Atomic orbitals are typically described as “hydrogen-like” (meaning one-electron) wave functions over space, categorized by n, l, and m quantum numbers, which correspond with the pair of electrons' energy, angular momentum, and an angular momentum direction, respectively"

--End of quote---

And this.

----Quote---

The atomic orbital concept is therefore a key concept for visualizing the excitation process associated to a given transition. For example, one can say for a given transition that it corresponds to the excitation of an electron from an occupied orbital to a given unoccupied orbital.

Nevertheless one has to keep in mind that electrons are fermions ruled by Pauli exclusion principle and cannot be distinguished from the other electrons in the atom. Moreover, it sometimes happens that the configuration interaction expansion converges very slowly and that one cannot speak about simple one-determinantal wave function at all. This is the case when electron correlation is large.

Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron wavefunction, even though most electrons do not exist in one-electron atoms, and so the one-electron view is an approximation. When thinking about orbitals, we are often given an orbital vision which (even if it is not spelled out) is heavily influenced by this Hartree–Fock approximation, which is one way to reduce the complexities of molecular orbital theory.

--End of Quote--


I see a lot of people telling me that Electrons orbit….
They Do Not.

Just as 'spin' is not our macroscopic 'angular momentum'

So what the heck has this to do with magnetism?
Well, let us first conclude two things, as I see it.

We do not know how 'spin' come to be other than mathematically.
Electrons does not 'orbit' no matter what 'photographs' you've been looking on.

If a magnet works with a 'force' that can attract or 'repulse'. And if the mainstream explanation is that there is 'magnetic domains' where the spin of the electrons are what creates a magnets magnetic orientation and 'force'. Then, have they really explained anything at all?

Well, particles also have what's called a "magnetic dipole moment, just like a rotating electrically charged body in classical electrodynamics.  But as I said, those comparisons only 'works' at a 'surface-level'. (do you still hinge my reasoning?

But this 'magnetic dipole movement' is also experimentally proofed by f ex. "by the deflection of particles by inhomogeneous magnetic fields in a Stern-Gerlach experiment, or by measuring the magnetic fields generated by the particles themselves." And "The electron, being a charged elementary particle, possesses a nonzero magnetic moment." Meaning that it is 'magnetic'.

---Quote--

In ordinary materials, the magnetic dipole moments of individual atoms produce magnetic fields that cancel one another, because each dipole points in a random direction. Ferromagnetic materials below their Curie temperature, however, exhibit magnetic domains in which the atomic dipole moments are locally aligned, producing a macroscopic, non-zero magnetic field from the domain. These are the ordinary "magnets" with which we are all familiar.

---End of quote---

So now you know the answer to my nmbr (1. Now what the heck is a magnetic domain?)
A magnetic domain is an arbitrarily defined area in which you expect to find 'atomic dipole moments' that concur (points) to the same direction..

But they have to be creating a 'force field', don't they?
And that 'magnetic force field' in a permanent magnet is then consisting of?
Photons perhaps?

So at last we land at nmbr 4. The 'force' (field)
Yes, Yoda is here..

---Quote--

"Question -   Do permanent magnets "exchange" photons? What would the
wavelength of such a continuous wave photon be?"

And…

"What happens between two continuous permanent magnets, essentially a DC
(direct current). The force between two permanent magnets is caused by the
electronic properties of the material, so photons must be involved with
the magnetic attraction between the two masses?"

--End of quote---

If we assume that they are waves what are the wavelength?
As for if they have a 'force' or a 'magnetic field'

As long as they don't attract or repulse I would see it as a ''magnetic field'
But as soon they 'touch/influence' they do create a 'force' to me.
And get 'work done'.

It's one of the more , ah, 'strange' arguments I've seen. To only define magnetism as a 'force' when 'outside influences' (like me moving them together) is seen. That makes it sound as magnetism never is a 'force' which to my eye's seem incorrect.

Defined as that what will ever be a 'force'?
So if I move something, say an arm, I would need something moving me first then, to say that I used 'force'? Or should I 'split' myself up in my 'muscles' first and then say. A moves B moves C moves D. moves my arm. ..Yayy, it worked.

Reminds me of 'events' and that 'glue' needed to glue the events together.. Ad infinitum.  As all forces then will crave something preexisting which then makes them a 'perpetual mobile' without beginning.  And furthermore it seems to wreak havoc to the idea of ever defining a 'system', as if I'm not definable as a 'system', what is?

So?

As I see them 'forces', the question of how they come to be is secondary for defining them, the primary one is that they get 'work done' as observed by the 'observer'.

But then again, my idea is that there is no 'forces' at all, but as I view it rather different than most, I here try to see it from the mainstream idea of 'forces'. But doing so, it then seems that it should be 'work done' that defines them? And not if A needs to be seen, before B can create its 'work done'.. Or do you disagree? On what grounds?

And to answer this Question you seem to need quantum electrodynamics and relativistic quantum
Mechanics

--------

Which takes me back to those 'permanent horse shoes' mentioned earlier in the essay.
There is a lot of BS when it comes to magnetism, but I would really like to see someone explain them.

And I mean that seriously. I've showed that example at least at four sites treating physics, as they themselves see it, 'seriously' but none of them have done anything more than tell me that it is explainable but, alas, somehow forgetting to show me how?

That's one of the sorriest thing I know off, especially if you believe yourself to 'know'.
If you say something is explainable you should be able to explain it, wouldn't you agree?
Otherwise I will only conclude that you didn't understood what you were talking about.

(And that's why I really, really like this site. It's one of the most open non-doctrinaire sites I know off.
People take care of each other instead of shooting each other down, and the mild irony some ideas meets with is refreshing to me. It's a thin line to balance of course, without letting it fall into some truly weird ideas (like mine? But it have worked this far, without making people ashamed of the fact that they like to think. So Big Kudos to the Guys and Gals driving it, and us using it:)


---------


And I would prefer people to stop promising me that electrons do 'orbit'. 
(as it gives me a headache:)  Then again, if you can prove it?

And for spin to be our macroscopic  'angular momentum' you need to make those 'electron balls' rotate faster than light.

As for photons being that 'force', maybe, should be, shouldn't it?
'Virtual photons' ? then, right?

---Quote--

"permanent" magnets are made of materials such as iron or cobalt or nickel which have several electrons (in the outer shells) which are un-paired with other electrons.  Electrons are particles which must carry some "spin", either "up" or "down".  This is just a convenient way to refer to how they behave, it is not as if they are "really" spinning charges, at some level its just a convenience.

These unpaired spins exhibit a magnetic moment, its like a small current loop inside the material. 
They must attract others in similar materials, I would think via photons. This is all under quantum
mechanics, and magnetic materials.  To fully understand "spin", you need relativistic quantum
mechanics, which can be either a complex subject, or at least a mention in more simple books.

-----End of quote---


So what is the wavelength of a photon then?
And, can there be one?

----Quote--

A photons wavelength is measured as a distance along a line through the center of the helix in one revolution around the helical trajectory. A flat projection side view of a helix looks like a sine wave.

Low frequency photons (such as radio waves) are often described in terms of wavelength (units in meters), while high frequency photons (such as gamma particles) are often described in terms of particle mass energy (units in electron volts). As you increase the energy by increasing the frequency, you wind up with photons of more measurable mass. At the high frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum are high energy photons known as gamma rays, which are streams of gamma particles. Beta particles are free electrons or positrons. Alpha particles are the nucleus of helium atoms.

---End of quote---

Now one might expect that as all photons should have the same speed shouldn't they also have the same momentum? But then we come to their intrinsic (gotta love that word:) energy content. They may 'no-mass' the same but if they are of different energy shouldn't that influence their momentum?

So what I will argue is that what we see as the 'energy' of that light quanta (photon) should have a relation to its momentum.  And a higher energy should normally mean a shorter wavelength, right? But as our 'photons' have no size they are extremely hard to localize, and as waves they are unable to be defined as 'spatially localized objects', which suddenly seems to say the opposite?

And another thing. What makes, in this case, those 'virtual photons' follow (exist) only at the flux lines of our permanent magnet? If there is no 'force' to them? (flux lines is what you see when you put 'iron grinds' on a surface and then puts a magnet under that surface creating those visible magnetic 'tracks' on its upper side.)

That's it folks.

(I'm usually expecting to see things clearer as I write about them, but when it comes to permanent magnetism I(t) just plain freaks out:)

[yor_on]

---And-Environmental ah, chitchat-?-

Want another crazy idea. How about stopping all those Patents, just give a five years worldwide 'advance' for the one/those coming up with it.

Wondering what would happen? Well, if everyone could use a good idea, say in five years, then I would expect the 'market economy' to soon become a 'true free market economy' where goods would have to fight so much harder to be sold. And the money created from such sudden openings for all other company's could be in a form that you could tax. That tax you could use to make sure that all industries would follow the best guidelines for producing and creating environmental products. But you're right, it would wreak havoc with the power structures and force countries to cooperate, as the cheapest producers fast would become advanced.

A little like we've seen a lot of south Asian countries walk from third world to modern. In a way one of the smartest ways there is to lift a country from poverty, better than what UN have succeeded with. Look at China f ex. and the way they forced foreign industries to educate their labor, as they made demands that a percentage of the workers in all levels of those companies should be Chinese. As well as getting those companies cheaply, or even for free, when the foreign industries went to the next cheap third world country. But that hinges on that undeveloped country 'making its own plans' first.

You see, if those countries all got the chance to compete on a more even basis, then the 'rich world' would become more equalized with the other countries. But, as it is, we also know that if there is no true laws and honest bureaucracy's regulating the 'free market', our 'predatory instincts' and greed sometimes create catastrophes in coming for those countries, as they themselves often are without any bureaucratic structure, or, if they have one, all to often corrupted without having any long time planning.

That is a big problem with this idea. If we could use that 'entrepreneurship' that profits creates, with good laws and bureaucracy's regulating them and at the same time making sure that the environment gets seen too first then we might all lift ourselves.

Corruption. or as some see it . 'baksheesh' have a long tradition in a lot of countries, not only Asian, Indian, Russian, etc. There they are a part of the normal way of making deals. And, by the way, how about Italy where some Italian professor said that a third(?) of the country's income came from deals never seen or taxed by its government. Or the old ways of leaving 'tributes'.

We all have a problem with those 'old ways'. And no matter which country you live in you will see its ugly head rear up now and then. The simple name for it is greed and power, and as those two properties cooperate they create shortcuts for the unscrupulous and ever more greedy, also creating environmental and financial catastrophes for those countries allowing it. Like a country all geared up to produce, bananas? Talk about idiocy, but guess what. It was 'our' demand, or if you like 'suggestion', made from people living in the industrialized west, greedy for that profit.

So, country's can work splendidly with 'baksheesh' involved. Humans have a long history of that, and you might even consider it an expression of that American 'free enterprise' giving locals that possibility to influence their destiny. Also it is a old and structured way where those receiving later have to pay off what 'help' they got getting to their 'influencing positions'. So as a system it brings with its own inbuilt logic and hierarchy, not unlike a political party and the way some gets picked for 'stardom' and then are expected to 'pay back'. India is a stable, as I see it, example of democracy, even if having all the vices of any democratic state. And I've found people there extremely likeable and friendly, but, it is also a living example of the idea of 'baksheesh' working. Still, somehow all seems to consider it a way of life.

So either we work with it, or we work without it. The problem being that nothing can be done from the 'outside' without an incredible amount of 'baksheesh' involved. The realization of what needs to be done to stop global warming needs to come from 'inside' all countries involved, to work. Not being pushed on them as a fact and then offering 'baksheesh' to butter the wheels. That will only send the wrong signal.

So do I have any hopes for sanity here? Not really.
People still see it in terms of power structures and negotiable.
But it's not negotiable. If I'm correct I'm afraid you will find it unavoidable.

I will probably soon stop to write about the environment, just to lay back and watch that tragicomedy play itself out. So I have kids too, don't I want to take responsibility? For what?  People denying reality? I would prefer this whole situation not to exist. But it does and, as far as I can see, those saying they do take responsibility and 'acts', just creates new jokes like new 'Kyoto treaties'. I'm much to perceptive to swallow those as a solution, and so I guess the majority of you living are too. And if that is what is seen as 'responsible acting'? Well, I'll just take my seat and watch the show. My expectation is that we may at most may have fifty to a hundred years to react, maybe? But the longer we wait the more 'ill' I expect our Earth to become, and the longer it will take to 'restore' it.

Playing with concepts you could think of each of those years we have as logarithmically expanding. A little like 'costing our Earth for each year..' - - Year one=1 .Year two=2 .year three=4 .Year four=8 Year five=16 .Year six=32 Year seven=64 Year eight=128 .Year nine=256 .Year ten=512. And then 1024. 2048. 4096. 8192. 16384. 32738 ~ raising for each year to come. And somewhere on that road we will pass a 'invisible line' tipping our world into a new 'stabile phase' and then we won't be able to change it..

That's no scientific evaluation, just my way to 'push through' what each year of inactivity might cost us, in terms of our environments time scale of restoring itself to our 'standard', if we ever take action that is. And we are going to be forced to do it at some time. And yeah, I may very well be exaggerating terribly here, but we are somewhat like the owners of a once fine house that we refuse to 'renovate', as we can't agree on whom that should do what. While also well knowing that none of our free market 'theories' can hold in a 'closed system' where our 'growth potential' will have a finite end waiting. And, in case you missed it, the world is becoming truly 'small' today.

One of the Countries I'm becoming disappointed in is Australia. I've always liked you Aussies views on life, and found you very personally likeable. But seeing how you allow foreign companies to create a environmental catastrophe near you (Methane) makes me wonder. You do have a working bureaucracy and I would expect you to have made a risk-analysis, so I can only presume that you don't care? After all, you can't blame your choices on being a poor third world country, or totally corrupted like Russia, can you?

As for your mining industries? And the way they support's Chinas pollution? Well, that's more or less a deal where all countries want to get in on it, as short time planning and greed always seems to win over sanity. But due to the way both Russia and now you Aussies, with the help of diverse oil companies, are planning on wrecking those frozen layers of Methane, our clock to disaster have started to tick a lot faster than before. And if you don't get what I mean you should read up on what I wrote earlier in this essay about, specifically, Methane.

Then again, we Swedes seems no smarter. Especially if we allow that Russian gas (Methane) pipe to be drawn under out territorial waters. We already have some of the most oxygen poor waters there is and the marine life is quickly dying out. But, as our government now is one promising 'Prosperity for all, and Me first' and also that 'free, free market' I have no great hopes . So I won't expect any sanity there soon. And as I think the Russians, most of eastern Europe in fact, today is unable to understand the concept of 'sanity' as long as it collides with greed and 'realpolitik', then? Well, it's just that I had hopes of a little more sanity from you Aussies. Ah well, never mind no matter, right

So is our oceans warming up?
Yes.

But as water contain layers upon layers of sweet and salt water not mixed, as every submariner worth his salt know, as well as 'streams' working under the surface in different directions, at different depths and of different temperature, and salinity, it is very hard to create that 'simple overview'. But we know that waves moves faster today and that can only have to do with that they have accumulated more heat. We have also seen frozen methane 'creep forever deeper' to be found, that last means that methane over the depth it now resides on have 'disappeared', guess where

So you get a lot of conflicting data as you probe our oceans
For example…

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---And then.

In June 2008 a team of US and Australian researchers published their ocean observation is Nature. Their observations were such that they concluded that the IPCC work on ocean heat was wrong – the IPCC had, in the views of the researchers based on their data underestimated the rate of ocean warming by 50% for the last forty years of the 20th Century.

It is also important to understand that the oceans act as a heat buffer. They store 90% of the heat in the earth’s climate system and release some of it and suck other heat in.

The US and Australian researchers used expendable probes which measured the upper 700 metres of some of the ocean; they then related these measurements with the known effect of the thermal expansion of water. You may remember that water has its maximum density at 3.98 degrees Celsius; below this temperature it expands as it forms into ice and above this temperature it expands as it warms.

-----End of quote--

(So you can take only those probe results you like, if you like

But it won't do you any good. Your bath water is heating up.
And your fishes are migrating, or dying.
So is the reefs.

And acidity will kill.

---Quote---

On Earth, we have an important geophysical modulator of CO2 concentrations. Too much carbon dioxide causes acid rain that dissolves calcium through the weathering of igneous bedrock. Calcium-rich water can flow into the oceans where it is used by organisms to build calcium carbonate skeletons. When they die, skeletal material settles and accumulates on the ocean floor. Because of plate tectonics, the ocean floor moves outwards from ocean ridges to be consumed by the Earth’s mantle at subduction zones. Calcium Carbonate also moves along, is subducted into the mantle, releases carbon dioxide in magma, and may be released through volcanoes.

----End of quote---

But, as the CO2 gets absorbed by our oceans they too becomes acidic dissolving those 'calcium carbonate skeletons' like reefs. That will kill your reefs and your fish very effectively. So what we failed to do with our over-exploitation of the seas we will conclude with our global warming. And for you Japanese over-exploiting your, as well as our, seas this will mean a true disaster. A cultural disaster and an end to a lifestyle. You are after all an Island, and a heavily populated one too.

There are two , or three, big problems.
Heat, Acidity, and Less Salinity as more sweet water (Ice) gets blended in the oceans.
All of them creating environments the fish can't survive.

And, of course, us creating new underwater landslides from that frozen methane as we try to get it up to use as fuel. Then again, nobody will write about that. There may be only some local workers noticing it as it bubbles up on the surface. But those bubbles contains Methane that are at least sixty times more heat-conserving per molecule than our CO2.

And some concluding facts taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(National Climatic Data Center.) NOOA.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature during June-August 2009 was the third warmest on record, behind 1998 and 2005. During the season, warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed much of the planet's surface, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across most of the northern contiguous U.S., the southern oceans, northern Atlantic Ocean, and parts of Canada, southeastern South America, and central and eastern Asia. The seasonal temperature for the worldwide ocean surface ranked as the warmest on record—0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperatures for August 2009 ranked as the second warmest August on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.62°C (1.12°F), falling only 0.05°C (0.09°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

Sea surface temperatures (SST) during August 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world's oceans, with cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans and the northern parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The August 2009 worldwide ocean SST ranked as the warmest on record for a third consecutive month—0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This broke the previous August record set in 1998, 2003, and 2005.

Australia as a whole experienced 44 percent below-average (12th lowest based on 110 years of record keeping) rainfall during August 2009.

New Zealand experienced anomalously warm conditions during August 2009, resulting in the warmest August since national records began 155 years ago. "

And in Britain and Sweden it rained and the cloudcover was there, a lot.

"The areas with the wettest anomalies during boreal summer (June-August) included the British Isles, northeastern contiguous U.S., southern Brazil, and parts of eastern Asia and Europe."

And India?
Drought.

----End-