[mxplxxx (OP)]

Chances are they are looking at the 2d (Data) part of a Universe 3dApp (the other parts being 3d Display - Space and 4d Datastore - Spacetime).

@Bored chemist is right, they are not talking about topology.

They are talking about large scale topology.

From https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/httpblogsscientificamericancomdegrees-of-freedom20110725what-do-you-mean-the-universe-is-flat-part-i/

"What I do want to talk about here is what it is that is supposed to be flat.

When cosmologists say that the universe is flat they are referring to space—the nowverse and its parallel siblings of time past. Spacetime is not flat. It can’t be: Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that matter and energy curve spacetime, and there are enough matter and energy lying around to provide for curvature. Besides, if spacetime were flat I wouldn’t be sitting here because there would be no gravity to keep me on the chair. To put it succinctly: space can be flat even if spacetime isn't.

Moreover, when they talk about the flatness of space cosmologists are referring to the large-scale appearance of the universe. When you “zoom in” and look at something of less-than-cosmic scale, such as the solar system, space—not just spacetime—is definitely not flat. Remarkable fresh evidence for this fact was obtained recently by the longest-running experiment in NASA history, Gravity Probe B, which took a direct measurement of the curvature of space around Earth. (And the most extreme case of non-flatness of space is thought to occur inside the event horizon of a black hole, but that’s another story.)
"

Maybe the Universe 3dSystem contains a map/database/class library to the rest of the systems in the universe.

PS I am still to find a lucid explanation in physics of what curved spacetime actually means and how it causes gravity.

Also, a computer program is a 2d (flat) object that can describe/manipulate 3d objects. i.e. a flat universe COULD conceivably exist and be translated into a 3d object when "observed".

[Bored chemist]

They are talking about "flat" in the sense where a 3D torus is flat.
The universe is flat, but 4D

Also, a computer program is a 2d (flat) object

A computer program is a set of instructions in order.
In "the good old days"  they had line numbers or memory locations against every instruction or datum in them.
If you can allocate a running number against each item from which an object is composed, it is a 1D item.
So, computer programs are not 2D.
Please stop posting about stuff you don't understand.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A flat universe? https://futurism.com/the-byte/universe-actually-flat. Chances are they are looking at the 2d (Data) part of a Universe 3dApp (the other parts being 3d Display - Space and 4d Datastore - Spacetime).

Flat as in 2d flat. Computer programs are 2d in nature. What appears on your computer screen is usually a table of pixels in the program (raster graphics). The pixels may be generated via 2d polygons (vector graphics). A 3dApp is part of the 3dAbstractions framework that can be used to simulate reality. It is a Windows 10 App written in the VB.Net programming language. It is a type of the 3dSystem that has been described in this post as being a basic Universal pattern. A 3dApp has a basic structure as follows:

App as 3dApp.System
    Display as 3dDisplay.System
    Data as 3dData.System
    Datastore as 3dDatastore.System

Display, Data, Datastore - hence 3d.

Display contains human interface data.
Data contains a database in HFSM format.
Datastore contains persistent data that is usually stored on disk.

All of these systems contain data in 2d/flat format. What you see displayed is usually a 2d image which is turned into 3d by your brain. The database is in 2d format. Persistent data is 4d (think spacetime) in nature but exists in the App as a 2d/flat table.     

There is no reason why our Universe cannot exist as a 2d/flat structure, possibly a hologram. See https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-universe-is-a-hologram. Given Occam's razor, the likelihood that the Universe is a hologram is high. I have discussed this before in this topic.

[Bored chemist]

Flat as in 2d flat. Computer programs are 2d in nature. What appears on your computer screen is usually a table of pixels in the program (raster graphics)

And the thing about a raster scan is that it is a single line. so it is one dimensional. (The dimension is time)
The same goes for screens with "memory mapped IO"- though I accept that's rather old tech. (In that instance, the dimension is memory address)

More importantly, the screen and the output are not the programme.
So, even if they were 2D (and they are not) the programme itself would still be 1D. The dimension being line number or memory address

You might be able to make an argument for a multi threaded  program being 2D.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Looks like we have a team of intrepid physicists in Naked Scientists New Theories on a mission to to purge the world of physics untruths. How heroic.

And unlikely. Especially as they appear to have little in common. What is more likely? That they are being financed to disrupt any new physics theory showing promise would seem to be a strong possibility. There will be any number of corporations that will stand to lose from the introduction of new technology based on successful new physics theories. You have to ask the question "why has physics advanced so little in the last 50 years".

The answer may be that talented people like myself just get sick of the incessant attacks by talentless people whose agenda is driven by an unrelenting pathological need to belittle others, or money is involved. Money is usually involved when the status quo is threatened.

Their favorite troll-like tactic seems to repeat ad nauseam a post that they have not got a reply to. Why? Because they can. The Naked Scientist's moderator seems to be in collusion with the practice. It is certainly not because they feel they can increase their chances of getting a reply. I never  reply to such awful behavior. This topic, unfortunately, is riddled with this sort of thing. If I were a follower, I would be thinking twice before visiting the topic. Eventually, if the behavior continues to be tolerated, Naked Scientists and Physics are going to be the losers here.

One of the questions being posed by the team leader is "What does the H stand for" (in one of my replies which started with IMHO)" It has been repeated ad nauseam 15 times.  Many others are abusive. I refuse to reply to such a person at all, in this case, their partner.

The team is good guy, bad guy. One is meek and mild and the other is arrogant and egotistic. They are as alike as chalk and cheese. Their chances of becoming bosom buddies are pretty much nil. Why therefore the partnership? Maybe they think good cop, bad cop interrogation is going to achieve better results.  And maybe there is not a partnership. Maybe it is the one guy with different User Ids. Whatever, it is likely to be bad news for Naked Scientists.

Why a moderator would put up with all this is totally beyond me. I have contacted the moderator and others in Naked Scientists about the situation but to no avail.

In future in New Theories, I will reply only to posts that have references, address the idea and not the person, are neutral or pleasant in tone, are helpful and address the theory. I will not reply to nor read posts from people I know to be trouble-makers.

It now seems that the moderator has joined the good cop/bad cop team, presumably as a good cop. It doesn't matter whether this team has knowledge or not about one of my posts they will still post their (mostly) drivel. A recent one on software development is just laughable. I repeat, I will not reply or even read those posts or posts relating to these posts.

[Bored chemist]

It doesn't matter whether this team has knowledge or not about one of my posts

The problem is that you do not have knowledge about your posts.
Now, let's see if you can post the right word...

Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/06/2020 22:24:37
It takes one word to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2020 14:07:09

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 19:22:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 14:33:19
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:16:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 10:27:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:38:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 07:22:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 12:48:12
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/02/2020 11:44:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/02/2020 19:37:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2020 19:09:00
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:25:14
Quote from: mxplxxx on 02/02/2020 23:11:28
IMHO I think ...
What does the H stand for?



Why are you so scared of that word?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, given what we now know of 3dSystems, what will be the next big thing in 3d Science (Physics "married" to Computer Science)? Possibly the ability to travel up and down a system's "tree" (HFSM) and "view" each system in the tree from a "local" perspective. In the process, find out the "purpose" of each system in the tree. Maybe a special type ("inherits 3dSystem") of 3dSystem will be created to allow such a function to occur. Eventually we may be able to "marry" our brains to 3dSystems so that the experience of "visiting" systems will be indistinguishable from Reality.

[Bored chemist]

Now, let's see if you can post the right word...

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2020 08:41:41
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/06/2020 22:24:37
It takes one word to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2020 14:07:09

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 19:22:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 14:33:19
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:16:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 10:27:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:38:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 07:22:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 12:48:12
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/02/2020 11:44:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/02/2020 19:37:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2020 19:09:00
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:25:14
Quote from: mxplxxx on 02/02/2020 23:11:28
IMHO I think ...
What does the H stand for?



Why are you so scared of that word?

[alancalverd]

There is no reason why our Universe cannot exist as a 2d/flat structure, possibly a hologram

A hologram of what?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There is no reason why our Universe cannot exist as a 2d/flat structure, possibly a hologram

A hologram of what?

Of itself. See https://futurism.com/the-holographc-universe-principle-what-is-what-should-never-be. A Hologram is basically a 2d representation of a 3d reality.

[Bored chemist]

It makes just as little sense to consider that the 4D Universe might be a projection of a 5D  "something".
Yes, it might, but we can't tell.

[Bored chemist]

Now, let's see if you can post the right word...

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2020 08:41:41
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/06/2020 22:24:37
It takes one word to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2020 14:07:09

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 19:22:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 14:33:19
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:16:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 10:27:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:38:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 07:22:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 12:48:12
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/02/2020 11:44:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/02/2020 19:37:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2020 19:09:00
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:25:14
Quote from: mxplxxx on 02/02/2020 23:11:28
IMHO I think ...
What does the H stand for?



Why are you so scared of that word?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

How do elementary particles fit into the 3dAbstractions framework? They are types of 3dSystems as is everything else in the framework. The big difference between this sort of elementary system and composite systems is that an elementary system has no subsystems.

Having no subsystems means that an elementary system is totally concrete (versus abstract) in nature.

These systems comprise the top-level properties of a 3dStar central system and contain the overall state of the system.

A system can have subsystems and the subsystems can have subsystems infinitely (same sort of thing for the child/parent tree). Any system without subsystems therefore is not as "real"/concrete as it could possibly be. A corollary of this is that the more levels a system has, the closer it comes to representing "reality". Absolute "reality" is therefore infinite in nature.

This makes each 3dSystem a universe in its own right. In fact, each 3dSystem can be considered as a stationary system surrounded by in-motion 3dsystems,

Finally it can be noted that an event cannot escape a parent-child tree of 3dSystems except by proceeding to the top of the tree (centre of the system) and then being sent downwards via a parent/child 3dSystems tree to finally execute a function call. A 3dSystem is a control freak. Nothing happens as a result of an event in a system unless it is approved by the parent. i.e. all sibling to sibling contact is done via the parent. The same may apply to a photon in Reality i.e. a photon created in a galaxy light years away must have had to "travel" via parent/child systems to the centre of the Universe system and then be "sent" based on probabilities from this system via parent/child systems to a local telescope to be "observed". This has many possible consequences which I will explore in later posts.     

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In a 3dBstractions framework, a 3dShadow is a type of 3dSystem but without many of the states/capabilities of the 3dSystem it shadows. Its equivalent in Reality is a boson.

Four types of 3shadow systems exist:

3dEvent - a record of the past state of a 3dSystem

    Can travel up, down and across 3dSystems in a 3d Abstraction hierarchy. Actually it doesn't really "travel". The originating 3dSystem "raises" an event and the "handling" function (which may be in another 3dSystem) handles it. The runtime system handles this process. Something similar likely happens in Reality, so photons do not really "travel"/"move" distances at all) 
   
    Equivalent to a photon in reality. A 3dPhoton is a type of 3dEvent that will scale up/down as it crosses 3dSystem
    boundaries. It does so by increasing or decreasing its volume and thus decreasing or increasing its frequency (it
    is a rotating sphere).

    PS theoretically any system can travel in this way. So you could travel and observe an Atom in action if only you
    knew how to scale yourself down/up:)

3dTop - A event processor (awareness) near the top of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and the parent of the 3dSystem it belongs to.
    Equivalent to a W boson in Reality.

3dBottom - An event processor (awareness) near the bottom of a 3dSystem

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between a 3dStar System and its associated 3dShells/3dSubsystems.
    Equivalent to a Z boson in Reality.

3dController- Links two 3dSystems sideways.

    Mediates the processing of 3dEvents between the 3dSystem the 3dController belongs to and another 3dSystem
    e.g. System B raises a 3dEvent. The 3dContrioller in System A processes the event and (possibly) calls a function in System B as a result.
    Equivalent to a Gluon in Reality.

In 3dAbstractions, a 3dEvent is optionally "forgotten" after it is processed but prior to this may optionally be added to the history for the 3dSystem it shadows in a 3dDatastore system. In Reality, this would mean a photon is added to space/time continuum.

[Bored chemist]

Now, let's see if you can post the right word...

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2020 08:41:41
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/06/2020 22:24:37
It takes one word to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2020 14:07:09

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2020 19:22:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/02/2020 14:33:19
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/02/2020 08:16:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 10:27:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 13:38:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 07:22:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 12:48:12
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/02/2020 11:44:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/02/2020 19:37:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2020 19:09:00
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:25:14
Quote from: mxplxxx on 02/02/2020 23:11:28
IMHO I think ...
What does the H stand for?



Why are you so scared of that word?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Particles in Reality have anti-particles which are identical in all respects except for charge and magnetic moment.

3dAntiSystems are the 3d Abstractions equivalent of anti-particles. A 3dAntiSystem inherits a 3dSystem.

Whereas the execution direction for a 3dSystem is down, that of a 3dAntiSystem is up. In other words a function call in a 3dSystem will start at a particular abstraction level and continue down at lower and lower levels. This is Top-Down programming. A function call to 3dAntiSystem on the other hand will start at a particular abstraction level and continue up at higher and higher levels. In other words Bottom-Up programming.

The main purpose of a 3dAntiSystem is to create an abstraction hierarchy from the bottom up. In the process, all 3dAntiSystems are converted into "ordinary" 3dSystems.

Just possibly, this is also the main purpose of an anti-particle in Reality. i.e. it is involved in the creation of the universe from the bottom up and then discarded. This would explain why so few anti-particles seem to exist. Photons are supposed to be their own anti-particle. This is exactly what a 3dAntiSystem is. The anti part will be involved in the creation of the photon and then, possibly, discarded.

[Bored chemist]

How do you cope with photons?
(Remember them? they were meant to be the topic).

A photon is its own antiparticle.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

https://scienceblog.com/517166/quantum-fluctuations-can-jiggle-objects-on-the-human-scale/

From the article:

"Now for the first time, a team led by researchers at MIT LIGO Laboratory has measured the effects of quantum fluctuations on objects at the human scale. In a paper published today in Nature, the researchers report observing that quantum fluctuations, tiny as they may be, can nonetheless “kick” an object as large as the 40-kilogram mirrors of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), causing them to move by a tiny degree, which the team was able to measure."

From Wiki, "In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space".

    Equivalent to a photon in reality. A 3dPhoton is a type of 3dEvent that will scale up/down as it crosses 3dSystem
    boundaries. It does so by increasing or decreasing its volume and thus decreasing or increasing its frequency (it
    is a rotating sphere).

From a 3dSystems point of view, if it were possible, measuring the energy of a photon at the level (quantum) of the originating system and at the level of the current (classical) system will give a difference in frequency. The authors of the above article seem to have been able to measure the movement of a mirror as a result of it being "kicked" by a laser photon. Presumably then, because a laser has a fixed frequency, the difference in frequencies can be inferred.

[Bored chemist]

The authors of the above article seem to have been able to measure the movement of a mirror as a result of it being "kicked" by a laser photon.

You have misunderstood.
For decades, with a good analytical balance and an industrial laser we have been able to measure the kick from a laser beam.
If I got the arithmetic right, a 1 Watt laser produces a force of about a third of a microgram if it's absorbed and twice that if it's reflected. That's perfectly measurable.

The report shows something more interesting.
They have shown that, even without any external influence, the position of the mirrors varies due to the uncertainty principle.

As it happens, they use lasers to make the measurements- but that's not the point.
It's also a truly wonderfully impressive experiment.

You also seem not to know that measuring shifts of wavelength caused by reflection has been done for about a hundred years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Now, please grow up a bit and answer the question I asked.

How do you cope with photons?
(Remember them? they were meant to be the topic).

A photon is its own antiparticle.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Congrats to me on 50000 views The next 50000 promises to be even more entertaining.