TrappedLight

Did you just neg me on that comment? lol What is wrong with the comment? Do you have any idea what strong gravity is? I never commented that gravity was measurable, I said it might get stronger at smaller levels. The whole point of making this statement is because BigNose for some reason thinks gravity should be small on the scale of atoms and large on the scale of planets. Strong gravity is a field of gravity physics which attributes a cosmological and particle scale gravity. If gravity gets stronger at smaller levels, what makes you think we would observe it? I'll tell you now, that scientists are investigating this and that experiments are soon going to go on the way to see if gravity really does get stronger due to the square rule. Some string theories says that we don't observe this strong gravity because gravity is leaking into unseen compactified dimensions.

It's been a long time since I have read anything on the Ising model, so best I keep my mouth shut.

Yes it describes the scattered waveform in terms of the action. Notice the exponential is dimensionless as well.

There really isn't an infinite amount of energy in an atom. There are [math]10^{80}[/math] atoms in the observable universe and none of it equates or sums to infinity. And light is not mass at subluminal speeds, All you can do is alter the medium in which light moves, but the light particles always moves at the speed of light.

Actually we know next to nothing about gravitational strength at the scale of particles, on large scales gravity is still very weak. Gravity might get stronger as you decrease the distance and down to particle length scales.

No problem.

I think math as a tool and a type of language, it is a means of communication by describing physical events under certain procedures and laws. I don't think that the universe is inherently mathematical, like Tegmark, but I do think the universe appreciates symmetry and is bound by it's own laws.

I know some of you like chess, so here is one of my best games ever, it also includes my favourite game by Susan Polgar http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/the-power-of-calculating-ahead

Sorry I took a while to reply, I haven't been around. Anyway, yeah, I have been wondering what can be done with it. I did notice one thing and that is if the metric describes a system in terms of the energy and is also charged [math]^{\dagger}[/math] and it is in the presence of a gravitational field, this implies that it will radiate due to the equivalence principle. There will be energy lost over a period of time as it radiates away energy, Perhaps an interesting case to consider would be a spinless, charged black hole which is radiating due to being in a gravitational acceleration, then the energy will change in the metric. This approach was inspired by some gravitational papers written by Motz. First of all, we would recall the relativistic Larmor equation [math]P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{M^2c^3} (\frac{dP}{ds})^2[/math] Mass in relativity is calculated by noticing that you calculate a mass in motion through [math]m = \frac{m_0}{(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}}[/math] Where [math]m_0[/math] is the ''rest mass.'' The mass may also be seen to be related to the density as [math]M = \int r^2 \rho dr[/math] The metric can be written in a generic form involving the metric charge [math]ds^2 = (1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})c^2 dt^2[/math] which is equivalent to the Reissner-Nordstrom metric expression, which involves the same argument for the Schwarzschild metric with the added difference of a metric charge [math]Q[/math]. It would be the expression used to describe spinless but charged black hole particles. If a charged particle is in a gravitational field, this must imply inertial acceleration. It means if the metric has a description of energy, then it must be emitting radiation since it self-implies it through the presence of a gravitational field. The radiation emitted is therefore [math]P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{(\frac{m^2}{1 - \beta^2})c^3} \frac{1}{(1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})} (\frac{dP}{dt})^2[/math] [math]= \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{c^3} \frac{a_{g}^{2}}{(1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})^2}[/math] *Note we are considering a particle of radius [math]R[/math], where [math]r = R[/math] where [math]a_g[/math] is the gravitational acceleration and [math]\Delta E[/math] characterizes the loss of energy as a system is either blue shifted or red shifted to some observer. This is obviously the same effect known as synchroton radiation. Effects of synchroton radiation has been presumed for black hole jet streams, but it has never been applied quite like this for a particle-scale model, but we have been able to do it by creating this thought experiment. The squared metric term in the denominator appears because there is one such factor in [math]ds^2[/math]. The presence of the square of the metric also ensures that the power emitted by a charge in a gravitational field can increase beyond limit, implying a relationship to the luminosity of such a system. (Which has implications of detecting black holes). I went on to see if the metric [math](1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})c^2 dt^2[/math] has ever been written in the history of physics. I did find one article which used the expression, after a google search on charged, spinless black hole particles, in the ''exterior geometry'' section: http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1303.1274.pdf The equation might have diverse applications. You can calculate the denominator as the gravitational redshift directly, by rewriting the metric as a ratio related to the wavelength [math]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0} = \frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}[/math] This is obtained from [math]z = \frac{1}{(\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})}} - 1 = \frac{\lambda - \lambda_0}{\lambda}[/math] also the change in energy is a natural consequence of the change in wavelength. The metric then can be rewritten in terms of the gravitational shift in the power equation which measures the radiation emitted [math]P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{(\frac{m^2}{1 - \beta^2})c^3} \frac{1}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}} (\frac{dP}{dt})^2[/math] [math] = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{c^3} \frac{a_{g}^{2}}{(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0})} [/math] The metric in the denominator now describes the change in the wavelength of the emitted radiation! Edit* I should also note that the gravitational acceleration can be justly placed in there, since it is a consequence of the equivalence principle and we are working in these first hand principles since we have a charged particle placed in a gravitational field.

I don't believe in all UFO sightings, but having being a witness to an event myself, I can't help but feel I have no choice but to believe something is behind the phenomenon. What it is, is another question.

Classical and non-classical theories are separated by the quantum effect known as the uncertainty principle.

Sorry I will get back to this soon ajb.

Why, is there something wrong with the statement?

It is known that black holes give up radiation. For very large black holes, this will take a very long time. But nevertheless, they do, including smaller black holes. I am not aware though of any metric which describes this. You may actually rewrite the metric in terms of a rest energy for a non-rotating black hole [math](1 - 2\frac{Gm}{E} \frac{M}{r_s} c^2 dt^{2}) - \frac{dt}{1-2\frac{Gm}{E} \frac{M}{r_s}} - r^2 d\Omega^2[/math] You won't recognize this exact expression, but you might be aware it is another way to write the metric. You won't recognize it because I derived it. But what is interesting is that we can discuss the energy of the system in the metric. Curiously it cannot be a function of time because of the timelike killing vector, so to describe a change in energy [math](1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r_s} c^2 dt^{2})[/math] it would need to be a function of some other property of the metric. What other parameters might it depend on?

Is there such a thing as a past, present and future? If there is Einstein was wrong. And if there isn't, there is also an implication of the past and future in such they become complimentary. Albert, Aharonov, and D'Amato (ADD) came together (around 25 years ago) to write a paper in which science seems to have generally forgotten about. You can violate the uncertainty principle! So how do you violate a cornerstone princple of QM? Remember, in short it means that we cannot know everything about the future, because physical states in the present are represented by complimentary observables, If anyone is interested in the mathematics of observables, observables are represented by Hermitian Matrices which are strictly positive. Anything which can be observed are always represented by Hermitian matrices. Observables, like position and momentum are coupled in such a way, they are in fact Fourier Transforms of each other. This in fact appears to be a general rule giving rise to a whole cascade of complimentary systems. In ADD's paper, they make an argument for a condition in time: There appears to be a boundary in which we call the past, present and of course, the future. Apparently you could in theory gather as much information about a system as you would like, even in the face of the uncertainty principle, but it involves what they call Two-Time Measurements. The way you do this, is by measuring one part of a system in the present and then later collect the information about another observable in the future and you can know in complete certainty both observables here in the present. So suppose, someone measures the position of a particle, the idea is in the future you can make a measurement of it's momentum and these two-time measurements will give you the information you need. In his book, Parallel Universes, professor Wolf argues that the future and the past become complimentary to each other. Interestingly, I can prove that idea in a very very simple mathematical way. If [math]t_0[/math] is the past and [math]t_1[/math] is the present then the present can be given as the past including a time delay; [math]t_1 = t_0 + [t_1 - t_0][/math] so if we let [math]D = [t_1 - t_0][/math] represent a time delay, which appears as the difference between the present time and the past time then we may rewrite this as [math]t_1 = t_0 + D[/math] is the present collection of information and the past information is collected as [math]t_0 = t_1 - D[/math] The future collection of information is the conjugate of the past [math]t_2 = t_1 + D[/math] Which appears like a logical statement to the other identities. It should be noted, that this theory treats time as a symmetric system. It also has huge implications in temporal physics, invoving specifically the Transactional Interpretation of physics. Using Absorber theory, we can describe the wave function (of the universe) as a retarded and advanced wave form. Also called echo waves and offer waves, they send information throughout the boundaries of what we would call the past, present and future. It would mean the present is in fact a ''product'' of the offer and echo wave [math]\psi \psi^{\dagger}[/math], a present is ''sandwiched'' bewteen the complimentary past and future. The striking problems is that it would treat worldlines differently than General Relativity, they would not be static. Time would exist in the universe, meaning the Wheeler de Witt equation, a consequence of unifying quantum mechanics and General Relativity together, would be somehow wrong. Time would have a global feature as well, something which General Relativity forbids. Albert, Aharonov, and D'Amato ''Curious New Statistical Prediction of Quantum Mechanics'' http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Minguzzi_timecontest.pdf (general relativity ultimately doesn't allow a global time description when unified with quantum mechanics. The paper above seems to imply the absence of a global time admits singularities.)

This experiment doesn't say matter can be made out of photons, it is saying that photons behave as though they have a rest mass. They are completely different statements. I noticed some bad journalism writes the article headlines as ''scientists make matter from light'' this statement isn't true. Light is imitating particles with mass. Separately, we know we can make matter from light, we have known this from collision experiments for a while. But this isn't what the experiment is showing us. The experiment shows us that if we change the medium in which particles move in, you can alter their usual dynamics.

There is nothing mysterious about the physics at work here - it has been known for a while that the photon behaves as though it has a mass in superconductors. Interestingly, particles like electrons will exhibit even more mass than before, except they can move at incredible speeds. It's not that the photon actually gains a mass however, you are changing nothing but the medium in which it is moving in.

The Einstein-Cartan model is very novel and is personally a favourite of mine. It might be a real facet of nature since torsion is a representation of the full Poincare group.

You know, you don't give the equation enough justice. The quantity on the LHS is actually important, (this part): [math]\frac{e}{\sqrt{\alpha}}[/math] The quantity is actually a rearranged form of the definition of the fine structure constant [math]\alpha = \frac{e^2}{\hbar c}[/math] which becomes the square root of this and rearranged to make [math]\sqrt{\hbar c} = \frac{e}{\sqrt{\alpha}}[/math] There definitely appears to be physics at the work, if this relationship to the charge [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] to hold true. (I've ignored factors of [math]k = 4 \pi \epsilon_0[/math])

It does? I didn't know that. Oh, no, I was thinking of relativity, I think. lol... I was thinking of Bose-Einstein statistics vs Fermi-Dirac statistics and must have mixed the two.

This is strictly a question and not a conjecture. Let me start off with what we know for sure. It is well-known that in quantum Fermi-Dirac statistics, that fermionic matter interacts in such a way that spin cancels out; this creates the so-called, atomic chemistry of the periodic scale. The exclusion principle truly is responsible for the vast elemental differences in this world we observe. But perhaps more interesting than that, is that Dirac statistics provide a measurable effect in which matter cannot occupy the same space - this will mean literally, the same physical space parameter, a point in the vacuum. However, there is a huge exception: massless radiation, which are bosons, actually can occupy the same space! You could theoretically squeeze as much radiation into a point without limit and without any consequence quantum mechanically-speaking. Or is radiation really free of such uncertainty? Remember, the uncertainty principle is about being located in a specific position, squeezing as many photons into a point would seem to violate this; but as explained, it doesn't because photons do not generally interact with each other - notwithstanding, the quantum wave function which can interfere with each other statistically-speaking. However, the form of the uncertainty principle, given as [math]\Delta P \Delta x[/math] is in fact one of possibly many different types of uncertainty conditions. One particular condition which could limit the radiation into a point, is a geometric interpretation of the uncertainty principle, called the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Basically, one can even find uncertainty in the dimensions of space, the uncertainty principle is not bound to physical singular systems like a particle, but can be seen as a geometric condition on the vacuum itself. In fact, the role takes a part in the loop quantum gravity theories in which there is called triangulation, the geometric placement of systems in space and time on very small levels. Triangulation, is what it says on the tin, it measures three systems as geometric properties of the three dimensional vacuum, and is actually, very similar to Julian Barbours approach to describing a three-point triangle in space to measure dynamical change to replace the conventional understanding of time. I actually have no doubt, he is aware how similar if not the same thing he tries to describe from different branches of physics. If there is an uncertainty relation in space, it would characterize how much uncertainty is present at the big bang. Since all the sides of the space triangle converge to a point (in relativity this is treated as an infinite curvature), there would be theoretically an infinite amount of uncertainty inherent in the vacuum. We also know that radiation was probably the fundamental material present when the big bang first expanded, not matter, especially within the geometrogenesis model of low energy and high energy physics. Even though this radiation could overlap, unlike ordinary fermion particles with a mass, is it possible there was still an application of this infinite uncertainty at the beginning of the universe? We know the uncertainty principle is the corner stone of quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics breaks down at the Planck scale. Even relativity fails to answer what happens, but what if that has to do with the physics gaining a large amount of uncertainty in all physical parameters?

Actually it is a slice of time in the present, but has no boundary because it is a horizontal slice of time made in the imaginary axis.

The OP asks whether matter can be infinitely compressible? This is the same as the interior of a black hole. In fact, there are many features of black holes which resemble the beginning of the universe. Asking whether matter can be infinitely compressible, is the same as asking whether the mass of the universe can be compressed into a gravitational singularity. Mind you, there should be a limited amount of observable mass in the universe, to a magnitude of [math]10^{80}[/math] atoms in the universe. Not exactly infinite, but the the strange facet of big bang, is that as the universe expands, more energy is released in the universe. We don't know if the universe even has an omega point, there could be an infinite amount of energy as far as we are concerned.

No go right ahead. I could possibly help.

The question isn't whether science speculates, the question is if you took that speculative role yourself in the science corner? Let science speculate what it can, even provide reference to speculation when due. Don't admit you are willing to speculate in a non-speculative section. I learned that myself when I first came here. I learned my lesson.