hoola

A product labeled " cacao nibs" is available at my local grocery store. According to the label, this uncooked, rather unpleasant to eat granular gravel-like product is further processed to make traditional chocolate items. The processing supposedly reduces the nutritional content. The claim is also that the nibs are sourced organic. Nothing about fair trade is listed. A "sweet cacao nibs" is available also that is the same thing soaked in organic cane juice.

mr moderator, I hit "cancel" and the entry did not go away. Please remove my entry to Mr Ellis's lecture if you deem it advisable...although I did refer to a point in the lecture vis-a-vis the Krauss critique, (discussion worthy), and the "link" is to simply go on u-tube and type in the given lecture name..and then return here and begin discussion. Besides not knowing how to establish a "link", I wasn't sure if the lecture was copyrighted and would violate some protocol by establishing a direct link to here..my apologies, sir. If the lecture can legally be linked to this site, I will do so if a tutorial is available to do so. Please advise.

there is a u-tube that some might think worth watching....[ George F. R. Ellis, on the nature of cosmology today (2012 Copernicus Center Lecture) ]. Here is an excellent discourse on some of the things I have been trying to approach in the "why anything" question, especially a good critique on Krauss's "quantum fluctuation" idea....

there was a default, irreducable bit of proto information that acted as the seed, given a "true void" environment...not only this was this ideal state required for the genesis, but the expression of accumulated information needed a same environment to proceed with the big bang, hence the contamination was necessarily sequestered within an inescapable boundary, that of the information black hole...so the original "virtual particle pair" was allowed to describe it's maximum energy as it existed as the only thing in the universe at the time exterior to the IBH. This was no special pair, just the first expression. Any true void (no atmosphere of virtual particles) occurring within a macroscopic region and sufficient duration will cause at least a preliminary reaction, perhaps some small fraction of the gamma ray bursters in an existing universe...

(Gees-the"freeze out" means that a region of less chaotic behavior will randomly occur within a region of maximum chaos.) The overall flow is an evolution of the entity "the point", from a theoretical point to a quasi point to actual point. My underlying modus is to describe the "why anything" question: how could something come from nothing? The nothing is the void, the something is our universe. In this model, which I call the IBH (informational black hole), going backwards from the today, we have the big bang as a "just push play" of the contents of the singularity. The contents of the singularity accrued from the endless string of algorithmic input from PI. PI gets it's specific value from the development of logic/quasi point. Logic arose within chaos as "a randomly occurring less chaotic region within chaos". Chaos arose as the void delivered it's "oneness" as a default virtual-bit, but logic and math were not yet available to serve as vehicle for that "impetus without form". Ongoing stages of development prior bang were the "impetus developing form", and the universe post bang as the "impetus with form"...How can something come from nothing? This is my way of exploring the question. The basic idea is from Wheeler/Tegmark and even an early greek philosopher, which states that from mathematics comes all things. If that is true, from what and where did mathematics come, and why does it have the structure that gives our universe it's structure and properties? My favorite idea is the default bit of virtual information being the "seed" that starts the ball rolling. Again, how many voids can exist? Only one...no other identifier can be allowed. If anyone else has a proposal of how something came from nothing, without a theistic impulse, and no steady-state, I would like to hear it...(Finding the elephant...you are right, there is no true nothing. If there was a true void, or nothing, there were no contents....exactly "1" nothing. That 1 is the default minimum informational state of a void...does that make any sense to you?) The problem at the time of the void was there was no mathematics to describe that 1, as there were no numbers (yet). The impetus began the stages to configure that identifier into a proper digit with the chaos > logic > math/geometry. Once the basis of math was secure, the geometry of the simplest theoretical physical "thing" or the point was possible as a concept. What is this point but a dimensionless sphere, which has the same diameter/circumference ratio of any sphere, giving the endless factoring of PI. These digits form the "hidden variables" that the bell's theorem exclude from this universe. That is because they existed before the bang, hence their in-acsessable nature, but the mathematical "great attractors" describe the fundamentals of a working, logical, durable physical reality...so these prodigious digits develop within the dimensionless theoretical point until the "informational black hole" develops. This has enough descriptive "weight" to become actualized as a real point, which translates into a singularity containing all the information of the endless algorithm of PI. This scenario describes the common genesis of geometry (the point) and the quantum (individual numbers) being generated by mathematical extrapolation of that spherical point. The particular outcome that describes this has qualities of outcome based upon the underlying logic. The logic froze out of the chaos as a function of less chaos within max. chaos. The chaos could have various regions of "less than max. chaos", and develop discrete universes with differing fundamentals based upon the various forms of logic possible in the overall chaos structure. The differing logic structures would form different math/geometries, differing values of PI, which develops differing "mathematical great attractors", or fundamental principles in a given universe...I could go on to describe our IBH as composed of logical information and illogical information. The logical component does the work of actual reality, and the illogical component (hidden illogical variables) are safely within the IBH structure. It does seem that this "firewall" exclusion of illogic can be breached by a recent development within this universe, that is sentience. This gives an upper limit to free will, and to what a sentient being can imagine in any fashion. We cannot imagine anything that is not already described within the IBH (of either logic or illogic), unless described mathematically before the universe came into physical existence...nothing is invented by a sentient being, only discovered...I see this firewall breach as a possible reason that the aliens haven't shown up. All sentient beings must be tested for "durability" once their intellect allows illogical behaviors to possibly overwhelm their logic based collective behaviors.

In the void was a default, irreducible bit of information that served as a seed. That there was "one nothing". Not 1/2 or 44 or 19 voids, as there can be no separate voids or separations within one. This theoretical single bit was an "impetus without form". Without logic to define that impetus, the void became chaotic (fragmented unstable theoretical values unable to make associations). Later developed a "freeze out"region of logic (randomly developing stable values allowing associations). With that logic a quasi-bit developed which inferred a geometric quasi reality via a dimensionless point, (the theoretical point becomes a quasi point). With the inferred geometry (as guided by logic structure) of that quasi point, the data stream of PI flowed, which led to all maths, and upon sufficient maturation, described the accumulated information (the hidden variables) from within that dimensionless quasi point sufficiently to become a real point (singlularity) with the big bang as the transition of when the quasi point was described in "real time" as a "real point"...

interesting, if the rest of the spectrum were to be portrayed, would the arc shown be part of a ribbon like wheel, or would there be a gap and/or unsymmetrical? Is that a reflection below it, or part of them?

yes, since we can't replicate the energy differentials, only can compare the theoretical QM state with today's perceived state of the particles in their current environment...

I read of the theoretical values of the virtual particle's energy in space being orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Virtual particles have less energy when in a confined space, such as the narrow plate gap in the casimir effect, with the energy of a particle pair lowered when in the close proximity of matter, due to limitations of the wavelength spectrum. But what limits their energy in space to the low readings they seem to have? If the only material around a particle pair is other particle pairs, could a self-limiting effect take place, giving the low value seen? What would happen if there is only one pair, and thus make up the entire universe? Without the "confinement" of any adjoining pair, could this naked pair of particles then be freed to express their maximum theoretical value? Doesn't laurence krauss describe the big bang as the result of a "quantum fluctuation"? Isn't this a similar idea to a "naked virtual particle pair"..expressing a high value of energy? After a bang occurs, the confinement commences, lowering values to those observed today as space expanded into the void as a sea of virtual particles carrying with it the matter and energy as the reaction residues.

right, I agree, the regions obey physical laws within them locally and only appear golbally as not....so dark energy to be the same everywhere.... to say "that is what mass is" and leave it there is like saying a car moves, without expanding on why it moves....gotta have an engine in it....fuel for the engine...etc..Same thing for electric charge....I don't think either are fundamentals. I think there is a description that underlies all physical observable phenomena, each with it's unique non-physical algorithmic structure of mathematics..as it interacts with other algorithmic discriptive elements....(alpha prime)

"why isn't the curvature of space the underlying mechanism?"....well, why would mass curve space at all? What is the underlying steps of the relationship that ends with the curving of space? What way does space even know that it's near an object and respond to it by curving...along that line of reasoning...this is why I like the "distorted orbit" idea of virtual particles as a repesenative model of the curvature. That goes little to explain curvature, but at least seems to allow a physical mechanism to the apparent effect......and perhaps a vehicle for extrapolating further into a proposed mechanism.... but of course the recession velocity of the extremes are accelerating....just what you would expect without thinking lambda or dark energy, if you like, is getting bigger...the longer the perceived distance, the more the little stretches get added

"Do you mean, what causes the accelerative expansion, no one knows"......I had long presumed that was due to the effects of the stretching of space occuring at the same rate (lambda), within all points of space....accumulatively over great distances to add up to the exponential expansion...

but what causes lambda? I am not saying GR is wrong, just trying to identify lambda... and GR (probably) identifies a low hanging fruit of overall gravitational function, but not the underlying mechanism, with this curved space thing...

probably you are right, however could not these same particles be responsible in the larger sense, for the cosmic expansion? If they are "pushing" down on earth, they are pushing everything, including each other...stretching space out, and filling in gaps where the stretching gets above a certain plank-like distance, from quantum uncertainties of position...and while the correspondence between casimir and gravity/space time may be somewhat remote, it seems that they are interacting in some way...how could two such things go about the universe and ignore each other?

from the casimir experiments, the overall frequency spectrum of the VPs is restricted within material objects, such as "close gap" of the plates. So the forces of these particles between plate should be less than the forces present in space, and the emptier the space, the higher, to a practical maximum. The earth would be less energetic in this respect, as it tends to be "the plates" excluding particle forces, creating a gradient. The reason an object accelerating in space interacts with a similar premise is a little harder to see...

yes, the point at center of mass is nothing special, just a place where gravity cancells. This is true if the equivalence principle holds, I would think. The main idea that gravity is "curved space" seems to me to indicate that space's constituent virtual particles have their "appearance/disappearance" orbits disturbed...but why does matter disturb them, if this idea can be continued further?

take any object, the extremes of length of the object attract one another....as it generates a gravity field. This action holds together the object and therefore, it acts as a compressive force, or self gravity, functionally equivalent to acceleration, varying as distance from center of gravity. Only one point at the theoretical center of mass would have the gravity field neutralized, therefore escape any accelerative force. So the universe is allowed one point in this thought experiment, that is allowed freedom from accelerative forces.

the top would be attracted ,or feel accelerated to, the roots...and vice versa

" Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration" ....that would be true if it was the only object in the universe. Even if it was the only object, there would the gravitational effects internal to the tree, with all parts experiencing gravity's "accelerative like forces" with exception of the point at center of mass...

yes, it would seem if an explosion of sufficient energy would create a black hole. Conservation of energy seems to indicate that some of the material's energy is converted to gravitational energy and then leaked back out long term. In this case, any containment, even magnetic fields would be sucked in if it is within or near the event horizon, thus ending the experiment. If the containment is well outside the horizon, it seems an area of increasing temperature would develop between the containment walls and the horizon from the hawking radiation. It does seem a small explosion with a reflective containment would cause the explosive material to react more efficiently, with less material left over but with a higher temperature peak within.

do the galactic clusters "feel" the force? Isn't it the space that is expanding, and carrying the clusters away from each other, like moving sidewalks. If the rate of expansion doesn't change, per galaxy, no force is felt by anything, right? Space is the active element...and wouldn't the speed of expansion depend on the amount of curvature?

what is space? space devoid of normal matter and energy is a sea of virtual particles, as shown by the casimir effect...the deeper questions are what are virtual particles made of, why are they there and how do they relate to normal matter and energy ?

5worlds.... Each moment in time of any point in space would depend on a nearly infinite original data stream input from a (so far endless) equation describing each point in space dating back and perhaps prior to the BB....with further complexity added due to the history of the interactions between points, altering each local equation expression vastly, plus the interference harmonics from the original equation signal all factored in. This incalcuabilty is defacto randomness on the local scale, although not a true randomness in the theoretical.

If the operating physical universe is based upon equations, that is why I ask the question. This would seem to rule out the possiblites of a broken egg re-assembling, or going back in time. The equation would have to be "read" backwards in every possible way that would give the "3", which is an analogue for the "now" of reality, in any given region of space.

Isn't there a law that refers to the question of equations and how they are read, as far as forwards and then in reverse? In the simple 1+1+1=3, the ones can only add up to three, no debate. In the reverse order, three can be one plus one plus one, or a near infinite variations of numbers that add up to 3. This seems to have something to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and why reality can only function forward in time. Thanks....