hoola

isn't the reason quarks in a neutron can spit out the particles they do is that the quarks are very massive? Does this mean that the actual mass of a neutron is contained within the individual UUD quarks? If so, is this mass equal within both types of quarks, presumably not....

don't know what ARU means....but I see math as being a "quality" of logic and time not being a dimension, but rates of informational changes within a given region......no change within a given region, no time has passed... to think further on the "irreducible sum" that started it all...I see everything as information, so that original seed bit of information was the void itself, as the first digit of one....in that there was one void, not two, or three, or a million...that is the irreducible sum...one cannot have zero, or more than one void, right? ...(the beginning of logic)....No all knowing deity or even a simpler physical phenomena, but this concept was the origin of the universe. One infinite void (somehow) leading from the seed concept of "oneness" to the chaos, to the logic, to the math information that describes the (spherical) singularity, or IBH, (enter platonism) and resultant universe as a hologram projected from the IBH...

the peltier cooler puts more heat into the ambient air than it cools you....like having an air conditioner sitting on a table and not in a window...you feel slightly cooler right in front of it, but everyone else gets hotter....plus it is a waste of energy unless the efficiency is brought way up and it can be functioned with solar or thermionic cells. On the bright side, I don't think it would hurt our own cooling systems, even if used alot...no more than putting your wrist into cold water....that seems pretty innocuous.....

separate the C from the O2....take the C and make carbon fibre dimensional building materials, reducing deforestation...or give it a good squeeze and make diamonds...

yes, logic is innate to nature as math. Can you imagine a time that not only this universe didn't exist yet, but neither mathematics, nor logic itself ? If there were a time before the big bang, then why not a time before logic ? Any theistic origin that started everything off, must be "god" regardless of the descriptive qualities.....so I believe there are no God or gods of supernatural qualities, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't an "irreducible sum" that started everything, only that I think of this universe as a simpler thing leading to more complex. I think the gods came about the same way as any identifiable thing in this universe, with a complex set of math algorithms. These particular algorithms are of the theoretical nature, and nearly infinte in that all possible imaginary forms of information exist within the Informational Black Hole.....along with descriptions of every real thing in the universe, and that the "real" ones are only real, as they obey the rules of logic fully, therefore of a limited nature. The imaginary ones are a selective mirror from the IBH theoretical component reflecting from our minds, a sort of "junk DNA" of the IBH, however, they are a necessary component of the string of information making up the IBH as it formed and continues to form (describe) this universe. So, our bodies are held to the bounds of logic, but not our minds...hence creativity. However, any creative thing ever done, thought or imagined, by and sentient being or machine capable of thought, I say, is an expression of the IBH, and preceeded the thinkers, and also preceeded the big bang. The universe was "on hold" until the descriptions were written out, number by number, at the fastest speed possible allowable by the constraints of logic, over perhaps trillions of years. There does seem to be a "middle ground" between the theoretical and the real, and I see the duality of light , virtual particles and other examples of quantum behavoiur as evidence for this middle ground...a quasi-reality...nonetheless, a necessary component and not an interference pattern between the 2 realms of information. This quasi-reality obeys a large portion of the rules of logic, or it would not have enough "truth" to be even imagined, let alone have a measurable effect...one might image a "6", but to imagine it requires trillions of bits of information whizzing around billions of brain cells, so therefore the "6" falls well short of logic requirement to be an imaginable thing, so theoretically impossible...thefore, I don't think we will find the logic behind some quantum puzzlements, as they are truly not logical completely, but enough to "get the job done"...in a reliable, but somewhat slipshod manner...

if anything exists without logic, I say it is the chaos, which developed a region within it of logic, which created the singularity, which created the universe, which allows this conversation to happen. This is not to say that the chaos has no internal logic in it's individual components, only that it cannot form relationships between the components. One might even consider them to be invisible to each other, each a separate tiny universe with constantly differing parameters of the internal logic states, and the close spatial interaction of two elements of chaos brings about the "freezing out" of parameters, as occaisonally, two adjacent particles just happen to exhibit the same parameters, and a coupling of states can begin...they can "see" each other and formal logic begins to take shape...a sort of "higgs" field of stability of parameters takes place...allowing logic to acquire "mass", if you will... in continuing the thought of logic, I see logic as having created the complexity of the maths, primarily by the spatial dimensions of the "point" in the chaos it created. This point has a physical structure (spherical) as determined by the particular logic set of the 2 initial chaos particles, which describes the math symbol of PI (the relationship between circumference and diameter) that is, the never ending 3.14159....etc. This is the informational data stream that forms the maths. This data steam does not directly create the mass of the universe. I say that when it gains so much information it becomes an "Informational Black Hole", and the universe becomes a holographic projection of this information...the illusion of spatiality of the universe stems from the duality of a physical structure, the point, along the theoretical, logic based information it determined. The evolution of the universe required both primary ingredients...I see that "everything happens" within the IBH, which is a point source, which explains how some speeds can be superluminal, such as inflation, symmetry breaking entanglements, and the direct action of the speed of gravity...as there is no "distance" between the active elements of the IBH, and when logic requires superluminality to meet logic requirements in the hologram, in these special cases, the demands of logic must be met...

one can have an idea to control something, but control itself seems much more complex than an idea....requiring perhaps billions of additional bits of data to be processed in the mind over an extended period lasting far beyond an initial idea to control something particular. Take the cigarette smoker for example. They might have an "idea" to quit smoking, but that is a far cry from ending (control) the behavoiur. When I think about "who is in control" I think of it in a continuing relationship of functioning processors, and how informational processes can gain self-awareness. I see this as an evolutionary function as the higher awareness an animal has, the more likely it is to reach sexual maturity and reproduce, bringing about the super-awareness or self-awareness, which extends awareness from observing the external enviornment, to including the internal enviornment..the self.

to presume that humans have any special gift of logic, is contrary to studies of logic in monkeys, dogs, cats, ravens, even the invertebrate octopi...the main difference is that we have an ability to recognize that we have the ability...and give it a name...and our advanced intellect allows us to debate the subject. If you believe humans only have logic, then which species of homo in particular? Homo erectus, habilis, astraliopithicus? Did not neanderthals have logic enough to survive the last ice age?

thanks peter, in my further thinking about the origin of logic, that being a stabilization of a finite region of chaos providing stability to particular values within a region, I see that stabilization between discrete "particles" as a secondary action, the primary action being the theoretical existence of the particles themselves with the unstable values. To further complicate matters, I see these "values" as having no mathematical value reference, as math had not evolved yet, and must have been preceeded by logic evolution, which provided the scaffolding for information evolution, which we call "the maths". That scaffolding is of a certain "shape" which allows certain relationships to take place, and dis-allows others, giving the characteristic appearance and behaviors of the physical universe. I see that the maths are still evolving, and that is the driving force behind the continuing existence of the universe...as well as it's origin...

the discussion of human-based logic is interesting, but any discussion of the origin of logic must pre-date humanity or even life itself. Since life proceeded from inanimate material, the logic that could allow such a transformation to take place must have been in place even before there was a material universe, or else the underlying logic of physical reality could not have ever been expressed as the "big bang". It seems logic allows the formulation of long term stable values of the physical parameters of matter and energy to allow associations to take place, of a repeatable fashion, to allow the evolution of, and within the universe, to happen. If logic had a beginning, I see it as a random stabilizing or "freezing out" of a finite region within the greater and perhaps infinite chaos. That chaos having something similar to particles and energy, but of indeterminate and constantly fluxing values, so unable to form any external relationships, thus remaining "chaotic" and without logic.....

the question of "who's in control" to me a physiological question in that humans have 3 brains that developed in the order of reptilian/mammalian/human. In my self-examination of thought, consciousness seems the result of the internal struggle of the different operating systems that each semi-autonomous domain has, with each particular set of tasks to allow all to function correctly. A power struggle of varying strengths seems to stem from various exterior sensory inputs, instincts and memory, but also a physical requirement of nutrients and waste removal, with each brain's simple biological requirements being a central point of competition. My awareness seems to "roam" between the 3 domains and perceives 3 ways of analyzing a particular situation or question, and the formulation of a psycological or physical action or "descision" to these 3 "judgements" results in the phenomena of conscious will to act out a certain behavior in response to the situation or question. I also see an analogy in physics with the 3 orbiting bodies problem. Two bodies orbiting, no problem, a long term predictable set of positions in relation to each other can be determined. With 3 orbiting bodies, the predictability is much more limited. I see this as being somewhat de-stabilizing to humans...and a major point in my self-examination of thought...

even if one could "turn off" the higgs field, or gravity, to manipulate a particular mass into generating energy with the removal, and then re-application of standard physics, the amount of energy produced would likely (not quite) equal the amount of energy to alter the higgs/gravity field due to the inherent inefficiencies of any physical system. The idea is a good one though, and a good application of the idea would be in a propulsion system with no exhaust that delivers a near 100% energy efficiency. This would be best done with manipulation of the dark energy output of a particular region of space. Lowering the energy in front of and increasing it behind the vehicle in question...no bulky movements of materials needed...if everything indeed is information, that information might be altered to a desired effect on a small scale in very specific locations...using a computer that describes a different version of one aspect of physical reality could provide both thrust and steering...

there are many, many things that should be changed about our way of life, and getting rid of months seems rather pointless as we hurdle towards enviornmental disaster...

the usa heading towards a police state....true, but that is has always been the case. Look how the "good ol usa" has behaved in the past, beginning with the ethnic cleansing and genocide on the native americans, then consider that half the states in the country (near all at one point) allowed slavery, of the african population...stealing about the top 25% of mexico....stealing hawaii...and etc.....at what point were we not "heading towards a police state" ? It is always a balance of forces, some democratic, some posing as democratic, and some openly hostile to it.....as always, know thine enemy. Do not make it bigger or smaller than then it can be most accurately adduced, or you limit your effectiveness in any attempt at a remedy...

virtual particle pairs may not suffer heat loss due to annihilation since they are not "real" in the sense of visible matter. The fact that virtual particles exist for such brief periods could determine a change from heat output upon annilihation to a related quantity of repulsive tensor force...

imatfaal....right, which is (one reason) why I stated that we know little of them...if they are considered as mathematical structures giving appearance into the "physical" universe, instead considered as traditional physical objects, a more accurate assessment of their nature might be given...that, I think is the "symmetry breaking" between mathematically described things and the things that end up getting "built" using those descriptions....namely, our universe...

the reason I think dark energy is sourced from virtual particle pairs, is that they are "there" (everywhere) as prospective candidates, and look attractive as candidates as any mechanical process has an inherent inefficiency...that inefficiency in the annilalation phase is the small remnant leftover energy..

enthalpy, I think they are one and the same. The leftover energy of the fleeting particles annialation is dark energy... virtual particles are well understood? How are they well understood and their source is unknown ? We do know some things due to casimir experiments, if that is what you are referencing...

in even total empty space there are things called "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence that are little understood so far...I see these particles as analogous to the air of earth as an "air of space", but have very different properties...it's a very exciting prospect to find out what they are and if they affect things other than the cosmic expansion, of which they may be causing...they are also sometimes referred to as dark energy...

this seems to be thinking about shortcuts to understanding particular concepts.... what is the minimum amount of information needed to describe a particular event? This seems important in the art of impressionism. Of course, usually something is described to someone who has knowledge of it from previous associations. The new discription add details to a sort of "pre-fab" structure or stereotype of the subject in that general category. There is a rather subjective notion with a minimum, and becomes more objective, as the discription becomes fuller. I don't know of a particular name of the concept you are alluding to, but there is probably a philosophical analysis that touches on the subject. I will look in my philosophy book cliff notes and see if I can spot something...

janus, you say dark matter doesn't form structures? Isn't the "halo" around the galaxy a structure? Aren't the "filaments" of dark matter structures? It doesn't seem to be spread out all that thinly...only more thinly that we can so far observe. Since our EM doesn't react to it much, it seems possible that it reacts to it a little, if only we knew where to look and with what expectation as to the inconsistencies in big G measurements caused by dark matter variations in the small scale, like CMB measurements...if DM is in particle form, then a gradation of particle size should be attained with sufficiently detailed tests...a parallel series of micro tests might reveal some information and add to the overall picture. But how to carry out a small gravity test with a small physical structure would perhaps use mini-black hole pairs as sensing device modus. Their measured relative big Gs as they are separated would reflect a small scale variation of any interleaving dark matter between holes... to restate the tests,, I see two test types, those of how dark matter does interact with normal matter causing variations smaller than variations caused by (normal) quantum variations, and direct tests from mini-hole pairs of big G...

if the universe is drawn from information, then some overage of the required information to construct a universe may be detectable in dark matter. Whenever a mechanical process of assembly takes place, there are always some inherent inefficiencies that take place, some residual, unused portion of the raw materials. In the case of dark matter, it seems a necessary ingredient to shape our universe as it is, but not necessary for it's physical existence...so it could be considered, at this early date, to be "dead" or more accurately, a ballast, as a ship might have. Not necessary for the ship itself, but the additional mass will alter it's handling characteristics in a positive fashion...

schneib....if you are referring to me being "worried" about the end of the universe, you are drawing an incorrect inference from the question. It is one more way to examine reality in a similar fashion as any question might allow....whether the question relates to currently operating conditions, or conditions billions of years from now, seems irrelevant...

if we know so little as to the makeup of dark matter, it can't be ruled out that it might have some internal structure property that allows internal friction...

as far as falling into a black hole, DM reacts perhaps to itself, providing the necessary friction within the confines of it's own substance to lose energy. As dark matter reacts to visible matter gravitationally, a star collapsing into a black hole would have been attracting dark matter since it's birth, just as any other gravitational body. So, wouldn't any star have dark matter already within it? I was reading on physics world magazine tonight of the difficulty in getting a precise measurement of what they term as "big G", or a true gravity constant. I wondered if the variations could be from interceding clouds of dark matter passing through the tests, skewing the results towards a heavier than normal variety of results...dependent upon the density of the DM at that particular time...