Handy andy

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Quantum foam is a 'state' of things at below the Planck level.
Suggesting that the 'state of things' changes makes sense; suggesting that the 'state of things' has a 'flow' does not ( to me ).

The paper also implies absolute frames and absolute motion.
Which then means all sorts of other things are in play ( and foundations of modern physics crumble ).
That alone makes it a non-starter for me.

Me, You, Them, is just a reference frame. A moderator has to make a decision where to put a discussion on this subject. I read, I visualize. I see flow (for me). I read Mordreds thread on what space is and after a few glasses of very good Portuguese wine I am definitely hooked.

A Moderator decision is required on discussing contraction and expansion of space, re the link posted.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

The problem is not that it is brief, but that it is wrong.

WTF now you think single big bang is wrong ? You change your mind more than my best friend ("the Missis")  

All of this presupposes that a Mary or even Jesus existed. The only historical account of his existence I understand is from the historian Josephus and I understand it is thought to be a forgery added after the death of Josephus. The Jews have no record of his existence and understandably don't accept him as a person who lived never mind their saviour.

I understood also that the story in the bible had Jesus with older Brothers, and the reference to the Virgin meant the purity of mind of the mother Mary of the hypothetical Jesus, whose remains have never been found. Mary I understand also comes from the Egyptian word meaning beloved.

The official Catholic Church story is when Mary married Joseph she was 12 years old, so Jesus's older brothers may have been by another wife of Joseph who most likely wasn't a virgin when he married Mary if either of them ever existed, which appears very doubtful.https://www.quora.com/How-old-was-Mary-mother-of-Jesus-when-she-gave-birth-to-Jesus

There are various candidates put forward in history for the actual Jesus none of whom were born 25th December at 0AD.

Does anyone have actual historic proof that Jesus existed. I have never met anyone who can point to any historic proof.

In 325AD Emperor Constantine declared he existed, anyone disagreeing did not do very well. Almost all subsequent Popes have supported this view, except Pope Pious the ??? who stated the "Jesus Myth has served us well". If the current pope was to turn around and declare Jesus did not exist and was just a story, it would cause a stir but under the Roman Catholic Faith, the Pope like Emperor Constantine speaks for god on earth and Catholics would have to change their belief accordingly. 

Under the Islamic religion, Mohammed is a historic figure who had offspring, who perpetuated the various forms of Islam. I understand over 50% of the Quran which I have never read, because its written in Arabic is based on the story of Jesus.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

You said:

What is that, if not a (bad) description of the big bang model?

 

Agreed : The above is a very brief and does not do the big bang theory justice.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

 

Again Andy Quantum foam is NOT the Spin foam related to LQG, and so has little if any to do with gravity ( nor matter creation ).

 

I think I may have used the wrong terminology or we are talking cross purposes.

This is the sort of foam stuff I have been waffling on about, which is not part of this thread. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf

Abstract

The new information-theoretic Process Physics provides an explanation of space as a quantum foam system in which gravity is an inhomogeneous flow of the quantum foam into matter. The older Newtonian and General Relativity theories for gravity are analysed. It is shown that Newtonian gravity may be written in the form of an in-flow. General Relativity is also analysed as an in-flow, for those cases where it has been tested. An analysis of various experimental data demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Jaseja et al, Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland DeWitte data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity. The experimental data suggests that the in-flow is turbulent, which amounts to the observation of a gravitational wave phenomena. A new in-flow theory of gravity is proposed which passes all the tests that General Relativity was claimed to have passed, but as well the new theory suggests that the so-called spiral galaxy rotation-velocity anomaly may be explained without the need of ‘dark matter’. Various other gravitational anomalies also appear to be explainable. Newtonian gravity appears to be strictly valid only outside of spherically symmetric matter systems.

I would like to get opinions on this on another thread, if the moderators agree.

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:42 PM, HB of CJ said:

The two are by definition non irreconcilable.

But ... but ... and I am not religious at all but somewhere if the correct questions are asked, the hard science guy just says ... "I don't know, but wouldn't that be nice"! 

Er! Double negatives

Did you mean to say none reconcilable, irreconcilable, or none irreconcilable = reconcilable.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

good for you...

I don't need to taste it or stand in it either once I have recognized it for what it is

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only reason I haven't commented on it is because I haven't seen it which is because it is a video. So thanks for the link which confirms it is nothing to do with black holes exploding. 

And nothing to do with the point I made, which was that your description of the Big Bang was completely wrong. 

There you go again making stuff up. I never gave any description of a big bang, and neither have you as far as I am aware.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

Unless you understand science (you don't seem too), it's also based on stories/analogies designed to teach; the only real difference is that science is relevant/understood today.

A pigsty contains far more than just shit, just like knowledge; you have to wade through the shit to reach the bacon/understanding.

When I look at shit I recognize it for what it is.  

5 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I am not arrogant or self-righteous here, I also fall short from the glory of God. What my motive is that I just want to share what my wisdom learned and perspective base on the truth that I found.

Please define what you think god is.

What is it you fall short off by your definition of god.

What are your motives.

Where did you learn your beliefs.

Is everyone who does not agree with you a heathen.

Are heathens nice people.

If you stood in a crowd of heathens at a concert, and wanted to expound your views and they did not want to listen, what do you think you should do.

Does it get cold in Petropavlosk-kamchatsk

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

This is almost literally the "Wisdom" of the Bible specifically Exodus 21:24.

As I pointed out before.

So, yes, we are going round in circles, because you keep saying stuff like that- and it keeps being not true, so I keep on calling you out on it.

I don't plan to stop pointing out the problems so the recursive nature of the discussion is in your court...

 

What you don't seem to understand is that a book which has some good stuff (even if it's obvious) and some rubbish (ditto) isn't any use unless you can tell those two groups apart.

If you can separate the wheat from the chaff*, then you don't need the book.

If you can't tell them apart then the book's no use to you.

 

Well, if it was properly documented etc, then it would be science.

If it wasn't documented properly then it would be religion.

OK, it may not happen often, but Dimreeper and I are in complete agreement on this.

* Matthew 3:12 

Just trying to help you out of the shit discussion you were having  I think you will find a close similarity to what I wrote in Luke some where.

Did you know the exodus flood story might be based on the earlier Santorini explosion, the Jews just nicked the story of the tsunami from 500 years earlier, and said our god did that so don't mess with us. The Nile turning red is documented in much earlier (500 years approx) Egyptian texts before the fictional date of the exodus. some of your old testament stories of floods could be based on actual historic natural disasters. The horrible Egyptians were apparently descended from the 2nd son of Noah who went off to found the Egyptian nation after he was cursed for having his way with a drunken noah and possibly his mother as well. As for moses he had to be the dummest person on the planet if he existed, you could stroll from Egypt to where Israel is today in a week along established trade routes. He got lost for 40 years in the desert then lead the jews to the promised land come on . There are scholarly articles which indicate that the jews originally came from somewhere else in the middle east, based on a mountain range, and some ancient ruins which were bulldozed very quickly by the Saudis I think it was.

So as you say religion is based on stories and science is based on actual observations or mathematical thereoms predicting something from observations. Those thereoms as in religion can be pushed beyond there believable limits and should be taken with a pinch of salt  unless you follow science like a religion.

I don't believe that religion is a good thing in society today, however the view I put forward above is inline with Pantheism I understand, which could be regarded as sexed up atheism and possibly acceptable to scientists and new age religions.

The old religions need to lose there blood lust and stop trying to expand their influence across the globe.

Loopey huh, that is an understatement  Only trying to help you get out of the shit, unless you like being in the pig sty your arguments have got into.

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Do you have idea what is hash function/hash value in computer science?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function

Thorham has list/array with 256 entries which are pointers to further lists. That's why he is doing AND 0xFF at the end to limit index to only allowed number of entries..

He will calculate hash (index to the top most list/array) from element, and then put element in the appropriate list (at appropriate index)...

No I was not, it was not made clear in the question ! Hash was something else when I was in university, and DNA sequencing was not happening. At first glance Hash looks like indexing mixed up with encryption something I never got involved with. I will read the link a second time more slowly. But clearly Thorham has worked out without assistance, if he had written down the code and mentioned the Hash_function maybe I would have tried to help, the original question looked like nonsense.

How does the spin of a Boson with integer spin transfer to a fermion with 1/2 spin, Is the spin transferred to 2 fermions?

I have not been able to find any good explanations of how entanglement is carried out other than the pop science stuff, is there a technical link someone could provide to how entanglement is carried out.?

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out that your description of matter expanding to fill space is completely wrong. 

I wonder, do you misrepresent the theory because you don't like it and so create a straw man? Or do you just not understand it (and maybe that is why you dislike it)? Brcausr you keep making completely erroneous statements about it. 

I do not try to create arguments as you repeatedly do by repeatedly misquoting people as some kind of amusing debating method.

The exploding black hole video you declined to comment on because it is against your belief was related to MS0735.6+7421. To save you yawning and looking for information on it LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_0735.6%2B7421 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

That was the link

It takes energy in that all things require energy owing to losses (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics) but the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same and unentangled particles.

The idea that wormholes are involved is not mainstream physics. It's not been demonstrated to be true, so the question of what happens with the wormhole can't be answered. 

Thanks for the confirmation, I spent quite some time trying to find that link, but had thought it included some other info I had been reading.

Just to confirm due to a possible grammatical slip did you mean to say "the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same as an unentangled pair of particles". Or  "the energy of an entangled pair of particles is the same as an unentangled pair of particles" ?

Yes I agree it is none mainstream, but the concept of things repeating them selves at different scales appealed, quantum particles entangled are a bit  like black holes connected by wormholes sharing matter, seemed to be similar and amusing.

Loop Break

There are many ways science and religion could be reconciled for example if god spoke to a scientific prophet perhaps with a TOE  Or perhaps knowing the mind of god and exactly what god is might help, This is a link to holographic universe https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection

The holographic universe explains many things through entanglement, the above link mentions the universe is a big quantum computer, could that the mind of god. Maybe religion misunderstands exactly what god is. In the quantum universe all things are entangled to a certain extent, all things are connected, sounds religious.

Perhaps a TOE will unite science and religion.

On ‎29‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:30 PM, Strange said:

No it isn't. The Big Bang model says that the universe has always been completely full of matter. The universe then expanded, cooling the matter. 

Nonsense. 

Strange  I have never claimed the universe is static,

 White holes, wormholes, and black holes are one of many theories that would counter your nonsense  and not part of this thread and only theoretical.

On ‎29‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:03 PM, swansont said:

If the energy is internal to the system then it shows up as mass of the system, so you haven't transformed anything. If the atoms are jiggling around and as a result of a collision internal to the system, an atom was put into an excited state, the mass of the system would not change.

Kinetic energy of the center-of-mass of a system is not mass (unless you have redefined what mass means, e.g. relativistic mass)

E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

If an object is in motion, that energy shows up in the second term on the right hand side.

Earlier you suggested I repost the link phi deleted, I cant find it

This is a link to holographic universe covering most of the things on the link phi deleted, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/entanglement-gravitys-long-distance-connection

The holographic universe explains many things through entanglement, the above link mentions the universe is a big quantum computer etc It sounds like the mind of god to me, but I digress.

I understand energy cant be destroyed and it takes energy to entangle particles in the lab, is this correct ?.

When entanglement is broken, between two quantum particles, possibly due to a quantum particle disappearing down a quantum black hole, what happens to the apparent wormhole energy that was entangling the two particles if it does not become matter? does it become a quantum black hole. ?  

If a wormhole between two black holes breaks what happens to the energy that was contained inside the wormhole between black holes.? 

14 minutes ago, interested said:

I know space is on average 2.5k which is as near as damn it to 0k

What have you just been discussing with Itoero and Handy andy if it was not the production of matter from the vacuum.

I will go and check everything, I have read, I suspect you are being argumentative and I do not argue especially with experts.

The forum supports the standard model of physics. What is being discussed on this thread is not exactly standard model or accepted theory yet, although it is extremely interesting for interested people.

The video I posted of black holes exploding is not meant to happen under the standard model. It was naughty of me to post it. 

The view that all matter in the universe came out of a very hot big bang at the beginning of time and expanded throughout the universe is the standard model, and what is normally discussed on this forum, no other views can be supported as many people are trying to pass exams and need to learn about the standard models of physics only.

This is not the link I originally posted, Phi can repost that one if he sees fit, I saw nothing wrong with it. This one is similiar ref the hologrphic principle.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205 There are many interesting points that interested may be interested in, ref worm hole creation as an explanation for entanglement, but also directly related to creating particles out of nothing the following paragraph is written 

Qoute -Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled. Close Qoute.

Would a particle created in space at 0k be more likely to survive and form the original matter that came out of a big bang. question mark

The link that was removed ref holographic universe and gravity would help to understand my line of questioning here. The link was not about quantum foam theory, it was about the holographic universe and another theory on gravity, it was not about quantum foam theory which I like, and for various reasons is outside the scope of this forum.

I will restrict myself to two questions so as not to obfuscate what I am asking.

1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.

2) Could the remaining particle decay and be detected as Hawking radiation or something similar.

I guess you are simply asking about ohms law V = I x R, Where V = volts, I = amps, and R = resistance.

If you have several resistors in series R1 to R5 for instance this can be rewritten V = I ( R1+R2+R3+R4+R5 ) It is the same current flowing through each resistor. The total voltage across the resistors is the sum of the voltage induced in the individual resistors. V = VR1 + VR2 + VR3 + VR4 + VR5.

I hope the above helps, what is your first language.

I notice a lot of folk suffer with depression. The following link came in this morning, and I thought this might be of interest to people posting on this thread.

Research published in the open access journal Microbiome sheds new light on how gut bacteria may influence anxiety-like behaviors. Investigating the link between gut bacteria and biological molecules called microRNAs (miRNAs) in the brain; researchers at the APC Microbiome Institute at University College Cork, which is funded by Science Foundation Ireland, found that a significant number of miRNAs were changed in the brains of microbe-free mice. These mice are reared in a germ-free bubble and typically display abnormal anxiety, deficits in sociability and cognition, and increased depressive-like behaviors.
Full story at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-link-gut-bacteria-anxiety.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter

Is depression partly related to bad gut bacteria, or diet, as well as the usual hereditary factors.? Food for thought!

On ‎19‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 3:35 PM, gib65 said:

Hello,

 

 

 

 

I'm on a diet, trying to lose weight, and I'm wondering why some days I gain weight and some days I lose weight. I'm monitoring my calories and being sure I'm under 2000 every day. I also commute to work on my bike everyday, half an hour per leg.

 

 

 

 

 

Two days ago, I weighed myself. I was at 175 lb. Then yesterday, I weighed myself. I was at 176 lb. This morning, I was at 177 lb.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's what I ate yesterday:

 

 

 

 

 

yogurt for breakfast: 35 calories

 

 

soup for lunch: 200

 

 

crackers with the soup: 100

 

 

chicken salad for supper:

 

 

romain lettuce: 10

 

 

roma tomato: 35

 

 

carrot: 25

 

 

1/3 yellow bell pepper: 20

 

 

4 or 5 broccoli spears: 10

 

 

mushrooms: 5

 

 

cucumber: 5

 

 

1 chicken breast: 150

 

 

blue cheese dressing: 240

 

 

croutons: 60

 

 

parmesan cheese 240

 

 

TOTAL: 1135

 

 

 

 

 

I munched on a few snacks throughout the day, but it couldn't have been more than 200 calories worth. So let's bring the total up to 1335. <-- Well under 2000 calories, plus the bike riding, yet I still gained a pound since yesterday.

 

 

 

 

 

The day before was a similar diet: yogurt for breakfast, soup with crackers for lunch, a salad for supper. The only difference in the salad was that the meat was fish, not chicken. Fish is typically less than chicken in terms of calories but this fish was 1.5 to 2 times bigger than the chicken breast I had last night, and I also battered it with oil. My batter recipe consists of crushed bread crumbs, whipped egg, and oil. If I were to guess, I'd say the fish was between 300 and 400 calories. That's a difference of 150 to 250 calories from the chicken. Let's say 250. Add the same 200 calories for snacks, I estimate that yesterday I consumed 1335 + 250 = 1585. <-- Still under 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

Yet I still seem to be gaining weight. Why?

 

You haven't mentioned what you drink. An alcoholic drink is typically < 200 calories, a bottle of wine 600 calories etc. As shocking as it sounds you may have to stop boozing to lose weight.

Soft drinks have sugar and additives along with alcoholic drinks, these accumulate in your body and cause your cells to retain water etc.

If you are serious about losing weight you might want to think about drinking just water, or at least diluting what you drink.

Apologies I did not think the holographic universe link I posted was a hijack. Can I rephrase the question, without referencing the holographic universe link, using accepted theory.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking predicted event horizons should leak a faint glow. Quantum theory says particles all have an antimatter counterpart, and these pairs constantly spring into existence before embracing in mutual oblivion. But a black hole might pull pairs that form at its edge apart: if one of the pair is just outside its clutches, it could escape while the other is pulled across the event horizon. The escaped particle can be seen, in theory, as Hawking radiation.

Has Hawking radiation been detected?.

A black hole could have sufficient energy to pull apart quantum particle pairs, how big and over what duration does a black hole have to exist to pull apart quantum particle pairs?.

Could a quantum black hole suffice to pull apart two entangled particles, in the same way as hawking radiation is postulated to do.?

Has anyone observed or created a quantum black hole in the laboratory yet that can separate particle pairs.?

Is a black hole the same thing as a worm hole.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Other forms of energy can be converted into mass. Mass is not created (in the way it was implied, i.e. spontaneously)

So when Iteoro stated "-This concerns a model called Holographic Entangled Space time. According to this model...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) If this model is correct then there is a possibility that mass or energy can form because of the breaking of many body entanglement. " He was correct, and strange was just "hand waving" as you put it above.

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 

If you read past the introductory drivel. It states

" Hawking, an English theoretical physicist, was one of the first to consider the details of the behavior of a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius was on the level of an atom. These black holes are not necessarily low mass, for example, it requires 1 billion tons of matter to make a black hole the size of a proton. But their small size means that their behavior is a mix of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.

Before black holes were discovered it was know that the collision of two photons can cause pair production. This a direct example of converting energy into mass (unlike fission or fusion which turn mass into energy). Pair production is one of the primary methods of forming matter in the early Universe.

 

Note that pair production is symmetric in that a matter and antimatter particle are produced (an electron and an anti-electron (positron) in the above example).

Hawking showed that the strong gravitational gradients (tides) near black holes can also lead to pair production. In this case, the gravitational energy of the black hole is converted into particles.

"

All this is just theoretical as it has not been directly observed happening. Unlike possibly a big bang, which might be being observed happening in the distant universe from a black hole according to the link I posted which drew no comments other than the usual from strange. One theory is that the heavier elements were created inside a black hole.

This all just raises the question how does a black hole explode. ? Pressure heat, etc lightning produces antimatter from matter, can black holes produce enough antimatter at temperatures and pressures way in excess of the sun, to blow itself apart as in the video I posted above, in response to interested.

I will add the following three links, to the above http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae332.cfm re creation of matter from quantum foam, and this one ref formation of black holes https://www.universetoday.com/33454/how-do-black-holes-form/ and this one ref supernovae and the formation of elements up to and including iron https://phys.org/news/2016-03-kinds-supernovae.html#nRlv

Theoretically matter can come out of the vacuum.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

It says quantum foam, but I don't see how it backs you up. Nothing about creation of mass.

If you read past the introductory drivel. It states

" Hawking, an English theoretical physicist, was one of the first to consider the details of the behavior of a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius was on the level of an atom. These black holes are not necessarily low mass, for example, it requires 1 billion tons of matter to make a black hole the size of a proton. But their small size means that their behavior is a mix of quantum mechanics rather than relativity.

Before black holes were discovered it was know that the collision of two photons can cause pair production. This a direct example of converting energy into mass (unlike fission or fusion which turn mass into energy). Pair production is one of the primary methods of forming matter in the early Universe.

Note that pair production is symmetric in that a matter and antimatter particle are produced (an electron and an anti-electron (positron) in the above example).

Hawking showed that the strong gravitational gradients (tides) near black holes can also lead to pair production. In this case, the gravitational energy of the black hole is converted into particles.

"

All this is just theoretical as it has not been directly observed happening. Unlike possibly a big bang, which might be being observed happening in the distant universe from a black hole according to the link I posted which drew no comments other than the usual from strange. One theory is that the heavier elements were created inside a black hole.

This all just raises the question how does a black hole explode. ? Pressure heat, etc lightning produces antimatter from matter, can black holes produce enough antimatter at temperatures and pressures way in excess of the sun, to blow itself apart as in the video I posted above, in response to interested.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The devil's in the details. "could be a mechanism" contains no science, and that's where the science needs to be. ANY conjecture that relies on a violation of conservation of energy needs a hell of a lot more than a hand-wave. 

I went looking for something to back up or blow apart the various claims above, and found the following lecture series which might be interesting to the simple folk like me reading this thread, http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html amusingly it does not disagree too much with what I have been banging on about. I think it is a bit more than a hand wave and you might even like it.  I still haven't read it all but lecture 17 is pertinent, and backs up the quantum foam and matter appearing out of the vacuum claims in a way you might accept.

I did find some nice videos done by oxford university theoretical physics department on matter from the vacuum, but I thought this was better.