Rajiv Naik

nobody is talking about Quantum entanglement.

its not true that information Travels with speed of light only- its only in our spacetimes.

otherwise all information is singularly  present in quantum state, outside the spacetime and hence in valcume which is radiation free state.

no  time is required - as time is property of speed of light in space. 

entanglement  clearly indicate that time  doesnt exist beyond space.

7 hours ago, studiot said:

So do you agree that the Universe includes the space between that atoms, between the planets, between the stars, between the galaxies as well as the atoms, planets stars and galaxies themselves?

Bizarre or otherwise it is loose terminology that is preventing proper discussion here about the important comments to be made on dark energy and dark mass.

Since we don't know what these are we don't know if there is only one type of dark matter and dark energy or there are many and if so if the contributions are evenly spread or not.

 

This is not an idle discussion;

Consider lumped parameters (which is mathematically what dark energy and dark matter are)

The mathematical process of 'lumping' depends upon the nature of the interface between  the parts and leads to theorems such as Norton's Theorem and Thevenin's Theorem.

But these do not alwys hold good.

 

Let us consider further a bloody great circuit comprising millions of transistors with thousands of inputs and outputs.

Now let us draw a cut line (interface) across the power supply rails and note there is 'something' on the other side of that cut stabilising the power, equivalent to 10 Farads though we do not know how this is achieved, only that it is and actually many times bigger and heavier than the entire rest of the circuit.

Would you say that this lumped capacitance is 98% of the circuit?

you mean vaccume energy  plays role in space time   and is part of entire scheme ?

do you mean vaccume energy   intereacts with standard particle fields ?

is it not that higgs field facilitate standard model particle   fields to intereact. ?

same quations can be asked about dark matter.

how one knows that differential Calculus is sufficient to study  vast not understood  force like vaccume radiations?

you mean vaccame responsible for inflation of universe is different entity from vaccume in atoms, between planets and galaxiesin space etc.?

how vaccume energy  can be compared to building of potential in even superconducting capacitor?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

One of the important lessons in Critical Thinking is to learn to recognise nonsense when you see it and also to recognise when that nonsense arises because something is poorly defined.

1) The phrase "% of the Universe" is one such phrase. A proper definition would be along the lines of "% of all the XXX in the Universe". But you can't lump "all the XXX with "all the YYY" to calculate a %. That is nonsense.

2) Most authorities hold that by far the largest part of the Universe is unoccupied space. Are you excluding that?

 

Shame on Nasa for such populist nonsense.

I dont understand what you are saying.

may be you are better than Nasa.

but for me  your comments are as strange as vaccume

by what I have understood most of the space is vaccume. 

The problems in understanding the true nature of the "vacuum" of space were discussed by a theoretical physicist CERN. From the point of view of cosmology, the vacuum appears to have an energy density, which is sometimes called "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant", responsible for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a "Higgs Field" - named after physicist Peter Higgs.

l think spacetime is creation of quantum singularity. its completely virtual.all dimensions we notice are sust convinientconcepts -

8 hours ago, Strange said:

It says they are indistinguishable.

Well, it needs a restoring force. Which could be gravity or something else.

What is two dimensional spacetime? Spacetime has four dimensions, not two.

If there was any truth in your previous statements, you might be able to draw that conclusion but you seem to be seriously confused.

 

This is what I have read recently:

The Nature of Space and Time
A pair of researchers have uncovered a potential bridge between general relativity and quantum mechanics — the two preeminent physics theories — and it could force physicists to rethink the very nature of space and time.

Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes gravity as a geometric property of space and time. The more massive an object, the greater its distortion of spacetime, and that distortion is felt as gravity.

In the 1970s, physicists Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein noted a link between the surface area of black holes and their microscopic quantum structure, which determines their entropy. This marked the first realization that a connection existed between Einstein’s theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Less than three decades later, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena observed another link between between gravity and the quantum world. That connection led to the creation of a model that proposes that spacetime can be created or destroyed by changing the amount of entanglement between different surface regions of an object.

In other words, this implies that spacetime itself, at least as it is defined in models, is a product of the entanglement between objects. ITo further explore this line of thinking, ChunJun Cao and Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) set out to see if they could actually derive the dynamical properties of gravity (as familiar from general relativity) using the framework in which spacetime arises out of quantum entanglement. Their research was recently published in arXiv.

Using an abstract mathematical concept called Hilbert space, Cao and Carroll were able to find similarities between the equations that govern quantum entanglement and Einstein’s equations of general relativity. This supports the idea that spacetime and gravity do emerge from entanglement.

the next step in the research is to determine the accuracy of the assumptions they made for this study.

“One of the most obvious ones is to check whether the symmetries of relativity are recovered in this framework, in particular, the idea that the laws of physics don’t depend on how fast you are moving through space

2 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

 

this not a court argument I suppose,

in law we call it hypertechnical argument.

we both know what we meant.

 

how  we can. say that they are only two things or few things without knowing what it is.?

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why would you think it is "the ultimate particle"? 

What does "ultimate particle" mean?

They already have.

You are arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

And idiotic statement would be to say "we don't know anything"

who said  that.

I suppose  I said very little-

5 minutes ago, Rajiv Naik said:

how  we can. say that they are only two things or few things without knowing what it is.?

who said  that

I suppose  I said very little-

by saying ultimate particle I meant most massive particle - misunderstanding ?

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

recently cern has discovered new bumps of massive masses thin higgs particle

it will take ore more year to complete investigation.

, I suppose its know or one can check

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. It has been know for more than 50 years.

I think it was hypothesis till cern claims.

nobody is really sure its the ultimate particle .

may be they will find some more massive one-

experiment is not yet over.

a bold statement it would be to say that ,"we know".

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Because you said: (1) "dark matter" and (2) "dark energy".

How is that not two (2) things?

this not a court argument I suppose,

in law we call it hypertechnical argument.

we both know what we meant.

Just now, zapatos said:

You need math to know physics. Biology, chemistry, etc. function as they do because of physics.

 

I stand corrected. It is only "two" things.

how are you sure  that they are only two things when we know nothing. about it today. ?

Just now, Strange said:

We have known about the Higgs mechanism for over 50 years.

 

I know about God particle research,

but  do anyone truely know how higgs field give mass to particles?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Look into physics, chemistry, biology,  astronomy, medicine, engineering, and mathematics to get a small idea of what we know.

No one is claiming we know everything. Pointing out a few things we don't understand and then claiming that makes us tiny-brained ignorants of only .000001 of what there is to know, and therefore not worthy to comment on anything at all, is a ludicrous proposition.

I am talking about physics not biology or chemistry or other things etc.

dark malter and dark energy combined is whooping 96 % of  our universe We are ignorant  about today

its not "few things"

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What basic principle?

I think equivalence principle says that gravity is  acceleration. .

I think obviously pendulem fundamentally works on this principle.

three dimensional universe is distortion of two dimentional spacetime.

so everything is basically can be explained by two dimentional  geometry of triage or circle.

its ultimately that place where answers could be found.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I never understand people who act like our understanding of how the universe behaves is so negligible, and how humans are such pathetic components of the universe. 

so do we know more ? what is it? you are not answering my quations.

we didnt know till recently that standard model particles form hardly 2 or 3% of our universe.

we didnt know much about higgs field either

do you know?

do you know why existance of  universe is remote chance?

and I am an athiest. so do not take it as  a phylosophy.

one day we probably will know-but not tody.

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

Where do you get that figure from?

So all human learning is pointless? 

Who is?

so you know for sure what dark energy is? What dark mater is? where antimatter has gone ? and what happened to symmetry ?

I never  said human learning is pointless - I said what we know till date is very  little.

and do you know  exactly how higgs field give mass to standard particles?

Law of universe is mathematical equations governing the possibilities in universe.

we humans know little may be not even .ooooo1 of it. (96% is dark energy and dark matter) 2% is antimatter, and we know very little about remaining 2%.

this Laws are not created by humans they exist we try to discover them with our tiny brain.

We ignorants are not eligible to comment anything about it.

We thought that we knew about four fundamental forces then we discovered about dark energy.

We are confused about even higgs field and totally new science is emmerging-

many miles to go.

only a fool will comment confidently about its knowledge.

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn't change the value of pi though. which is what you implied.

It isn't 1 metre.

 

There is an approximate relationship because of the way the metre is defined. But there is no direct connection.

The acceleration due to gravity can't be proportional to pi, because pi is a constant: if you go to the Moon or Mars, you will not find the same relationship.

I think I am misunderstood? or not understood- I m using it (π)to define rate .-

not a constant.

but a constant rate of aaccelleration.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Pi appears in the equation for a pendulum because it is an example of simple harmonic motion.

It does NOT appear in the equation for the acceleration due to gravity.

I think the basic principle remains the same and and can be transerred to other motions also.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Did you notice that is from 1934 and is a response to an article published in 1927. I think we have moved on a bit since then.

not much  ahead of 1934. ,just kidding.

I have referred to other research also. Ill post more.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn't change the value of pi though. which is what you implied.

It isn't 1 metre.

 

There is an approximate relationship because of the way the metre is defined. But there is no direct connection.

The acceleration due to gravity can't be proportional to pi, because pi is a constant: if you go to the Moon or Mars, you will not find the same relationship.

I think I am misunderstood? or not understood- I m using it (π)to define rate .-

not a constant.

but a constant rate of aaccelleration.

rate at which acceleration due to gravity happens is directly proportional to  square of Pi

we cant look at mathematics only as numbers or variables- they are just references to make some methods to solve geometry problems.

there can be terally different apronutri

I think π  is not just another constant.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

What do you mean in "metric units"? It has no units.

And as you know it is approximately 3.14, why did you say it is infinite?

What does that mean? In what sense is it its counterpart?

Well it is certainly true that pi appears in a lot of equations, particularly those related to waves. But so do many other natural constants. So I don't think it makes any sense to say that all physics is "governed" by it.

.

I'm not going to derive it, it isn't too difficult to show that for a pendulum with a small angle the period of oscillation is:

What if I want a period of 2 seconds?

That is the length of your seconds pendulum. Suppose we want to call this 1 meter? In that case, I have to have g = π2. That's why these values are related.

Just now, Rajiv Naik said:

.

I'm not going to derive it, it isn't too difficult to show that for a pendulum with a small angle the period of oscillation is:

What if I want a period of 2 seconds?

That is the length of your seconds pendulum. Suppose we want to call this 1 meter? In that case, I have to have g = π2. That's why these values are related.

I

I'm not going to derive it, it isn't too difficult to show that for a pendulum with a small angle the period of oscillation is:

What if I want a period of 2 seconds?

That is the length of your seconds pendulum. Suppose we want to call this 1 meter? In that case, I have to have g = π². That's why these values are related.

whatever I am saying  here is in terms of unit-

as per matric system. 

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I do not understand all of your text but I believe π (pi) is approximately 3.14. 

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

 

yes π (pie) is 3.14  in matric unit.md Phi is its counterpart.

all physics is governed by it except fractal and chaos.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Searching for some of the text, just seems to bring up conspiracy and crackpot websites (I went to look at one of them but my ISP issued a security warning, so I didn't bother.)

I am citing this as there genuine  research going on regarding speed of light.

.https://www.nature.com/articles/133759b0

velocity of light by Frank K Edmondson.

J. GHEURY DE BRAY has directed attention to an apparent decrease in the velocity of light¹. I have recently tried to explain this on the basis of the theory of the expanding universe. If the speed of light is a true constant, independent of any variation in our unit of length, then a doubling of the radius of the universe should cause the measured velocity of light to diminish by half. If the radius of the universe doubles every Kyears, then the velocity of light will be proportional to (1/2)^t where K is the unit of time. Thus, the logarithm of the measured velocity of light must be a linear function of the time. I determined the two constants of such a function from de Bray's data and found that it represented the observations in a satisfactory manner. I then solved this equation for the length of time it would take the velocity to diminish by half. The time is of the order of 60,000 years, which is considerably shorter than the value derived from a study of the recession of the external galaxies². Consequently, this observed variation cannot be explained by the expanding universe theory unless we assume that the rate of expansion is much more rapid in the vicinity of the earth than it is at the distance of the spirals.

On 24/10/2018 at 4:33 PM, Strange said:

Are you asking if it is possible to change the spin of a (fundamental) particle like a proton? That has already been answered (no). 

So what is your question?

not about total spin - which will remain 1/2 as per physics.

but if photon is absorbed by proton would not it change its spin state ?

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really bad reporting.

But as you don't provide a source, I can't say any more than that. (I would guess they are mixing up phase and group velocity; that is the usual source of this sort of nonsense.)

I have no idea what that means.

Please explain how a constant such as the speed of light, or the permittivity of free space can contain "+ve infinity". And what does this have to do with π?

we define light and gravity with math-

galleleo's experiment proved  that gravity travels  with rule  of π.  

In an experiment when a pin is dropped  on a paper with horizontal lines, the probability that it will fall on line or in between line follows π ratio.

so even information we see around us follows π.

some information follow fractals and chaos. but it represents some order..

π. itself is infinite number or at least extreamiy large .

infinity itself  is a concept related to hysenberg uncertainity principle as its about indivisibilty of a unit.

I feel Speed  of light is not constant as believed by many , I have read about there are some experiments which have proved this.

for eg.. following  article is relevant:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-co

.

Light doesn’t always travel at the speed of light. A new experiment reveals that focusing or manipulating the structure of light pulses reduces their speed, even in vacuum conditions.

A paper reporting the research, posted online at arXiv.org and accepted for publication, describes hard experimental evidence that the speed of light, one of the most important constants in physics, should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable rate for light zipping through a vacuum.

“It’s very impressive work,” says Robert Boyd, an optical physicist at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s the sort of thing that’s so obvious, you wonder why you didn’t think of it first.”

Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late. Though the effect is not recognizable in everyday life and in most technological applications, the new research highlights a fundamental and previously unappreciated subtlety in the behavior of light.

The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted c, is a fundamental constant central to much of physics, particularly Einstein’s theory of relativity. While measuring c was once considered an important experimental problem, it is now simply specified to be 299,792,458 meters per second, as the meter itself is defined in terms of light’s vacuum speed. Generally if light is not traveling at c it is because it is moving through a material. For example, light slows down when passing through glass or water.

Padgett and his team wondered if there were fundamental factors that could change the speed of light in a vacuum. Previous studies had hinted that the structure of light could play a role. Physics textbooks idealize light as plane waves, in which the fronts of each wave move in parallel, much like ocean waves approaching a straight shoreline. But while light can usually be approximated as plane waves, its structure is actually more complicated. For instance, light can converge upon a point after passing through a lens. Lasers can shape light into concentrated or even bull’s-eye–shaped beams.

The researchers produced pairs of photons and sent them on different paths toward a detector. One photon zipped straight through a fiber. The other photon went through a pair of devices that manipulated the structure of the light and then switched it back. Had structure not mattered, the two photons would have arrived at the same time. But that didn’t happen. Measurements revealed that the structured light consistently arrived several micrometers late per meter of distance traveled.

“I’m not surprised the effect exists,” Boyd says. “But it’s surprising that the effect is so large and robust.”

Greg Gbur, an optical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, says the findings won’t change the way physicists look at the aura emanating from a lamp or flashlight. But he says the speed corrections could be important for physicists studying extremely short light pulses

for exi

But what is this news...  even though its about laser , it talks about photons and speeds in  vacume:

sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

“This effect cannot be used to send information back in time,” said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. “However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’ is wrong.”

The results were published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.

my second pt. is  any constant becomes variable when unit differes.

In fact there is no  constant in vaccum.depending upon its position in given coordinate system.

mathematically any constant  can include -ve and +ve infinity, complex part of it and even a zero.

I am referring to π in that sense

On 27/11/2018 at 12:28 AM, studiot said:

Thanks

No further questions?

I must have done something right.

 

But what is this news...  even though its laser it talks about photons and speeds in  vacume:

sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum.

Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances.

“This effect cannot be used to send information back in time,” said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. “However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’ is wrong.”

The results were published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.