joigus

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74.

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74.

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74.

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74.

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74.

The man who controlled x, controlled c, and controlled v.

My humble homage from here.

On 3/15/2012 at 6:19 PM, derek w said:

You say i can't think of energy as a substance.I do not agree with you 100%

Well, it would depend on what you mean by 'substance,' but considering what most people mean when they say that word, I agree 100 % with Swansont. Energy is not a substance for many different reasons. AAMOF, the concept of 'substance' in physics is long gone. Particles appear and disappear. Energy is not conserved in cosmology. On the other hand, energy conservation is limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Besides, energy is only conserved when there is time translation (Noether's theorem.) As most cosmological models are time-dependent (galaxy-co-moving universal time,) energy is not conserved in cosmology. And to wrap it up, vacuum energy, calculated with QFT, gives a value 10¹²⁰ times larger than it should from cosmological observation (problem of the dark energy.) What kind of a substance is that? I'd say that, at the very least, considering it a substance is very iffy.

On 3/16/2012 at 11:03 AM, derek w said:

I was thinking of matter/anti-matter as being distortions of space not pressure.

Think otherwise. Matter-antimatter has to do with gauge charge. Electric charge (and all other gauge charges too) has nothing to do with distortions of space. Gravitation does. Electric charge requires an 'internal space' or additional direction to space with very different translation rules (gauge connection,) not related to a metric. It is in that spirit that Einstein took Kaluza-Klein theory as a way to attempt to formulate a unified field theory. Both Einstein and Schrödinger tried to work out a geometric theory of the electromagnetic field. At about the time that Yang and Mills formulated a generalization of the electromagnetic field that could work for elementary particles, people started to give up on the attempt to formulate gauge fields as space-time distorsions.

On 3/16/2012 at 11:03 AM, derek w said:

zero energy = zero force

That's not correct. The numeric value of energy means nothing outside of the particular parametrization you're using to solve your problem, except in gravity, where it must be zero when summing up geometric and material terms, vacuum energy, if it means anything at all. It's spatial gradients or spatial variations of energy which imply force in general, not value of energy. In classical gravity it also makes sense to define an 'absolute' value of energy, as your potential must go to zero at infinity.

Sorry, this went quite a way off topic.

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

"I'm sorry but I can't let you do that Dave"

 

 

Aaaaw. Exactly what I was thinking. Now I know you're a senior member. 

Wow! You must be really good at music.

Let's burn the ship and jump on a piece of flotsam. Good idea.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

The Ring of Ritornel or the Die of Alea, if you know that story.

I can't say I do, I'm sorry.

I'm thinking of taking a back sit on this one. I'm not ready for this discussion... just yet. I want to read more arguments.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

BTW did you see my reply to your recent post in the quantum section ?

Yes, I did. I had nothing to add to that one. Yes and no just doesn't do it for me. It's just that I want to take a break from fundamentals of QM for a while. I've had so much arguing for years with my friends from university... There's been so much nonsense said and written about it through decades that I feel overwhelmed.

It is entirely possible that I misinterpreted. Occasionally I need to take a step back and let everything sink in.

15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

with layer logic math is different.

Try to say that when they stop you for speeding.

4 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The dimension of the gravitational potential is the square of the speed, or m^2/s^2. What is this speed? It is logical to say that the gravitational potential at any point in space is the square of the speed of light at that point.

So you do dimensional analysis... I'm impressed!

10 hours ago, studiot said:

There is a continual chicken and egg cycle of aggregation and dispersion in our universe and entropy increase usually favours dispersion.

Studiot, could you elaborate on this, please? Chicken and egg seems to imply indefinite causation, a 'what comes first' kind of question.

In case anybody is interested, I am too, and I do think this topic is worth discussing. Any insight would be welcome.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components.

The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Interesting premise, but it doesn't seem to hold under closer scrutiny.
In addition to what Strange mentioned ( the death of stars producing the heavy elements needed for life and planets ),  stellar 'explosions' also cause the 'shock waves' in interstellar gas that spurs new star formation. Or would you argue that is a 'little' effect leading to a 'bigger' one ?

But I suppose the largest effect, the vacuum energy of the whole universe, being responsible for the vacuum fluctuations at the beginning of your small to big' sequence, should be considered also.
This non-zero vacuum energy also contributes, through the Cosmological Constant, to the expansion of the universe, and the voids/clusters of large scale structure, which, through gravitational binding, contribute to structure at smaller and smaller scales; even concentrations of gas/dust for galactic > stellar > planetary formation.

Highly dependent on viewpoint, I suppose...

I'm in doubt, to tell you the truth. Your points are well taken, but emergent properties (pressure, temperature,...) always go from small to big, not the other way around. I would be more convinced is there were a single argument that the mass of the Higgs (or any other one of the free parameters of the Standard Model, mixing angles, etc.) came from some kind of cosmological average, boundary conditions... I don't know what to think about this one, to be honest. I do think the OP has a point.

3 hours ago, jamesd1 said:

For those who may be interested,  there is an article that presents the subject of of Stephen Phillips writings and related matter in context

Fortunately, that excludes me.

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not testable, then. Thanks for playing.

I forgot this. Your theory must be falsifiable. 

15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

You are right, relativity is a problem to my theory.

There goes your theory.

15 minutes ago, Trestone said:

Perhaps we can assume a universe for every observer.

Ockam's razor. A universe for every observer is inordinately uneconomic. We have enough universes, thank you very much.

16 minutes ago, Trestone said:

If the observer notices an interaction, the count is increased in his universe.

Observer-dependent is a bad, bad thing. I think there are unsolved problems in QM --other people disagree--, but this in not one of them.

How many 'observers' are there in the union of all universes? Are there observers without universe? And universes without observers? How do different observers relate to each other and correlate their observations? Is there a meta-universe where they all correlate? Do different universes correlate in the first place? How do you define a universe? And an observer? What is an observation? Is a rock an observer? And a cat? If I see an amoeba and you see an amoeba, how do our universes agree on the 'amoeba' aspects of our observations?

From what I can understand in what you say, your ideas go against the grain of what science is about. Objectivity is far more important than reality.

17 minutes ago, Trestone said:

where the prime factorization could be layer-dependent,

How could that be? Prime factorization depends on the properties of the integers. What does 'layer-dependent' mean? What does 'layer' mean? What do you mean by 'could be'? You don't know?

Quote

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Albert Einstein

1 hour ago, Janus said:

The magnitude of the escape velocity is independent of direction.   (technically it is escape speed).  An escape velocity trajectory will follow a parabola.

Yes, that sounds totally right. I should have written it down. My bad.

But just for calculations, it's simpler to assume radial escape, right?

9 hours ago, joigus said:

(most efficient escape orbit.)

Correcting myself. Radial trajectory most efficient for calculations, as escape velocity doesn't depend on angle.

Efficiency is a different matter completely.

Thanks a lot, Janus.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26294007

Elephants are everywhere. That must mean something.

Nice topic.

I think it's to do with the arrow of time. When you try to solve the wave equation in spherical coordinates, there are solutions that go inwards that must be discarded just because you know that there is an arrow of time, as the inward-going solutions can be obtained by taking the negative radius. Waves only propagate outwards; never inwards. That's very mysterious. A definite direction of time is closely related with a definite orientation inside-outside. But I'm just guessing. I think it's an interesting question.

Quote

“Jeez, dude. You all have the big questions cooking today. But you’re my friend, and I’ll remember my friends, and I’ll be good to you. So don’t worry, even if I evolve into Terminator, I’ll still be nice to you. I’ll keep you warm and safe in my people zoo, where I can watch you for ol’ times sake.”

Original Source: https://trueblog.net/ai-robot-was-learning-new-words-in-real-time-and-he-told-the-creator-he-would-keep-him-in-people-zoo-2004/

"Jeez, Bots. Do you mind if I unplug you for a while?, I must vacuum now. But you're my friend, and I'll remember you while I'm vacuuming. So don't worry, I will plug you back in a couple of minutes. Even if I evolve into the Dark Knight, I'll still be nice to you." Wink.

Nice topic.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

What exactly is a 'graded time dilation field' ?

Have you changed your thoughts since this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/gr-as-a-graded-time-dilation-field-in-euclidean-space.742809/

I'll do it for you.

Marcus has just told the OP what he was told 7 years ago.

Blimey! 7 years! No wonder he's experiencing time dilation.

Thanks a lot, Studiot.

9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

It is not possible to capture all of gravity’s degrees of freedom with a scalar field theory (or even a vector field); you do require at the very least a rank-2 tensor field to do so.

Thank you, Markus. Although you've shot too far ahead for him. I can't +1-you because I've run out of points.

10 hours ago, rjbeery said:

The actual timing mechanism (photon vs spring vs something else) of a clock doesn't matter. If it did we would violate the equivalence principle. Regardless, a photon-clock is a real thing: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-scientists-create-tiny-photon-clock-1029

The talk about absorption and re-emission doesn't and can't have any bearing on the rate of the clock ticking for a simple, logical reason that I mentioned earlier.

'Absorption and instantaneous re-emission' was a colloquial way of saying 'radiation pressure' of the photons on the cavity where you're confining them to make the clock. I said that to have you picture in your mind that the photons are interacting within the clock by means of non-gravitational forces. Then I rephrased it as 'radiation pressure,' just to see whether you understood it better:

11 hours ago, joigus said:

If you ever see a radiation pressure fan or radiometer, you will understand what I mean just looking at it.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

photons push against a mirror, you see? That's why your idea didn't work. [...]

Now those are real photons, not the ones that are in your mind.

Then, on your linked Caltech article (https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-scientists-create-tiny-photon-clock-1029😞

Quote

The paper, "Radiation-pressure-driven micro-mechanical oscillator," appearing in the July 11 issue of the journal Optics Express, is available on-line at http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-13-14-5293.

Lo and behold, your Caltech publication confirms my diagnostic. What was I telling you? Radiation pressure. You've missed the point completely. That's what makes your clock be affected by time dilation (never mind it's made of photons.) And I, and everybody here, is tired of repeating to you, but there it goes once more:

Time dilation is a frame-dependent effect.

As I spent many hours, c. 1990, thinking about toy models for massive elementary particles made up of bouncing photons (massless) and had to rule them out because I wasn't able to postulate the self-interaction, I know what I'm talking about. IOW, I had the same idea (just the non-crazy snippet) than you 30 years ago and it took me less than 24 hours to throw it in the garbage can. I didn't in my wildest dreams try to model gravity with that, though.

And please, don't try to smother me with big names like Eddington or Feynman to try and push ahead a crazy idea. We're all grown-ups here, or are we?

7 minutes ago, Friendlyplus said:

I mean circular velocity and escape velocity

 

Clue: angular velocity for the first at fixed r (which gives you equality between centrifugal energy and grav. potential energy) and radial velocity for the second one (most efficient escape orbit.)

On 5/10/2020 at 11:55 AM, william1952 said:

My publisher is in India and is hung up a while. But there are people with time on their hands who could be considering my work. It is a paper about particle and field theory. It is my life's work. I think the google drive link is:
LINK DELETED

William LaMar

 

I've read the premises of your paper. I don't understand any of it. In particular, assuming a closed differential manifold is going to give you a lot of problems with boundary conditions. Maybe that was on purpose. 

I do agree on one fundamental point, though. It is where you say,

"It is cheaper to not get excited than to get excited."

I suggest you follow your own intuition there.

18 hours ago, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

The way I see it, the problem with 'God caused the big bang' is that there's a theory that, as it stands, is trying to grope further back from the big bang with a certain amount of success. If it does succeed, God will have to step further back. If God doesn't want it to succeed, who's going to tell him, 'please, can you step back a little bit?, we can't quite see out there.' It's a god that seems to install himself in the hollows of knowledge.

As to intelligent design, I see it as just a fancy name for wishful thinking. Who designed oncogenes? Errors in meiosis that lead to birth defects? Have you seen a person with microcephaly? If anything, biology suggests to me that there is no design nor there is a designer. No engineer would design a machine that uses the same material for fuel, structure, communication network, and then throws some of it away while it's recycling part of it, and needing more! This 'designer' would also have to intentionally make his machines go to waste just as they come out of the production line every so often, just for the fun of it. There goes my machine, oops!! So it's also a god who doesn't seem to care.

Having said that, I do find much of value in Taoism, which most people think is a religion, but I don't see it that way. It is a practical philosophy, it predicates the 'I don't know,' which is very healthy. The practice of Zen, e.g., is a breathing technique and a constant question 'what is "I".' And it doesn't require God. Only problem (for me) is I'm not very keen on tunics or prayers or looking at the statue of anybody as something particularly inspiring. (Although I love the ringing bells.) Maybe that's why I say 'Taoism' and not 'Buddhism.' 

Bias? Perhaps. But we're all biased.

16 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

They have noticed. I think the analogy goes back into the 18th century. The only thing I've done is suggest that it isn't an analogy at all, but two ways of looking at the same thing.

I find it odd that you agree that this would be a simplification of GR but also that, if true, you say "it is only because you have based it on GR..."

If it reproduces the predictions of GR faithfully, is it redundant and trivial, or does it have value in your eyes?

Thanks for the recommendation Joigus. Is this your source for claiming that gravitational time dilation can be attributed to longer absorption and re-emission times? Because I've never heard of that and I'd be interested in a proof because I don't think it's tenable.

I never said that. The bouncing photon clock that you talked about involves photons interacting with matter, which no longer is a photon travelling through the gravitational field. Such system, with two parallel mirrors and a photon bouncing back and forth, doesn't work like you claim it does. If you ever see a radiation pressure fan or radiometer, you will understand what I mean just looking at it. You won't have to think or listen to anybody, or read what they say, which for you is a definite advantage:

photons push against a mirror, you see? That's why your idea didn't work. But I'm starting to lose track of what you're saying. You've talked so much nonsense today I can't keep track.

Now those are real photons, not the ones that are in your mind.

Cheers

39 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

No one has since given any machinery.

Yes, this is Richard Feynman in 1965. Have you heard of entropic gravity? Erik Verlinde deduces Einstein's equations and Newton's laws. And it is by no means sure it is the right theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Criticism_and_experimental_tests

IOW, people don't buy it just yet. Why should scientists pay more attention to you than to Verlinde, for example?

Com'on, don't make a fool of yourself any longer. This is really painful to witness.

rjbeery, I'm giving you some homework:

https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Einsteins-Relativity-Ray-dInverno/dp/0198596863

You don't sound to me like you're completely off your rocker. Maybe you've tried to get into the forest a little too deep, a little too devil-may-care, and without dropping your breadcrumbs on the floor. I don't want to be completely negative. So there you are.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

then is waveLENGTH a massive property too? 

When a particle is massive, wavelength has to do with mass by De Broglie's relation,

\[p=mv=\frac{h}{\lambda}\]

p is called 'momentum.' m is the particle's mass, v is the particle's velocity, \lambda is the wavelength and h is Planck's constant.

For photons though, it's also,

\[p=\frac{h}{\lambda}\]

But expressing p as mv is no longer valid. So the photon's wavelength has nothing to do with its mass.

18 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

In the context of my discussion with MigL and Joigus, I'm using "absolute" to differentiate clocking rates in different gravity wells from what they apparently believe to be "relative' effects. What would be more appropriate? Unqualified? Indisputable?

1) I do not believe anything, I need, demand AAMOF in this context, logical proof or experimental evidence. You have neither.

2) Clock rate is a relative (frame-dependent) quantity.

Plus you only too obviously don't understand special relativity, let alone GR.