Rebel.esd

Density. The air molecule WANTS to keep falling, but its pushed up by the denser molecules beneath it.

That's why its in quotes. I'm not implying that there are regular amounts of negative mass somewhere in our galaxy. Honestly, I don't see any reason why spacetime can't curve in another direction, the problem just becomes one of how could there be negative mass. In another idea, consider how much mass you have in galaxies. Imagine the "dips" in space time, with large areas in between. Somewhere in that field of space time you'd have a highest point. If human experience had caused us to exist in inter-galactic space, we would have named the 'force' pushing us away. I actually am working on a theory that would explain how negative mass could exist, but, if you've read my other posts, I am just now starting college; this obviously makes it hard for me to build a mathematical framework for such a theory. Also, the term "anti-gravity" is a bad one. Either way, its just gravity. The prefix is just to distinguish the direction of the force...

E=mc^2

An observer giving in to every single force acting upon them is not moving in relation to 'spacetime'. Not that I'm relating spacetime to a physical entity. It's an idea taken from Relativity: GR is required because they're gravity, SR is only proper in a zero gravity field environment, an 'empty' universe as it were. Thus, a "perfect" observer would feel no forces, since they wouldn't be accelerating.

Stuff for first page: Richard Feynman's "Sum of histories" is a good way to explain single particle travel in the double slit experment. The particle can travel either left or right, and therefore, the histories of ALL the paths it can take through the left and ALL the paths in can take through the right need to be taken into account. If you graphed these possibilities, you'd have a pretty good image of a pair of probability waves. Then you could combine them into a single wave. Fuzzy...

Lynds is mired in the details of human experience. Relativity proved that time doesn't flow. The fact that a particle can exist in a haze of probability one "moment", and as a definite particle the next proves that time has locations just as real as space. Personally, I just think Lynds is just trying to destroy Calculus.

Wasn't there a release a while back which proposed that early on matter outbalanced antimatter because of anti-neutrinos becoming neutrinos? I'll look for it.

The four dimensions (three of space, 1 of time) that we experience are very large. The remaining dimensions are required in order to make string theory 'work' as it were. They allow strings to curl up and to expand, and are used to define the movements of subatomic particles. Various other variants of string theory have higher numbers of dimensions. The question is whether string-theory is reality, or if it is just a clever mathematical device which just happens to come up with real results. For semantics sake, its equivilant to you recieving two apples. Now, you could simply say "I had zero apples, and i recieved two, which is why i have two apples, the result", or you could say "I had zero apples, then, after a large exchange of apples, i ended up with two". The math leads to realistic results, but, since we can't actually experience the scale of strings, we don't know if newer theories are accurate. The ultimate test of any frame in physics is whether it accurately describes extremes. Classical physics breaks down at extreme scales and extreme speeds, reltativistic physics breaks down at small scales, quantum physics becomes completely impractical at large scales.

"Anti-gravity" obvsiously exists, because the universe's expansion is accelerating, not slowing. However, we don't know what it is. Fundamentally we don't really know what gravity is. General Relativity defines it as the warping of spacetime, and the resultant "compulsion" to conform to the curve, whereas newer theories incorporate the elusive "graviton" into their predictions. To make it easy to think about, imagine you have a giant sheet of material, and on it you've placed ball bearings. If someone pulls the material down, the ball bearings rush towards the lowest point. That's like gravity, a curve in a three dimensional spacetime creates a point for matter to flow through, and the curve is increased by the amount of matter present. If somehow we could create something of negative mass (you pulling up on our giant material) we woul have an anti-gravitic-field. I personally have several ideas which i can't talk about for semantics sake.

Post over mine: Absolute zero zone? The fact is, Absolute zero is still hypothetical. Black holes are the most energetic objects in the universe, because they take in alot more energy than they give off, and are therefore not at absolute zero. Secondly, AZ can only apply to particles, not 'empty' spacetime. We can get very very very close to absolute zero on earth, but by its very nature nothing can reach absolute zero: second law of thermodynamics makes sure of that. The hole "black hole universe" idea has some psuedoscientific grounding though, in that a mass black hole would be a singularity. However, that would be a stagnant, high entropy universe*. A hell of a lot of energy would be needed to kick that back into uniform cosmic gas. *Contrary to what you might think, a black hole is NOT an organized item. Just because its compressed doesn't give it low entropy. Since any change within a black hole would go completely unnoticed, it has very high entropy. So, the "big bang" occured when, for some reason, an unorganized, high entropy singularity was hit with enough energy to go into a perfectly uniform distribution of material accross an infinite expanse of space. Thus, our universe WANTS to be a high entropy singularity again.

There's only one reason that we had to come up with the "big bang" theory, and that's logic. Mathematically, unless the early universe was highly ordered, we wouldn't experience causality. Whereas human experience shows the majority of things going from ordered to disordered, in a universe without a big bang, the probability of something being disordered would be much higher, so for us to find a highly ordered object would force us to assume that it had been formed from disordered parts. As for black holes, they are simply the ultimate experession of disorder, because the highest state for our universe to be in would be a uniform hot nebula. Gravity broke that down into clumps we see as galaxies, and further down into clumps we know as black holes. Also, we really don't know anything about a "universal edge" as it were. Spacetime is, proven, curved, and thus an edge would only exist in a four-dimensional model of the universe. More modern theories place us on an expanded string which manifests itself as our three-dimensional spacetime, which exists in only a small fraction of real "space". Here's one way to think about it. Imagine a "1" space-dimensional universe occupied by a dot. This dot can only move forward or backward. Since its spaceitme is curved, the "line" of his universe forms a circle, and thus if he travels long enough he'll arrive back at the spot where he started. Now, imagine this universe-circle is really one slice of a tube. Theres room for an infinite number of "1" dimensional circles. Moving up, we need to make a "2" space-dimensional universe. So, we have a circle for length and a circle for width (a sphere as it were). If a dot in this universe moves in any direction, he'll arrive back at the spot he's at. Thus, the 2 dimensional universe rests on a three dimensional frame. This frame could coexist as a slice of a 4-dimensional "super-cylinder" as it were. Finally, you have us, a "3" space-dimensional universe. If we took a ship and went up, or down, or left, or right, or forward, or backward, we'd end up at the same spot in space, eventually. Thus, according to our previous logic, we are on the surface of a 4-dimensional "super-sphere", which could theoretically be a slice of a 5-dimensional "super-super-cylinder". Thus an infinite number of universes could exist right next to eachother, at an indistinguisable distance from us, but in a direction we can't travel. This is the idea of a "sphereical" (or rather, supersphereical) universe: we exist as a three dimensional surface on a four dimensional object, just as the flat-universe would exist as a two dimensional surface on a three dimensional object. In reality, our universe therefor has 4 observable dimensions of space: height, width, depth, and an unnamed fourth, which we can only observe by the fact that spacetime curves. -Ravings of a student at 2:30 AM; take with caution.//

My favorite thing about this is that if you were to (somehow) become an absolutely perfect frame of reference, you would experience an infinite amount of time. Also, if you don't mind gaining infinite mass, you can see every point in the universe in literally no time at all.

By its very nature, in order to "detect" something a detector must interact with it, and as soon as a particle is interacted it is "compelled" to take on a definite property. So, if the detectors are off (and not influencing the particle) it can continue its happy little waltz through the haze of probability, allowing both histories to factor into its destination.

I'm inclined not to describe photons as moving, but rather that the point where they're most likely to be found "moves" throughout spacetime. Is there anything wrong with that understanding?