rigney

I don't know what a "metaphysical continuum" is.

Gosh!, I would have thought someone with your "aplomb" and Knowledge of physics as you seem to have, woud jump on that right away to help correct or contain my ignorance.

Other than arguable conjecture, is there a reason why such a phenomena might not be happening at this moment? Or has science enlightend us to the point where We know such a thing is impossible? Could our universe not be moving freely out into the "unreal-estate" of a Continuum as this statement is being made?

Somehow this thread has slipped away from the infra red tracking of our universe. But what is more troubling is the different models for our universe, and the way we need to keep buying newer books to stay abreast of the changes. Thank goodness for Google. If not, I'd probably be broke by now. Seriously, many theories are like putting a dough ball on a hook, tossing it into the water to see what bites? Words like branes, strings, ekpyrotics and many other new ones, seemingly very chic at the moment, make me feel rather passe. But where is the valadity for offering many of these theories, other than some fast moving figures that most folks can't even relate to? Plus I've heard this old adage many a time: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with B---S---.

What I'm trying to say is, if we can't get a rope on this critter we call universe, why go hunting for something we have no idea of, or that even exists? I love the fact that we live as part of this fascinating program. And even more caught up in the notion that many intellectuals aren't sure of their answers either. Like, which way is up? Someone, anyone out there; bring a new reasoning into this forum, or better yet this post that can be built upon. There are many hidden answers you are afraid to offer because of ridicule. Just don't sit on them. "We all may learn something", especially, yours truely! C'mon back......

St. Matthew: Chapter 18, verses 1, thru 10

Matt: 18:6. it is better that a mill stone;

Getting close to the 4th of July now, and I know the mere mention of such a holiday will likely wrankle a few very sensative noses. So, while not trying to be political, I believe Mo says it best when he made this song. His name; Mo Bandy, a decent singer and entertaining, and If you're hankerin' for some good, honest country; just Listen!

The universe as we see it happened when a 4d brane collided with another 4d brane in a multidimensional bulk space I like it

Would you put that into context where an uneducated person like me can grasp it? I assure you, I haven't a clue?? Thanks

Merged post follows:

The universe is definitely expanding. Is that what you mean by growth? What do you mean by "just happened?"

No, what I tried to say was, but maybe not too well, many people say the universe came into existance fully grown and just keeps on getting more spread out, not more of it. But then I read today where it could be either "shrinking or expanding". What's a feller to believe as truth?

Since both answers are diametrically opposed and spoken so obligatory, I ain't gonna go there. But, personally I don't understand how an entire universe could just happen without some growth.

Spectral Red Shift

 

Using red shift to extrapolate distances to other galaxies is probably the most accurate method on the books today. But not foolproof by any stretch. Looking along a particular line of radii we will see galaxies that have a red shift according to their distances from us. A galaxy left or right of that line by any margain will have a different wavelength unless it is exactly the same distance away from us as the one we were looking at.

 

Viewing such a small segment of the universe as we do, and trying to make sense of it is mind boggling at best. And since I don't believe in a bent, flat stretched, cubicle or boxed in universe, let me give you my reasons for saying so. For starters, to me; our universe is spherical,! round as a basketball and smooth as a pearl. Quote, unquote Well, maybe I really shouldn't have gone quite that far, but give me a break the spherical thing anyway, ok?

 

So, we're rocketing out into space at some unknown speed because there are no mile markers, maps, sign posts or a speedometer to keep us informed, and wondering at the same time, where in the world are we are going? Well, let me tell you; I feel a lot safer without a map in this situation, than trying to read through a library full of information that leads me absolutely nowhere. As Carl Sagan once said, settle back and enjoy the ride. At least I think it was something like that.

 

First off, just how large is this universe? If we knew, it would probably blow our minds. But since we don't, what is there to be afraid of? I'd like to think of our universe as a big "spherical" bicycle wheel. You know, with the spokes, rim, tire and all, and an axle hub you had to keep greased so the bearings didn't wear out and freeze up. Well, keep that view in mind for a moment as a flat version of what I believe is a "spherical" universe. Now, take away the tire, rim and uncross the overlapping spokes so they point radially away from the hub to form a purely symmetrical unintersecting gradient in any direction. Let's then say that from tip to tip across the entire diameter of any two spokes and in either direction, the distance is 24inches. Now let's say that 24" represents a whole bunch of light years.

 

How many? Who knows? But for arguments sake let's say, A hundred billion light years, and again; from spoke end to spoke end. For instance, from the exact center; it is fifty billion light years in any direction. Somewhere, presumably in the middle of "one of these spokes" our galaxy is racing outward at some immeasurable speed. To what or to where you might query? And you would be right to ask such a question, since there is no end to these spokes, and simply put, because they are only imaginary lines anyway.

 

Before I get totally away from this fantasy world, let's just say that our galaxy is approximately twenty five billion light years from the center of this imaginary spherical wheel and twenty five more out to where the outer perimeter of our universe has extended to at any given moment. According to astronomers we can only see visible light as it looked perhaps 13 billion years ago, which means that the vast majority of our universe is still unaccounted for. Now imagine our Milky Way as the very center of a globular parallax in the middle of one of these spokes. Yes, we can see in any direction for thirteen billion + light years, but I believe it is only a small portion of the universe that is viewable, comparable to that which we cannot see.

So, can red shift help us find other methods of determining where we are in this universe? And with no disrespect to his distinction, will Hubbles law remain the only practical one?

Or, will the: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, be an exact solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity; which describes a simply connected, homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe? Depending on geographical or historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists — Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker — may be named (e.g., Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) or Robertson–Walker (RW) or Friedmann–Lemaître (FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology.[1]

But, when hearing of something simply describe as being connected in a homogenous and isotropic "Expanding or Contracting Universe", I "simply" start to panic!! Someone, Help!!

Sort of a rigid formality. But Hey!, this thing has been going on for thousands of years. Wonder if they already have someone in mind for 2012?

I don't think you can really trace out gravitational field lines like you can with magnetic field lines. Field lines are a conceptual thing, resulting from how we describe magnetism and gravity as "fields;" they just indicate the direction of the force on something in that field.

 

In magnetism, those conceptual lines must go from one pole to another. In gravity, there aren't "poles", and the field lines just go straight in to the mass.

 

Field lines are just a result of how we look at gravity and magnetism mathematically.

While I appreciate your response, my lack of math leaves me to ponder ignorance, "Mine". But in looking back at your sketch on gravity; that is exactly how I perceive a monopole to look like in any atom, regardless of the element. If such a thing as a ball bearing could be magnetized, would it retain both a north pole and south pole as does a bar magnet, or would it be similar to your description of gravity? As I understand it, monopoles exist in subatomic particles and are prevelent in all matter? If I wear out my welcome, just say "chuck it".

Never had the problem, but my daughter did. What a rat race. Actually took three days. But it reminds me of the guy going into a fast food restaurant and ordering a $1.49 salad. Giving the girl $2 bucks, he tells her to keep "two bits" as a tip, expecting at least a quarter back. After mulling the transaction over for a couple minutes, she begins to cry, having never made change like that before.

I think there must be some way to cheat the laws of thermodynamics. Even if the only way to do so is to make a new universe.

But Mr. S, are you "ready" for such an innovation??

2010 is the problem, not 2012. My calendar runs out on Dec 31 of this year! Obviously Scott Adams is predicting the end of the world.

I sure hope he isn't even "close". I believe we still need at least another 100 billion years to get it right.

Far be it from me to discourage questions. The issue I have taken is that your last post didn't ask a question.

 

As has been explained, by others as well as by me, is that "Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles?" is an ill-formed question. We've asked for clarification, and you have not given it. Every time someone discusses magnetics, you bring up gravitation. When gravitation is explained, you hop back to magnetics. They are unrelated.

 

 

So I will ask, yet again: which are we discussing here? Magnetism or gravity?

I suppose both gravity and magnetism since I understand neither. Other than answers I still might like to question, I see no reason for the seeming animosity on your behalf.

Quote:by rigney

Cap'n, I'll not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Quote: Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

Why do you think the answer to that question is within our realm of understanding? It seems to me, that if both space and time is a result of an event, than we can't even use the language in this very sentence: "result" of an "event" implies causality, that something happened somewhere at some time.

The "creation" of the universe whether by physics or a creator is not a sufficient description. The word "creation" implies a process - no matter how short - of something changing from one state into another, such as the state of no Universe into the very first moment of the Universe. Nothing can change state without time. Nothing has a definable state without space.

 

Our minds and our entire way of conceiving the Universe is the result of casual events within space over time, and has adapted to thinking about patterns in space over time.

 

 

Whether the universe was the result of a creator or a non-volitional event - I don't think we will ever know.

 

Without an actual answer, I prefer to leave the question marked as "unknown" and not assume to fill it with a creator. I don't need an answer. If I was to lean one way or the other, it's towards natural creation without volition of some being... because we've come to learn over and over again that incredibly complex systems emerge from simple ones.

That's a lesson drawn from observations within space and time, but it's the only environment we have to analyze. I would have to see some evidence that this is unlikely to be the case in the creation of the Universe itself, and "not having a definitive answer" is not evidence. It's just lack of an answer.

It's likely those two words: Creator and Creation add more conflict than harmony, between religious factions. Arguably, science finds itself in this quandry from time to time, competing for bragging rights to a specific formula or system. So, we wind up with three or four different ones in tandem, which isn't bad. Eventually though, science always comes up with an answer, making progress to the next step a lot easier. Not so with religion. Glad to get your reply.

Is there a question here?

 

 

Is the topic magnetic monopoles? Why is gravity being brought up? Please clarify what this thread is about. This is getting annoying.

SwansonT, Seems you have a rather preceptive nuance to my questions or responses. My not understanding, and replying with more questioning; seems to have some how ruffled your feathers. And while I mean no disrespect, I suggest you read the entire thread befor becoming so bored with my ignorance. I have worked in industry my entire life and never heard a stupid question. But on occassion, some of my answers may have seemed that way. Rarely do I take a finite stand to assume anything. So, not being a professional in any field, I initiated this thread with what seemed to be a sensible question and have yet to find an answer that is palpable.

Merged post follows:

I think there's some confusion here about the term "monopole" and how it can apply to gravitation, magnetism, and electrical fields.

 

"Monopole" doesn't just mean "magnetic monopole," where there's just a North pole sitting there. (You know how the magnetic field of a bar magnet goes out one end and around to the other? The magnetic field of a monopole just goes out. Or in.)

 

"Monopole" could also refer to a gravitational field. For example, here's the gravitational field of the Earth:

 

 

Gravity acts like a field like magnetism acts like a field. You can draw field lines for gravity just as you can for a bar magnet.

 

So there are gravitational monopoles and electrical monopoles. But there aren't magnetic ones.

Cap'n, I'l not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

Went to Google and typed in "Magnetic Monopole". I don't know exactly what all of it means, but there were pages of it.

News Share Blog Cite Print Email BookmarkMagnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time

ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie have, in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.

Jonathan Morris, Alan Tennant and colleagues (HZB) undertook a neutron scattering experiment at the Berlin research reactor. The material under investigation was a single crystal of Dysprosium Titanate. This material crystallises in a quite remarkable geometry, the so called pyrochlore-lattice. With the help of neutron scattering, Morris and Tennant show that the magnetic moments inside the material had reorganised into so-called 'spin-spaghetti'. This name comes from the ordering of the dipoles themselves, such that a network of contorted tubes (strings) develops, through which magnetic flux is transported. These can be made visible by their interaction with the neutrons which themselves carry a magnetic moment. Thus the neutrons scatter as a reciprocal representation of the Strings.

During the neutron scattering measurements a magnetic field was applied to the crystal by the researchers. With this field they could influence the symmetry and orientation of the strings. Thereby it was possible to reduce the density of the string networks and promote the monopole dissociation. As a result, at temperatures from 0.6 to 2 Kelvin, the strings are visible and have magnetic monopoles at their ends.

The signature of a gas made up by these monopoles has also been observed in heat capacity measured by Bastian Klemke (HZB). Providing further confirmation of the existence of monopoles and showing that they interact in the same way as electric charges.

In this work the researchers, for the first time, attest that monopoles exist as emergent states of matter, i.e. they emerge from special arrangements of dipoles and are completely different from the constituents of the material. However, alongside this fundamental knowledge, Jonathan Morris explains the further meaning of the results: "We are writing about new, fundamental properties of matter. These properties are generally valid for materials with the same topology, that is for magnetic moments on the pyrochlore lattice. For the development of new technologies this can have big implications. Above all, it signifies the first time fractionalisation in three dimensions is observed."

Well!, at what, and what type of monopole are we dealing with, when speculating gravitational forces? Since I don't know, I hope the question is appropriate.

I couldn't have said it better myself. If I was leaning a bit to my left with the comment, it's just that I make a better draw using my right hand. Wasn't trying to inspire or make you uncomfortable at all, just stating what I believe to be fact. Had I aspired to be a preacher or a politician, I'd stay on a stump. And bend your mind? If you let someone do that without absolute conviction and take a chance of going to "blaas" in a hand basket, you're just as bad off as the nut trying to make his case. Naa!, If you feel a need for something different in your life, you'll find it. And if you think I'm trying to use reverse phychology, ?

 

What is this?

What little I know of quantum physics or mechanics wouldn't fill a gnats ear. But a sub-particle, preferably the quark; I hope can one day be shown as the transitional phase between the world of anti-energy and our world of matter. The word Quauq seemed appropriate.

Merged post follows:

Yes, you need to examine the field lines.

 

Think about the gravitational field around a massive, spherically symmetric, non-rotating body.

That's my problem. I can't imagine a magnetic field unless it is a natural lode stone, having been induced electrically to form a magnet, or generated from an external source to propel something such as a motor/generator. But each of these are bipolar or multipolar conditions. My thought is, if a single ballbearing could be magnetised spherically to retain "either" an attractive or repulsive state on every point of its surface, that to me would be a monopole. I believe this is the natural phenomenon inside each atom from inception.

monopolar in what? magnetism? electrostatics? gravitational? what?

 

you can't just say monopolar without a qualification of what its a monopole of.

I really thought there was only one answer to monopole. I thought it meant only one pole. If I may ask, what is a gravitational monopole?

AJB, both you and Swansont's understanding of the question is far beyond my ability to answer. Math to me is like pouring oil and water together, they just don't mix. But, if I can use a: "What If". What if every particle of matter in the universe is endowed with this innate trait of being monopolar as the result of Quauqism?

The universe is astonishing enough without having to add God to it.

Isn't it though? But what is even more amazing is that we have been living through the preamble of scientific convention for the past few thousand years and are just now getting down to the culmination of two basic issues. Where did it all come from and what is it all about? As mentioned in a couple earlier posts, while I'm a bit more agnostic than religious, I tend to see us as an abstraction, rather than just a casual convenience???

Merged post follows:

I came from my mother's vagina. That's how those sort of things usually happen.

Your'e lucky! As much as I like to drink with my sex, I'm careful; and would have likely flushed ya down the john!

No i dont think "wow thats good work God". I'd marvel at what nature can do given enough time and that the image of beauty came from utter chaos

Moontanman made almost the same comment. If there was utter chaos in the beginning, can you relate to me from where it came? If you can, and without equivocation???, I will forsake my creator.

Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles? Since we can explain the effects of what we consider gravity to be through very sophisticated formulation; is it possible that monopoles might fit into that same catagory?