Bill Angel

In order to push scientific and technological advancement people must and do continually find new ways of applying or combining old knowledge that in their purist form may not be closely related, to me that is thinking outside the box....

What I meant by paradigm shifting breakthroughs are scientific discoveries that significantly alter our perception of nature, for example matter wave duality, and / or our place or relationship to it, for example man made climate change. Basically by definition a paradigm shift is paired with the casting off of previously held beliefs that turned out to be wrong, or in other words the realization that our box has failed us.

I agree with what you said and thought that this cartoon makes a related point in a humorous fashion.

Right, Right, But when we get to the point of where an entire universe can be defined by a single quantum state we are without spatial coordinates because the entire graph you'd produce with this would be a single point, This is where I get my conjecture and question that aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions? Because although we never can define the entire universe in a single quantum state, it can be defined by a single, infinitely complex quantum state, just not by means within our reach.

The statement "aren't we all transcendental of dimensions, or dimensionless because we exist in all dimensions?" is problematical. One reason it is is because of the properties of gravity. Gravity manifests itself in three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. If a mass produced a gravitational force in more than three spatial dimensions (or put another way warped a region of spacetime with a dimensionality greater than 4) then the force would be weaker in the three spatial dimensions that we live in, that is to say the force of gravity would no longer obey the inverse square law over distance in the three spatial dimensions that we inhabit, the force would decrease faster than 1/r^2. If this were the case then galaxies would never form and stars producing energy by nuclear fusion would not exist. Hence we would not be here to discuss these issues. This is one of the criticisms that physicists make of string theory, that having the flexibility via the mathematics to posit any number of spatial dimensions for a universe can result in a universe barren of features like galaxies, stars, planets, and of course life.

In astronomy, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are three scientific laws describing the motion of planets around the Sun.

 

1) The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2) A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3) The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

 

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

These laws of planetary motion can be drived from Newton's theory of Gravitation.

 

Since the motion of the planets can be predicted from a mathematical derivation based on Newton's theory of Gravitation, arn't the planets "doing the math" as they orbit around the Sun?

Physics is a very very difficult subject, especially topics such as quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory, thermodynamics, quantum statistical mechanics, particle physics, supersymmetry, quantum gravity, string/M-theory etc.

 

You need to work extremely extremely hard to become really good in physics but considering that the payment for all those years of effort is not good I don't think it's really worth it to study physics.

An excellent book came out in 2011 : Quantum Man, Richard Feynman's life in Science, by Lawrence M Krauss.

The author goes to great lengths to explain the value of Feynman's contributions to the scientific community. While his contributions are not necessarily easy to grasp, making the effort to read the book is still I think worthwhile.

But yes, I am arguing that any claim that a property can be shared among distinct objects is an abstraction and thus a fabrication. The redness of apple one may be similar to the redness of apple two but it is fundamentally tied to every other property of apple one, such as distinct location in space time.

 

I believe that most physicists would disagree with you on this point. There are particles called fermions, which are particles with half integer spin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

All fermions obey Fermi Dirac statistics, irrespective of their locations in space time. Fermions also obey the Pauli exclusion principle, irrespective of their individual locations in space time

So I feel comfortable in saying that while mathematics seems real enough upon initial examination, and could be considered real from a certain point of view, it is in fact not an abstract truth within the objective universe, but an interpretation of some parts of the universe. Most healthy brains have a number sense because numbers and the related sciences are pretty useful on balance, but just because it feels real doesn't make it so.

What science considers to be the "abstract truth within an objective universe" are the conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum.

Two observers in different reference frames won't necessarily see the same thing, especially if one reference frame is moving at close to the speed of light relative to the other reference frame. But they should both see adherence to the same conservation laws of physics in the situation or events that they are both observing.

XENON1T could make history or spell the end for 'supersymmetric' dark matter.

http://www.nature.com/news/largest-ever-dark-matter-experiment-poised-to-test-popular-theory-1.18772

 

I agree. It isn't clear that there is a hard distinction between the "conscious" mind and the rest of the brain. And if only the conscious mind were "you", who runs the rest of it?

Riding a bicycle involves coordination between one's sense of balance and the movements of one's body to keep the bike from toppling over. One has to be conscious to ride a bicycle (one cannot do it in one's sleep) but listening to and understanding an explanation of how to ride a bicycle is not sufficient in itself for mastering the technique.

Imagine the concept of the self as a class in object oriented programming, a collection of information coupled with a set of instructions which the brain can utilise to simulate the self and to make decisions according to the concept of the self. All may still be calculated deterministically but there is a sense of free will if we imagine the brain attempting to simulate free will according to a conception of the self using pseudo-randomness to make certain calculations in order to make approximately random decisions from a range of suitable options partially based on stored information pertaining to will and preference.

 

Here is the title and introduction to a book that covers topics related to the issues that you raised in terms of a different type of computational approach:

 

Neural Cell Behavior and Fuzzy Logic: The Being of Neural Cells and Mathematics of Feeling

 

"This book covers at an advanced level the most fundamental ideas, concepts and methods in the field of applications of fuzzy logic to the study of neural cell behavior. Motivation and awareness are examined from a physiological and biochemical perspective illustrating fuzzy mechanisms of complex systems."

I think that mathematics exists in the universe. I mean how else is someone going to teach quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity and string theory without using mathematics?

In the equations of the fields that you mentioned, on occasion infinities appear. Are these infinities indicators that the mathematical descriptions have broken down, or can some physical quantity really have the value of infinity?

Are old photo albums dopamine reservoirs ?

What is nostalgia ?

And does it invoke a feeling of euphoria, more specifically when browsing old photo albums ?

Also do hard copies of photos better do this than soft copies ?

On the subject of nostalgia and photography, it was common years ago to have family gatherings where old home movies would be shown, or perhaps slide shows. Old home movies of older children when they were toddlers, when shown at a family gathering, would inevitably induce feelings of nostalgia and even euphoria in the older generations present (the parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents). But the younger generation, viewing these images taken years earlier of themselves as awkward toddlers, might just feel a sense of irritation or of boredom.

Lawrence Krauss wrote an article in the New Yorker titled "Ben Carson's Scientific Ignorance" that is worth a read. Because it's his speciality, Dr Krauss is particularly critical of Carson's assertions in the field of cosmology and the Big Bang. See http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance

 

Carson should have stuck to brain surgery, a field in which he apparently was respected.

Carson, a Seventh-day Adventist, has connected to evangelical voters in part by describing his own spiritual journey.

 

He said he has felt the hand of God at several key moments in his life, including a dramatic near-miss traffic accident and receiving an A-grade on a chemistry exam for which he felt badly unprepared.

 

See http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/ben-carson-2016-childhood-violence/index.html

Its offensive to suggest that this God people believe in would allow innocent people to die in auto accidents but intervene specifically in this traffic situation just to spare his life. And why would a deity miraculously impart to him the knowledge needed to get an A on a chemistry exam, but still keep his mind clouded so he can't recognize the validity of evolutionary biology?

I've developed a compulsive interest in doing crossword puzzles on my computer. Since I'm 67 years old and retired it doesn't bother anyone else if I spend my time this way. I get a positive reinforcement each time that I finish one. When I was younger and working I occasionally sat next to people on buses who were doing the crossword puzzles in newspapers, and was critical of them for doing that, considering it to be a waste of time. I kept my opinion to myself, however.

What is a Thought Atom? Such a notion has miniaturization, densification and visualization capacity effectuality inherent.

 

Author: David Elkins

 

I agree that "thought atom" has a vague meaning. Perhaps it has a conceptual connection to Leibniz's idea of a Monad.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz#The_monads

 

The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony

 

Here is a quote from another article about this same work titled

 

"Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning"

 

There are other problems brewing in physics namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.

Das and his colleagues ...looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle.

Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time. The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.

See http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

 

So the claim here is that these theoreticians have reconciled general relativity and quantum mechanics, but have done so by introducing hidden variables that allow the seemingly probabilistic bahavior of subatomic particles to now be considered deterministic.

In my analogy, water is the matter and space is expanding between the molecules of water until it is a thin film.

 

Edit: Re-reading everything and I guess my analogy is not the same as Phi's analogy. Still, I am pretty sure what I am saying is conceptually similar to what Phi is saying.

 

Also, the "thin film of water" part is coming from this article that I read: http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

 

Here is where that additional part is coming from:

 

If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is "flat" with zero curvature like a sheet of paper, according to NASA. If so, the universe has no bounds and will expand forever, but the rate of expansion will gradually approach zero after an infinite amount of time. Recent measurements suggest that the universe is flat with only a 2 percent margin of error.

I was getting the idea of the geometry of the universe being flat mixed up with the expansion of space.

 

Which is also another thing I am wondering about. Will the universe expand forever or will it reach a critical point where it starts collapsing on itself?

Here is another analysis of the rate of expansion of space:

Recent observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating or speeding up... which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the dark energy. Unlike gravity which works to slow the expansion down, dark energy works to speed the expansion up. If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

One scenario is that in the distant future the expansion of space (driven by this dark energy) will accelerate to reach the point where all the atoms of the universe are ripped apart.

Hello All,

I found this article:

Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Daily Mail Online

 

"Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.

Now that she has studied the Planck data, Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven.

Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own.

 

She said: 'These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang.

'They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen.'

 

 

What do You guys think?

 

She still seems to be the only researcher who has come to the conclustion that the Plank data supports her multiverse hypothesis.

 

In the article The Kavli Foundation Q&A: What Has Planck Taught Us About the Early Universe? (published in February of 2015) there is no mention of the Plank data supporting her hypothesis. This article is an interview with Dr. George Efstathiou, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge and one of the leaders of the Planck mission.

 

In the article Beyond the Outer Limits: Maps of radiation left over from the Big Bang may show traces of universes besides our own. (published in October 2014) Dr. Efstathiou asserts that he and his team were examining the Plank data to see if there were in fact anomalies in the cosmic microwave background radiation that would present a compelling case in support of the mutiverse hypothesis. He did not choose to discuss the multiverse hypothesis in his subsequent interview (February 2015) which would seem to indicate that the Planck data analysis did not present a compelling case in support of Laura Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis.

Interesting, but where did the branes come from before that?

 

Are the two branes currently overlapping or did they pass right through each other?

How does time work with another dimension and branes that move and able to collide at some point, is the movement of the branes through the extra dimension relative to our spacetime?

How long would it take for them to pass through each other?

Does the universe exist at the intersection of two branes (I picture that like a ven diagram), or was that just where the orgin in 4d is?

 

Are the branes thought to be identical?

What does a brane consist of before the collision?

Does the extra dimension contain more branes, why would only 2 exist if not, why not 1 or none?

Is there a possibility of our universe colliding with another brane?

What are the probabilites of a collison in extra dimensional space?

 

I speculated on a type of mirror universe recently, where one side fails and collides with the other side. It's a similar idea, but I was explaining it as one moves back in time (it's time) towards the origin http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91649-the-chimrea-twin-universe/#entry888566

 

What if the branes are produced as a pair, extra dimensional space contains a probability of producing a pair of branes, like our universes virtual particles, which exactly balance and so don't violate conservation of energy. The branes, which are opposite but equal, are able to move in this extra dimension and collide.

 

Regarding a mirror universe.

http://www.pbs.org/w...runs-backwards/

 

Those a certainly good questions.

Here are some conjectures that relate to some of them.

 

 

The latest version of braneworld cosmology is the giant brane collision model, also known as the Ekpyrotic Universe, or the Big Splat.

The Ekpyrotic Universe starts out as a cold, flat, static five-dimensional spacetime that is close to being a supersymmetric BPS state, meaning a state invariant under some special subalgebra of the supersymmetry algebra. The four space dimensions of the bulk are bounded by two three-dimensional walls or three-branes, and one of those three-branes makes up the space that we live on.

But how does the Universe evolve to give the Big Bang cosmology for which there is so much observational evidence? The Ekpyrotic theory postulates that there is a third three-brane loose between the two bounding branes of the four dimensional bulk world, and when this brane collides with the brane on which we live, the energy from the collision heats up our brane and the Big Bang occurs in our visible Universe as described elsewhere in this site.

This proposal is quite new, and it remains to be seen whether it will survive careful scrutiny.

See Inflation vs. the giant brane collision

It's not another universe the universe would then simply be extended to include the higher dimensional space. You cannot have effects occurring over non existent boundaries, there must be some connection which the gravitons pass through. In this case our spacetime would simply be a subset of a larger universe.

Universe by definition literally means the entirety of everything that exists.

I grasp your point. There is however a tie in between what I was suggesting and the so called Ekpyrotic Universe, which is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The tie in is that the Ekpyrotic model posits as I do the gravitational interaction between two branes that are situated close to each other. See http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

 

Here is an animation by Neil Turok showing the interaction between two branes which illustrate his Ekpyrotic Universe model. His animation could also serve to illustrate the gravitational interaction between two branes corresponding to two separate worlds. From the perspective of our world, the matter in the other world would be dark matter whose presence is felt only via gravitational attraction i. e. the exchange of gravitons.

 

Didn't read the link , but yes, strings and branes could affect gravity.

In string theory the graviton is the only boson that is a closed loop and therefore not confined to a brane, while brane bound gauge bosons and fermions are open ended strings where the ends are attached to a brane.

That means that gravity could 'leak' into other dimensions. This was originally postulated in relation to compactified, Planck scale dimensions.

what if the idea of the other dimensions ( presumably within our universe) possibly interacting with our 3Ds were instead not interactions between dimensions, but between universes? ..?

Here is a speculative idea on the dark matter problem that relates to the issues mentioned in the above two posts.:

Dark matter would only interact with visible matter gravitationally, i.e. only through the exchange of gravitons, if it existed IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE. The idea that matter in our universe could be interacting with matter in another universe is an idea taken seriously by string theorists. For example, the idea is discussed in the book "The Hidden Reality, Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene

The GI Bill provided a free ride, and a stipend for living expenses.

 

The legislation was passed after the service, at the end of WWII. It was not an agreement going in. No soldier going into WWII had been promised free college in return for service.

 

It had paid for the education of about eight million soldiers by the late 1950s, which together with their families directly affected about a third of the population of the US.

 

And it wasn't charity. It was of enormous benefit to the entire country, one of the best things the US has ever done for itself, from a strictly self-interested point of view.

I served in the military during the Vietnam era, and the GI Bill benefits Vietnam era veterans got were nowhere near as generous as those that were offered to the veterans of World War II.

One technology that has not been mentioned yet is steam power. The use of steam power was initially devoted to peacetime persuits: pumping the water out of coal mines, spinning wool and weaving cloth. The use of steam engines to power battleships or to manufacture armaments came later. A good book on this subject is “The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention” by William Rosen.

The existence of dark matter has been confirmed by the phenomena of "gravitational lensing". Astronomers can estimate the amount of dark matter contained in a galactic cluster by how much the light of more distant galaxies is distorted by passing near the cluster.

 

See Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing

 

This estimate of the amount of dark matter present would still remain valid even if magnetic effects played a role in galactic dynamics and spiral arm formation.

Bill Angel,

 

Yeah, but I don't want to be "done" yet. My grandfather worked into his late eighties and worked up until the week that he died. I still have something to contribute and I think for instance that my tendency to rely on human judgment over the decisions of the computerized "system", is a philosophy that should not yet be discarded.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I would agree with you on that point. As you state it is the perspective and judgment of us oldsters that is our greatest asset. I recognize that people like Steve Jobs make important contributions as very young men, but most young men don't have the abilities that he had. One ability that Steve Jobs had as young man that I did not have was prescience, the ability to envision how microprocessor based personal computers could revolutionize society. I did some projects with microprocessors back in the 1970s, and the projects were successful as far as they went, but I did not get as fired up about their potential to transform society as he did. As a consequence his net worth when he died was 11 billion dollars, while I'm just getting by on my Social Security.