Jump to content

md65536

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by md65536

  1. That is impossible. It violates conservation of disappointment laws. Otherwise, you could extract disappointment, and use it to power some kind of machine...? I'll admit to being frustrated by the speculations forum, too. There just aren't really a lot of people looking for new (and crazy or underdeveloped) ideas to explore and discuss. Those looking for real science in a speculations forum probably don't have the understanding of science needed to do serious collaboration. Those with the understanding already have enough well-developed ideas to think about, and will tend to see what's wro
  2. After more thought on black hole singularities being coordinate singularities (or if I'm using the term wrong, rather: singularities that disappear depending on where you view them from), I figure that the solution that makes the most sense is that, uh... Say you're outside a black hole and that most of its mass is in the singularity, but not all of it is. As you pass the event horizon and approach the singularity, suppose that rather than the singularity disappearing, that more and more of its mass appears as "normal matter" outside the singularity, which itself becomes less massive. You
  3. No, twin A would not see anybody jump forward in time. I used to think that too... see this thread: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__569630 Twin A would see B's and Earth's time appearing to run faster at some point. It would calculate that their times are running slower. What I mean is, suppose everybody was broadcasting a timing signal every second. As twin A approaches Earth, she is moving toward each subsequent signal from Earth and "observes" them at a rate greater than one per second. Supposing A could turn around instantly, on the return trip she would see Earth time appearing
  4. I mean gamma = 2... I had the reciprocal. Other than that is my post correct? Or it doesn't make enough sense??? Obviously I don't do the math enough, but would a Minkowski diagram show the symmetry as it is observed by the twins or by Earth? Or does no one do relativity calculations based on what is seen vs what is calculated?
  5. Suppose both twins A and B leave Earth in opposite directions and each travel for one year (rocket time) with gamma = 0.5 (relative to Earth), then return at the same speed. My understanding of relativity is that they'll both return to find the earth aged 4 years while they've each aged 2. They remain the same age. But I can't figure this out in terms of what they'd each observe. Twin A would see Earth time appear to run slow as she retreated from it, and then appear to run fast as she approached. Would she not also see the same thing happening to Twin B? Twin B would appear to ag
  6. This is amazing. I don't know what to make of it. Do you think Verlinde was talking about images and the sounds of words in his paper? Or do you think it is the key to understanding his work, which he perhaps failed to grasp? Do you think that this really has any relation to an actual physical reality or to our understanding of it? If so, how could you demonstrate its physical reality, or what test could disprove it? So far all I got out of this is "Some things resemble other things (in shape and/or word sound)". To me, this is completely explainable in terms of how the brain interpre
  7. md65536

    C?

    I recently read in Carl Sagan's Cosmos that some of Einstein's early thought experiments leading to special relativity involved imagining such collisions. See: http://www.american-buddha.com/journeys.space.time.htm and search for "cart" to skip to the relavent bit. The paradoxes and impossible situations happen only without special relativity.
  8. I don't know what all this is but it's not science. The holographic principle is about science. You're taking it very far out of context, ignoring the science, and applying thick layers of interpretation (I suppose we all do that to some degree and must allow for it among us amateur scientists in a speculations forum). But I don't think your ideas have any correlation with the holographic principle that you mention in your original post. Misapplying other theories to your own probably does little more than confuse yourself and others. Admittedly I am guilty of it too. I don't plan to read
  9. I know nothing but I feel like babbling. First, I don't think it's advisable to imagine a physical hologram. To do so, you will be imagining a specific 2D surface within a 3D geometrical space. It defeats the purpose of considering 3D geometry as emergent if you're picturing it in terms of 3D geometry. Instead of imagining a physical hologram, just consider its properties independently of a physical manifestation. Here are 2 properties of holograms: 1. All the 3-dimensional information is encoded in a 2-dimensional surface. What this means is that all the information you can stuff in
  10. I think it's right. My own conjectures lead to a similar idea... I posted about it in Speculations in the past week or so, but I don't have the math or the vocabulary to express the idea as precisely or sensibly. Thanks for the link to the paper. It should help me a lot. "Many physicists believe that ... space-time geometry [is] emergent." I believe this is the way to express an idea I've used in all my speculative posts, recently. I definitely agree with what I've read (skimmed) in the paper.
  11. Corollary: If the apparent radius of a volume of space is determined by entropy, then the size of the universe could be determined by entropy. The fact that the universe is expanding might be due to the way that entropy is increasing. The fact that the expansion is accelerating, would have something to do with entropy increasing above some "nominal" rate. As a vague guess: Normal energy interactions would increase entropy at a "normal" fixed rate, while the splitting of particles or energy would increase that rate to a new higher but also fixed rate. More particles may mean more oppor
  12. A pedantic correction: It's just "billions of kelvin". The kelvin is not referred to or typeset as a degree. To assume something is true you'd want reason to accept it as true, such as consistent observation or logical deduction. The idea that it all came from nothing isn't based on assumptions, but on reasoning and evidence. It's definitely reasonable to suggest that the universe could return to nothing, but you'd have to provide the reasoning before I'd call it a rational assumption. I don't think "it was like that before so it will return to that state" is a reasonable self-evide
  13. A typical interpretation of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is that in one reality, the cat will die, and in another it will continue to live a long and prosperous life. If every probabilistic event has each outcome realized in a different reality, the butterfly effect implies that any 2 similar realities would quickly become very different. These could be called divergent alternate realities. Special relativity can describe a much milder interpretation. If we assume that any cat must at some time die, then relativity of simultaneity tells us that that moment isn't the same for al
  14. Why not just post a link? There's nothing against that... no need to axe permission. The closest applicable rule I can see is 7. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your site in your signature, but don't go around making dozens of threads about it.
  15. Well it's over my head, but... As you mentioned, time is relative. If part of the universe is expanding away from you at a certain speed, that will affect the rate at which clocks tick in that area, as observed by you. The solar system for example is not expanding such that things are moving away from each other at a rate approaching c. So time anywhere in the solar system, viewed from anywhere else in the solar system, would not change much over a billion years due to expansion of the universe. It has expanded at most a light hour or whatever it is, in its history. Time as we know it... a
  16. I don't follow your reasoning that matter and consciousness must behave differently regarding alternate universes. Why would one consciousness experience what a copy experiences? Aren't they separate? And if not, why would matter be separate from its copies? Wouldn't you assume that matter on Earth would "experience the gravitational pull of an infinite number of Earths" or something? There is probably some interpretation of QM that will let you develop these ideas further, but personally I think the entire idea of parallel universes is unnecessarily complicated and likely false.
  17. And moving in the opposite direction is impossible... "In 1958, David Finkelstein identified the Schwarzschild surface as an event horizon, 'a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it in only one direction'."[1] So in my analogy it's impossible to escape the universe completely, as I described it. In fact in my analogy I assume some kind of equivalence between the outside and inside of an event horizon (as a boundary between 2 universes, one might say), which then must be incorrect if it's one-directional. So then it's impossible to compare what would be seen outside
  18. Wouldn't it be that the more precisely the distance between A and B is known, the less precisely the change in distance between them is known, and vice versa? Is it valid to determine this using the coordinate system of A, so that the position of B is expressed relative to A while A is fixed (relative to itself at least), and the distance between the two is equivalent to the position of B?
  19. EXACTLY! So if we were to list all fundamental aspects of the universe, and time and distance were not defined on there, but everything else was (the definition of speed, volume etc), then I'm suggesting that you could come to any correct conclusion about time and distance, as we observe and/or understand it, based on that. Then if you gave these rules to an advanced AI that had no understanding of time and space, but was able to deduce things, it could deduce things like "I get it! Things appear smaller the farther you are from them!" or, as I'm suggesting: "I get it! Spacetime must curve
  20. No you were right... I was referring to perception as a basis for the fact of distance. But not in any "imaginary, anything goes" type of way. Only in a very real way. For example, if you take a wooden table, you would say that it is solid. And that is reality... it is solid. Depending on how it is perceived, it appears solid (if the wavelength of light used to observe it is blocked by it). The "underlying reality" is that it is made up of tiny particles and is mostly empty space between them, but the perceptual reality which depends on how it is perceived, is that it is solid. That your h
  21. I was thinking about how time and space is consistent no matter how it is observed (related to this post: http://www.sciencefo...rves-spacetime/). As an example, suppose you could shrink the universe down to a very small size. It would continue to function consistently with the relationship between time and space being determined by the value c. You may see the universe as small, but others who may perceive it differently may see it as immense. I think this is exactly what would happen if you were to somehow "step outside" the universe. You would perceive it as small (as a black hol
  22. I don't know, at least not clearly enough to make such statements. I don't think the retina or humanity has any effect on reality. I might try to say instead that "distance is not fundamental in the universe". My followup about the holographic principle seems to assume that c -- a fixed speed of all energy in the universe -- is fundamental. Time and distance can be an illusion or a social fact or real or unreal or whatever, but the main important fact is that however they may be perceived, they are always defined by a fixed relationship between time and distance. The original conject
  23. Thanks! I have some differing philosophical ideas but nothing clear enough to be worth presenting, yet. Edit: But then I went and wrote out those ideas anyway, in later posts below. :S To try to be a bit more precise... Suppose you have a certain number of energy quanta at a single location at time 0, and then examine them at a time t. Their max speed is c, so you should find that all the energy is contained within a sphere of radius c*t. Assuming the quanta can interact or be accelerated, or just that they may bounce off things, we would expect that the total number of poss
  24. How do you get that speed is an angle? According to your diagram with c as an angle you get tan( c ) = T/D (opposite over adjacent). I think you want that c = D/T... a speed... the distance D that light travels in time T, such that c = tan( pi/2 - theta ) where theta is the angle you currently label as c. Or simply c = tan( theta ) if you use the angle off of the time axis rather than the distance axis. The tangent of an angle is not an angle. In this diagram, speed is a ratio. I don't know enough about spacetime diagrams, but if they do represent speed with a proper angle, I don't thi
  25. Evaporation can use energy to extract liquid from a capillary, freeing it to draw up more liquid. If your device is indeed cycling through the same energy states (which I don't think it is but it could be), this could allow it to do so. What I meant by this... perhaps I should clarify -- I'll restate it: It is VERY UNLIKELY that you can 1. set a goal of breaking a well-established law of science, 2. undertake that goal without understanding the law you're trying to break, and 3. succeed. Or in other words: It's very unlikely that you can design a device specifically to break
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.