Mike Smith Cosmos

Sorry it took so long to get back, , but ..........

Have you got your head around the probability issue with your research ? If so, can you share it , as it is a fascinating subject, which I think, but I am not sure, may have some connections with the idea of REALITY.

Thank you Imatfaal. Very instructive.

According to Frank Wilczek a Nobel Prizewinner for his work on (Asimtotic something or other) to do with particle physics says ( no doubt along with many other quantum Physicists) something to the effect

 

The Large Hadron Collider does not crash particles and the particles we are looking for chip off, which might be a common feeling. But rather: The colliding Hadrons , gold nuclei or whatever produce sufficiently high and specifically precise energy so as to CREATE a brand new particle ie an Higgs Boson that has not existed before , which then decays very rapidly into something else. This is a sort of creation event .

Now whether or not the colliding particles smash into the Higgs Field so to do,,,I do not know. The whole thing ( higgs boson and the higgs field ) is called the Higgs Mechanism , as far as I know .

.

I don't see how you could get something from nothing, but I've been thinking.

Perhaps energies wich do not occupy time could have existed before time. Time stands still at the speed of light. Light is an ellectromagnetic wave if I remember right. So it's perfectly acceptable to think that electro magnetic "entities" exist outside of and before our universe (time).

Things that exist outside of time probably wouldn't have to obey the rules of time unless moving through a "pool" of time at wich point they have to travel on a wave of time.

If time is space and space is distance, than it's perfectly plausable that in this dimension energy particles could move from here to there in a quantum manner.

Mathematics itself can only take you so far before you actually need to test something. Einstein didn't automatically know every single detial of what he came up with, he started with a general idea, worked out some mathematics over time, and the rest of the scientific community tested it for him and made adjustments to his equations to fit the results.

Yes, you are right to some extent. Except his life story shows he did not start with maths, he was in fact not the best of students. However he was a great thinker, and did many many thought experiments. As you correctly said maths experts assisted him in getting the maths right, as others have done since. No doubt reading all the ideas coming into the patent office which he was clerk in fired his mind. BUT he did do the EINSTEIN bit and hypothesized (?) produce an hypothesis , for many things including the Brownian motion explanation of Atoms, The photon in photoelectric effect, brothers going off in space ships at very high speed, traveling at the speed of light on a beam and observing another beam near you, men blowing trumpets on railway trucks, shining a light from the track side into a train truck with an open door, RELATIVITY, people in elevator rockets by equivalents felt GRAVITY as an acceleration but not feeling velocity, and countless more. The Maths came afterwards assisted by others with experiments and tidied it all up.

What , was distinctive on his part was that he did a lot of observation, then thinking, then thought experiments, then thinking about other peoples experiments , then hypothesizing , THEN the MATHS , then go again. And we all know what he produced. Enough work to keep many an experimenter and many a mathematician going for years , including Heisenberg, Shroeniger, Dirac, etc and many today.

The maths itself can ( and indeed did with Shroeniger and Dirac and others reveal new RELATED things like anti-matter (Dirac).

However that is NOT to say it will be a path to ALL new descoveries, because the new discoveries may not lay in the path of that particular sphere of maths. NEW conceptual ideas may be required to FUEL a whole different area of (whatever) which in turn will need the Observations, Hypotheses , Experiments (possibly thought experiments), Maths , maybe even New Maths to take this whole new area of discovery into existence and development.

What is needed is a new Einstein type of person/s who can do the initial SPARK . Archemedese did it in the Bath looking at the water flowing over the top. Galileo did it I believe , looking at the Chandeliers swinging in the church all with the same time period, Newton did it with apples and goodness knows what. And of course Einstein did it . and others in this 20th/21st century have done it . What we need is scientists like them who can do similar SPARKS.

Then the Theoreticians , experimenters, Mathematicians, can try to tear it all apart, or develop it. But we must look for scientists with those initial SPARKS.

.

You'll have to wait for 10 seconds:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=einsteins-only-known-expe

The comments above are a response to your post also michel

i was reading david bohm and he seems to be extraordinarly clear in what he talks about. he talks about how everchanging our thoughts are related to context and how our thought leads to fragmentation.

any thoughts on bohm. please feel free to discuss.

I picked a book up by BOHM in Glastonbury somerset U.K. Glastonbury is famous for its alternative culture. The air smells of joss sticks burning as you enter the town. Every other shop has something to do with crystals and alternative thinking. I think I was recommended the book by this quite nice secondhand bookshop having explained I was interested in the frontiers of science. Maybe he was trying to push me over the edge. The book is sitting on my bookshelf with the other several hundred other books. It is supposed to be quite good. I suppose its knowing that laylines cross from Stone Henge to Glastonbury Torr where King Arthur's bones are supposed to be, that makes me hesitant to start the book. However I must say that Glastonbury ( famous for its rock and Roll Festival every year ) does becon. A visit to Glastonbury is a good fix , now and again.

The book by Bohm , and reading it? Maybe it is due a read, with all this wandering around in the wilderness going on in Physics at the moment. Maybe this year I will be found this summer solstice on top of Glastonbury Tor looking up at the Sky ! Not sure what I am look for, but who knows !

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !

Post script. P.S.

. hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or

. as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]"

. hypothesize or hypothesise "to put forward an hypothesis "

.

. h .................. " a man/woman who puts forward an hypothesis is called an h................ ( not sure )

. hypothetical : " based on assumption rather than fact or reality "

.

From visible evidence on the earth with the bulging equator, to the spinning galaxy spread out like a poached egg. It is painfully clear that the effect of Centrifugal force balanced against gravity has the clear observable effect of causing the shape. That is a spread around the equator.

Looking up Centrifugal force on Wickepedia will show two types of centrifugal force shows 2 distinct definitions.

Wikipedia quote

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") is the apparent outward force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body as the body's path is continually redirected. In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to one of two distinct concepts:

a) an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" force) observed in a non-inertial reference frame, and

b) a reaction force corresponding to a centripetal force.

The term is also sometimes used in Lagrangian mechanics to describe certain terms in the generalized force that depend on the choice of generalized coordinates.

The concept of centrifugal force is applied in rotating devices such as centrifuges, centrifugal pumps, centrifugal governors, centrifugal clutches, etc., as well as incentrifugal railways, planetary orbits, banked curves, etc. These devices and situations can be analyzed either in terms of the fictitious force in the rotating coordinate system of the motion relative to a center, or in terms of the centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces seen from a non-rotating frame of reference; these different forces are equal in magnitude, but centrifugal and reactive centrifugal forces are opposite in direction to the centripetal force.

Emphasis mine

Rather strangely in the U;K much of school education features centripetal force , often not even mentioning centrifugal force. It can be heard often by teachers themselves " centrifugal force does not exist" almost on a par with " God does not exist"

As is quoted above , it is used, felt, machines are manufactured that use the force.

I have shown water in the bottom of a bucket as I swing it above my head. I have had students swinging a 3 kilogram weight on the end of a rope out in the playing field. As they stagger about I was heard to shout " can you feel the force ". "Yes Sir," they replied before swaying and staggering to a stop.

By concentrating on the reaction only we can forget the inertia version. Planets move with it. Satellites obey the laws Wonders await those who see the action of centrifugal force at play here at Earth and Across the Universe and :-

who knows within atomic angular momentum .( still an area of discussion ).

The problem is that science is not geared toward answering this question, at the basic level. Science tells you what the result will be.

O.K. I will have to put it on hold . If I find anything I will report back

With respect Mike,

 

The famous dutch lecturer at MIT is Walter Lewin and I do not believe he teaches quantum mechanics - his entry level course are all available online and are on mechanics, electromagnetism, and waves (I think); his speciality is x-ray cosmology. ¹

 

If you wanna mental work out and start to look at some qm - you could check out Leonard Susskind's lectures from Stanford (all on line as well). These courses are for non-students and take place in the evening - he covers relativity, the standard model, cosmology, some qm, some string theory, statistical mechanics (which completely surprised me by being fascinating) ²

 

There are more and more courses being put on line - but I think you will struggle to find a qm course purely because of the innate difficulty.

 

 

1 Walter Lewins Homepage - scroll to take a class for the epic and famous lectures

http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/lewin_walter.html

 

2. Leonard Susskind's Homepage

https://physics.stanford.edu/people/faculty/leonard-susskind

and his lectures through youtube or itunes

http://tedyoung.me/2011/01/22/leonard-susskind-lectures/

 

Both of the above are incredibly engaging, personable, and compelling lecturers - Susskind's stuff assumes a bit more maths, and Lewins is more structured as it is the first year physics course at MIT

Thank you I will review and get back to you. I have watched a few of Walter Lewins but not Leonard Susskind. Back later !

I don't think it's been established that the effect is a result of the systems being quantum.

I genuinely do not understand what is going on, at these interfaces between + and - and N & S, Gravity ( plus and minus), strong force. etc

Is it some form of field gradient, if so what is the mechanism of force generation.

I keep hearing of Photon exchange If so,this I presume will be Quantum ( maybe not ) as these are virtual photons are they not ? Anyway I can't say I understand this anyway ? What actually happens ?

. QUANTA

. BY Max PLANK .

. a Quantum of Energy is E ( Joules ) = h ( Planks constant joules-seconds) x f (frequency cycles /Second )

. Quantum Chunks of Energy

.

. But how do the quantum chunks make the effect of Attraction & repulsion ?

.

Feynman had a knack for being able to intuitively explain many complicated ideas, but not even he could do that with quantum mechanics. He approached QM from the "shut up and calculate" perspective. In The Feynman Lectures he explains multiple times why the reader should stop asking "but what does this mean(?)" or trying to understand it intuitively and simply learn the math. He was big on emphasizing that he could tell you how nature works, but he could not explain it in a way that you will understand because he didn't understand it either.

Yes, I thank you and appreciate that about Richard Feynman, I was rather hoping things might have moved on quite a bit since then, to today, with all the money and effort having been put in. Maybe !

In terms of being able to teach, any university that has a physics program has someone (several, actually) at that level of expertise. Quantum physics is a pretty wide-open description, and many areas of physics fall into the category.

Yes, but surely one of these researchers or teachers is known for having more of a depth of complete understanding than others, and is skilled in explaining it, as I believe Feynman had at the time. I am the other side of the pond over here in Britain so am a little remote from what is going on over there. I try and listen in to a number of Public lectures from the various Universities, however I have not yet found the Feynman contemporary. Maybe you know of such a quantum Guru. Also I hope he/she has the ability and skill to deliver such comprehension , without having to plunge instantly into deep maths ! Even if deep math, underpins the principles, it should not stop an explanation in lucid terms .

Weineberg ? Goss ?

He is an expert in quantum gravity and quantum field theory on curved space-times.

There is a Lecturer in MIT ( Dutch or German) who teaches quantum physics for 1 st year undergraduates , Are there any living Quantum Experts in Stanford, Berkeley, Cornell, Princetown Universities

But they all have gravitation.

Even the smallest "grain of sand" in vacuum in the space will "feel it" and join with other surrounding barely visible grain of sands and forming bigger and bigger objects.

Is this what is happening in the acretion disc, as the planets started to form in the very early solar system ?

Good evening! I have a few more theoretical questions.

1. Why synthetic universe would separate from the parent-universe where the "creator" dwells?

2. Why we could never interface with the parent-universe?

3. Can "creator" or humans eventually meet each other?

1. There is the question of the colossal amount of energy required by the "creator" compared with a) our universe and b) us. Thus we would need to become separate from both the "creator" and the "creators" dwelling universe.

2. Perhaps we could with a certain amount of protection or metamorphosis .

3. As per point 2

CORIOLIS and CENTRIFUGAL FORCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply from Mike Smith

: -

The whole aspect of Coriolis and centrifugal forces acting on spinning bodies ranging from atomic particles to the Earth to the galaxy as a system, to the whole universe needs a good discussion.

From visible evidence on the earth with the bulging equator, to the spinning galaxy spread out like a poached egg. It is painfully clear that the effect of Centrifugal force balanced against gravity has the clear observable effect of causing the shape. That is a spread around the equator.

..... my wanting to become a theoretical physicist.

 

I'd rather educate myself because I feel like I can learn better and faster on my own.

 

 

 

Comments? Advice? Insights? Arguments? are all welcome. I know that I don't know everything so that's why I'm here trying to learn. Thanks!

It alarms me to hear the depth the established hierarchy will go to, to exclude enthusiastic potential physics contributors to the ' stew pot of knowledge' , when there is such a need to push forward the edifice of Darkness surrounding " how the Universe works.

You ask for comments . Here is mine. :-

Do not give up. It is clearly your passion. Go and pursue your passion. History is full of men / women , scientists whose passion took them to great inventions, discoveries, projects, often based on Physics, engineering, etc. Now as this great bastion of politically orientated established physics researchers are concerned. Let them defend their fortress.

There is clearly a need for cross discipline insights ( environment-Physics, etc ) Go and become a cross discipline physics theoretician.where the establishment will welcome you, say earth science ( seeing as we are currently 'mucking up ' the earth) , but study up your theoretical physics and bring it all to bear , in a great research project all your own .

Become a teacher of Physics, you will be sought after, students will love you, and you will never be out of work. There is a dire shortage of people that are able to communicate the ' hidden knowledge (physics) of how the universe works'

Good wishes, ( Don't let the ...... put you down ) Mike

As said none, but the more close to Feynman must be Murray Gell-Mann.

Tell me about Murray Gell-man and how he goes about explaining Quantum Physics . Please

Let me throw a spanner in the works here: I have no idea exactly what Prof Cox works on in physics and I do not know a single paper of his. I know he is part of the ATLAS experiment, but I have no idea exactly his role. This might be to do with the area I work in, but I cannot judge Prof. Cox as a scientist. However, he is good in the telly.

 

 

For example Penrose, Hawking and Kaku, who have all engaged in popularisation, I know there contributions to science.

Quite.I do agree with you.

However I have to say, that what I am posing at the moment, is not so much, who is working to the greatest extent or caliber in a scientific area of quantum mechanics, But rather out of all of the areas of Quantum theory WHO has managed to get their head around the whole subject, and pretty well understands whats going on, and is able to explain it lucidly to the wider population.( At least those in that population that have a reasonable interest in things scientific. )

Similarly I agree with you on the three named persons, Penrose, Hawking and Kaku , I could listen to all three. Penrose would loose me in the maths, Hawking is a difficult one, as its difficult to enter his world, Kaku

seems like he knows what he's talking about and is a good explainer, as is Martin Rees ( Astronomer Royal ).

For all I know, You might suddenly say, " I've got it ! By heck I've actually got it.! And then go off into a world of explanation that sets the world of Physics on fire !

I am sure somebody is going to do that, one of these days. I thought Prof Lee Smolin at the Perimeter institute an offshoot of Princeton University was going to do that. But he seems to have gone a bit quiet. Tegmark had a go by saying it was all Maths. I'll go and shoot myself if that's the answer .

Although I have heard many cast scorn on scientists who popularize science, or indeed the operation of popularizing science ideas, as if it is some dumbed down version of the truth.

I personally think that these scientists are doing society at large, other scientists and themselves a great service by :

Collecting their thoughts in a very succinct way , so as to refine the principles and concepts of a particular principal of science.

I think Feynman was an expert in turning deep concepts into everyday speech, and remains a good example ,if not his own very personal style.

However he is not with us and people like prof Brian Cox , are making great strides in bringing scientific ideas to everyone as indeed Prof Cox's inspiration ( Carl Sagan did before him. )

But it is clear by our own questions and those of others there is a great deal of " lack of understanding of Quantum Physics " which could do with a Popular Science style of presentation by a leading member of the higher echelons of Quantum Physics Experts, if not the top guy whoever he/she is . I know Feynman made the statement about "if you think you know, you don't " . but that was then, this is now!

So the question remains , to whom can we look to,for such a popularized version of Quantum theory , which is not dumbed down , but is explained in a complete , yet understandable form.?

.

There is not Top Authority on Quantum Theory today and many names given here Penrose, Greene, Witten... are very very far.

 

Penrose's views on quantum mechanics are wrong and rejected by 95% of physicists. Greene and Witten are string theorists (Witten is more a mathematical physicist) and only use a basic subset of quantum mechanics in their research works.

 

This contrasts with Feynman, who not only used quantum mechanics, but developed one of the formulations: the path integral one. He was one of the Top Authorities on Quantum Theory then. His work was the basis for him wining a third of the Nobel Prize for physics.

Then who today is liken to him. Anyone ?

By the way , what is it that Roger Penrose says that's so rejected by many. I thought he was one of the gifted few. ?

The names you have given work on a wide range of relatively topics:

 

Frank Wilczek- Particle theory, applications of particle theory to cosmology and condensed matter physics.

 

Brian Greene- string theory (Calabi–Yau manifolds and mirror symmetry) and string cosmology.

 

Roger Penrose- twistors, though he is best known for general relativity.

 

Frank Close- theoretical particle physics, especially the quark structure of matter.

 

There is no true single "quantum theory" as such, rather quantum theory is a wide framework.All the above have written popular science books. Though I am not really familiar with the books.

The closest I can think of in that sense is Brian Greene, if we are talking about popularisation. I am sure there are others.

 

If you mean the person who has influenced theoretical physics the most, then Edward Witten must be the one.

Yes I having listened to many of his lectures Ed Whitten , which are excellent .I don't know if he written a book ?

I'm quite sure that Feynman himself would agree that he was never the expert in anything. Physics has many contributors each with a different range of influence on the field. There is not, nor has there ever been (not in the past few hundred years at least), a single "figurehead" in the physics community whose opinion counted above all others.

Interesting comment. Need to think about that. Obviously Einstein had quite a reputation, but as you say in a particular field. However i am still looking for a " king of Quantum " if that is at all possible. ? Unless its Ed Whitten of course .

I would say there is no single person like that. There are many experts who specialise in specific areas within quantum theory, which itself is a quite ambiguous term.

Yes there are names that bubble up to mind, like Frank Wilczec, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Frank Close and no doubt many names we hear about achieving major breakthroughs.

I was really asking, is there anyone who excels , as indeed , Richard Feynman did, in being not only on top of the subject, he was also able to explain it, in a very down to earth manner, as in his Lectures.

So maybe you have two or three names who approach his expertise and explicit style. As he was in America, maybe there are others currently in some of the American Universities ?

As there were scientists like Richard Feynman ( now dead ). Who today is considered to be the Top Authority on Quantum Theory ?