Mike Smith Cosmos

There appears to be two definitions of Entropy based on :

1. The flow of energy

2 . Changing states of Order

This may also be of some interest as well.

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60696/title/African_fossils_suggest_complex_life_arose_early

 

Any chance we will get to see the finished painting?

 

'Ophiolite', on 10 Nov 2012 - 11:05, said:

Eye positions indicate that many of them were bottom dwellers. One suspects they may have buried into the mud with only their eyes exposed, waiting for a tasty morsel. Others were likely (relatively) efficient swimmers. I don't recall any data on proportions between various lifestyles.

Trilobites from Cambrian and Silurian ERA

Artist Impressions

 

 

 

Thank you. My one is swimming at the moment, but I rather like that image of a trilobite buried in mud with its eyes sticking up waiting for a passing ....... a passing what ?

CoFU

 

Your Language is getting marginally better for me to understand what you are saying.

 

Perhaps we could take one important point at a time !

 

so What is your Main Point ?

I have been back and had a look . This is what I saw

Artist Impression

Help. There is no Oxygen in here I can't Breath .

And so the journey begins !

Its really quite hostile in here. My first sightings are of incoming metiorites. From what i can make out so far they have come from an accretion disc surrounding the sun . This has in turn come from a molecular cloud in this arm of the milky way. I think the calcium has already turned compound due to its reaction with carbon and water ice. I need to get down in the mantle and see whats going on with my special sensors.

Artists Impression

The concepts I find exciting, always have enjoyed the big picture, and I am determined to get my head around the Time Line ( Galaxies to Today ) .

 

.

I have my first sightings of the EARLY EARTH ( 4,000 MYA To 4500 Million Years Ago . )

Raining down of many meteorites , many including Calcium in some form or other.

Artists impression

Trillions upon trillions of meteorites. Some with white Condrules of Calcium.?

 

.

 

.

I think I now have my first shot of the Early bombardment of the infant Earth some 4 ,300 MYA ( million years Ago )

Artists Impression

 

In view of the news out in the New Scientist and Scientific American about the possible discovery of a new Technicolour particle at 145 Gev approx and the possible idea of a fifth fundamental force working within the atomic nucleus . (This all currently due to Fermilab work) . I think this subject of Spin has more to offer. Has anything come out of The Large Hadron Collider project about spin.

 

.

This was a year or two ago. But bringing this Spin Thread up to today, to go with the new inquiry about Spin;

Did anything about Spin come out of Cern and the Large Hadron Collider Experiments ?

.

.

Methinks Someone is about to say something rather PROFOUND any moment.

.

Memo ( Comment )

Our colleague from Poland said something profound but he seems to have been shot out of the water , which I think is a shame, as he was proposing his ideas ( all be it a bit different , namely , multiply Quark nominal charge X 3 ) in the Section of the Forum set up for such discussions. Or at least Latterly he was. I really do think it would be kinder and more friendly , and even more productive , if there was a Physics forum set up in the main Physics Body to undertake meaningful discussion which allows for a little more flexibility of thought,( one that could flow a bit , by exploratory discussion ) without being immediately banished to the Speculations section , OUTSIDE of physics and next to the TRASH BIN .

This is a little humiliating , confrontational and off putting .

After all there is so much Unknown in Physics at the moment we could do with all the Bright Ideas we can muster.

.

Perhaps this Memo (comment) wants moving to an internal memo. But i am not sure how to do that !

.

.

Electrons, for example, behave as if they have some "extra angular momentum" quite independent of any orbital angular momentum. This seems rather unavoidable and has consequences that we observe. This intrinsic angular momentum is what we call spin.

 

Classically a charged body rotating about its centre of mass has "classical spin angular momentum" and so is a moving charge. The interesting thing is that point-particles have no structure and so cannot be spinning in the classical sense. More than this, the measured spin magnetic moment of the electron is twice what one would expect classically.

.

.."" Is there a case for the spin being complex. As the radius reduces toward a minimum ( Zero ? ), and the angular velocity goes sky high, might the 'motion' take on a complex style of motion ( spin ) such as to absorb a second value of angular momentum ? ""

(these descriptions "" xxxxxxxxxxxxx "" are in no ways correct descriptions, merely a possible concept )

 

People have too fixed brains by XX century Quantum Mechanics and Standard Model.

 

 

In mine theory it's just non-stable Neutron-compatible particle. With same number of positive particles as negative particles, thus electric charge is 0.

 

 

 

 

 

Please could you explain this part of your theory PRZEM

B. Decay to stability idea

Mike

Also do you have a comment on the experiment I conducted , which seems to support your quoted point below :-

Prezm says

"Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit idea."

Page 2 this thread

 

 

.Przem

 

. Please could you explain from your theory :-

 

A. Your 'Particle Spin ' geometry idea

 

 

Thanks

 

Mike

Do you have one of your simulations that demonstrates your new theorem about the Geometry of Spin. If you look back a couple of years in Quantum physics I raised the subject of spin. I got buried alive in Maths and relativity, when all I wanted was a visual MODEL.

I set up an experiment feeding energy into a model of an atom , with an electron in a mechanical orbit represented by wire. The wire was exposed to a range of frequencies. The results were very interesting. Waves and dimensions.

Taking a single wire , working at minimal energy the wave similar to your simulations appeared at the resonant standing wave frequency. This was in specific Two Dimentions ( say X, and Y ). When the energy was increased the wire broke into a more complex Three dimensions ( say X, Y, and Z ) . Thus the minimal energy required 2 Dimensions, more energy 3 Dimensions. ( sounds a bit like your new theorem..

 

Now imagine

 

.Przem

. Please could you explain from your theory :-

A. Your 'Particle Spin ' geometry idea

B. Decay to stability idea

Thanks

Mike

 

Well Mike,

 

I think we need to give PREZM some opportunity and facility to explain his ideas, as there is a certain measure of his ideas which are quite interesting even if they are speculative , to some extent. He was a little put off ,I think , by being banished to the SPECULATION section I think. He has gone a bit quiet. ( perhaps for Christmas ). I do hope he comes back , as there may well be something there. We should be free to debate in this section , even If some of the things are a bit radical.

I do think this SPECULATION SECTION could be given a bit more dignity if we are going to encourage interesting and progressive debate. Perhaps by removing the TRASH bin from the header would be more encouraging. Also I think we should not always , jump in like a 'Ton of Bricks ' on new and radical ideas. Possible then we might make way for the next Einstein. ( What say you ?)

.

Dear Denizens of Scienceforums,

 

I've stumbled across this website once or twice when searching for explanations on cosmology, biology, etc. Recently I've been struggling with what career path I should choose, and so I want to ask for some advice. I dropped out of college a few years ago for personal issues that I won't go into. But I've always been set on going back. Recently, I've been in a position to go back to school. Before I dropped out of college I took a class on dinosaurs that reignited my passion for paleontology. I was planning on getting a job in the oil industry as a petroleum geologist as I understand they hire paleontologists for that sort of thing. I was wondering if it is feasible to be in the petroleum game and be a paleontologist? Does anyone have experience in petroleum geology or engineering and could share some helpful advice?

.

. Find your Interest/passion and spend your life doing your Interest/passion

.

.

 

A What for?

 

B Mine the main rules:

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) particle count.

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) dimensions.

A It is confusing working in two Threads However if its not possible . OK

B Rules are Good . IF allowable by the rest of the Universe and its contents.

C I still would like to know if you feel you have, or are aiming for some form of Eureka moment/thought..

.

 

It's in theory website- Standard Model Electric Charge is multiplied by 3. So instead of +1/3, there is just +1 etc.

 

Standard Model +1 is Ultimate Theory +3

 

and so on.

Yes, I have had a quick look at your website.

You have been working with this for some time, and I have not yet worked it through.

To save me all that time ( only possibly to no avail ) if it is not correct ( I am not saying it is correct or not correct ).

FIRST What is your MAIN ( Jump up and Down EUREKA ) point . !

I can see it could have a Eureka point . But I would like to hear what you say it is ?.

.

Can this post somehow be merged with the other one ?

 

Physicists would immediately find this a long time ago, if they would get rid of idea of fractional electric charge in up and down quarks, instead of complicating everything by making QCD and "colors" and "anti-colors".

 

Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit .

 

I must admit , that when Quarks were identified as having fractional charge 1/3 or 2/3 , I found it harder to get my head around things ( as opposed to getting familiar with + 1 for proton and -1 with electron.)

So are you saying by starting charges off at the quark level as ( Charge + 1 and Charge - 1 )

are these your positive and negative Particles you spoke about. ?

.

( Then What charge do you give to the up quark and down quark. ) in your new system ?

.

I don't know the in depth structure of SR but am I atleast right about the jist of SR being that the speed of light is a constant we can use to determine things about the universe?

Many of the older Scientists like Sir Issac Newton felt there was some universal clock ticking somewhere Which ticked out the time that everything would adhere to.

Along came Albert Einstein and said No . Time is relative , namely relates to itself , or to something or somewhere else. His Theory of Relativity explains his belief on this related time , which is what is used by many scientists when particles are moving at very high speeds with relation to one another. If you are not moving very fast with relation to your surroundings this does not matter.

What does matter is : Is there a universal clock ? or is Time totally relative. ? Or are there perceptive issues , to do with time ? These questions do present interesting Answers !

I am computer programmer indeed for 20+ years. Including assembler.

 

Programmers very little have to find f(x) like physicist, instead we're preferring "simulation".

 

Where are you with all of this at the moment NOW

.

Tell me what your CORE belief is as regards the start of the Universe.

Eg Are you saying some super,super Engineers from some Previous Universe got together and started a universe from 2 particles. ?

or

Are you attempting a software simulation which will effect to produce the same results that experiments with particles will produce ? EG as per the standard model ? or the Large Hadron Collider say ?

If you are, and you can prove it , you will have cracked a " Biggy ! " Which is what everybody is looking for !

.

Methinks Someone is about to say something rather PROFOUND any moment.

.

 

Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles.

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles

It's describing how to unify all particles into two elementary particles. So basically 20+ particles of Standard Model are two base particles, but different configurations.

 

Sounds very interesting ! I will have to read ,and inwardly digest. How long have you been working on this Theory ?.

You may find the Moderators will want to move the post to "speculation section " until the theory is analysed. Do not be discouraged as it is an internal procedure , they sometimes use with radically new ideas. ( which your Idea sounds interesting but new I think.) .

I must admit that years ago , when we were all mucking about with the computer language "Basic".

I put four lines of code into the personal computer I then had: They were something like :- line of code "1 let x= 1" " 2 PRINT X " then " 3 let x =x+1 " followed by " 4 goto 1 " RUN .

The whole screen erupted in an explosion of X's everywhere and went on until I switched off the computer. I thought then I wondered If the universe had an incremental ,plus GOTO the first line, Loop in it.

I will be pleased to see if your ideas work out OK. Make sure you keep your hand on the OFF switch if you try to create another universe.

OOPS !

.

.

Imagining it as math is not as far off the mark as you might think.

 

I am trying to come up with a way to concisely communicate how I conceptualize this stuff, since I know the feeling of wanting something concrete to imagine even if you acknowledge that it's an imperfect representation. The problem I'm having is that the way I conceptualize things has evolved over a considerable period of time and a lot of exposure to the subject, and has involved several rethinkings of how the world fundamentally works.

 

I'm not sure how well I can express that perception of things in a single post so that it will actually be comprehensible.

Please have a go at explaining it, as this is the nubb of everybodies problem as they approach Quantum mechanics. If we leave it as just math, then we exclude everybody who is not a mathematician. ( like a sacred priesthood ). The rest of humanity deserves to 'know' at least in an illustrative way " What is at the root of our world ?"

Tell us even in an imperfect way ! You will go down in history as a great scientific GURU ! This is your 'Moment ' do not let it pass unused by you. Use words that all scientists at least can understand, if not everyone. If necessary ordinary scientists can re-explain it to every one else. Go !

I wait with baited breath. !

The math is what allows us to 'visualise' a particle's extent and function. Do we really need to draw a picture?

 

No. This is standard material found in any textbook on QM.

 

To complement a bit the answer already given by MigL. Textbooks explain how to derive the uncertainty inequality for any pair of non-commuting observables A and B. If A and B do not commute then a quantum particle cannot be in state with values for both. Momentum and position are only a special case of this. A and B do not need to be two different quantities, they can represent components of the same vector, for instance, the components of the angular momentum. No quantum particle can be in a state [math]\Psi_\mathbf{L}[/math] with angular momentum [math]\mathbf{L}[/math], because the particle cannot have [math]L_x[/math], [math]L_y[/math] and [math]L_z[/math] all at once.

 

You cannot measure what does not exist.

Now I have two of you mathematicians together, perhaps you can explain the feelings you feel, or the images you see , or the models that build up when you say "do not commute" " non commuting observables" " components of the same vector " You can't surely make these words without some form of past experience with such a condition outside of the quantum realm. If so, what did those "things" do , when they were out there in the non quantum world. ( not the maths but the image or picture.)

If on the other hand you are saying math exists , like some platonic shape existing in its own pure realm, doing its own thing that nobody can see, but the math can effect the real world that we see and move about in.