Mike Smith Cosmos

The sciences of Physics and Chemistry seem to have lead industry to a situation that is putting the worlds systems into a strained condition.

Should we possibly be using Geology as a way out of this current state. Perhaps diverting attention more in the direction of how the world was made over the last eons ( 4.5 billion years). And thus learning how humans can best be accommodated within the geological working structure.

Could we use a knowledge of Geology in a new active discipline, endeavor and enterprise .

This as opposed to using yet more and more effort in the direction of " conventional industry based on physics and chemistry mainly " , as a way to battle our way into the future. Is the current increase in conventional industry world wide not going to put increased strain on the environment and thus make our current position and endevours untenable ?

To demonstrate the lack of investment in Geology: I went into a University town yesterday and inquired from a well known Bookshop if they had ANY books on Geology? The answer was not one, but they could order them , but today none. I went into the same city , central library and asked for a book on Geology to do with the Silurian era and they had two books in their basement vaults, one of which I was able to view under reference conditions . It was dated as being printed in 1868. I open the book and a strange stale antique smell came from the pages. Good work, good rock layer drawings.

What are the four dimental forces of nature?

. GRAVITY:

. ELECTRO-MAGNETISM :

. THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE: ( makes radio activity work )

. STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE : ( Binds Quarks &neutrons & Protons together namely the nucleus of atoms )

.

.

Meaning?

Magnetism is derived from electricity ( electrons ) moving, and electricity can be derived from magnetic fields moving or changing state. They do co-exist and so are often spoken of as being derived from the Electro Magnetic force . This electro magnetism being one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

.

http://www.sciencefo...1987-wet-spots/

 

Though my faulty memory was recalling a longer discussion

(1) Guess this must be the relevant point from the Wikipedia link :-

"Surfaces described as white owe their appearance to multiple scattering of light by internal or surface inhomogeneities in the object, for example by the boundaries of transparent microscopic crystals that make up a stone or by the microscopic fibers in a sheet of paper. More generally, the gloss (or lustre or sheen) of the surface is determined by scattering. Highly scattering surfaces are described as being dull or having a matte finish, while the absence of surface scattering leads to a glossy appearance, as with polished metal or stone." Wikiipedia Scattering

I can get my head round this to some extent, although I am not quite sure what is happening on a photon by photon level.

Do the photons get absorbed into a transmission mode and thus the surface appears dark.?

(2) The other link speaks about " diffused " light caused by water having roughly the same refractive index as fibre (1.3 , one the other 1.33 ). Am I to understand that "diffusion" is a transmission mode ? Thus the light does not get scattered when wet but is transmitted through the substance, but does get scattered when dry ( thus sort of reflected external light), to some extent?

I am a little confused with " diffused".

Upper right of the page, just below your username. Clicking on the "gear" gives advanced search (though if you use it, it annoyingly defaults to searching help items, so be sure to click on "forums")

I have searched . But so far in vain.

We had a discussion on this before so you might want to search for it. One effect (to expand on John Cuthber's response) is that you change diffuse reflection to specular reflection and reduce the amount of light scattered in your direction. Wet surfaces can be quite light and bright if you look at the proper angle and satisfy Snell's law.

Is there or where is there a search engine within Science forum ?

+

A science observation : A dry surface " say Plaster" can appear quite light when dry. ( say light pink or white.) On the addition of wetness , for example water, the hard surface of plaster will turn instantly quite dark.

+ Question. What does water do at the surface that turns the phenomenon from reflection to absorption ?

+

.

Has any body any thoughts yet on Neutrino faster than light travel from LHC to Italy. This was headline news yesterday 23/09/2011.

They apparently sent some neutrinos from LHC to Italy which arrived at faster than light speed

.

MigL, on 21 September 2011 - 06:19 AM, said: and AJB

 

What would it be rotating relative to ?? See Newton's and Mach's 'bucket of water' thought experiment.

 

And, does rotation not imply a centre to the universe ? Or, at the very least, does rotation of the universe imply a 'preferred' direction, thereby undermining symmetry and momentum conservation laws ?? What would it be rotating relative to ?? See Newton's and Mach's 'bucket of water' thought experiment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the principals of Mach, Newtons Bucket , gravity , depend on mass influencing other mass. As yet we do not appear to understand where all the mass comes from . In the standard model of particles where 99 % of the mass is missing , ( if I understand it right ), where baryonic quark matter is only responsible for 1 % of mass. We appear to be waiting on the results of large hadron collider research to see if a field exists and a boson ( Higgs field & Higgs boson ) to cause the 99 % mass to be introduced to to all barionic matter within the standard model . It seems to be very quiet from the LHC at the moment. Is there any hint yet of Higgs predictions being verified .

 

Whether a Higgs field or a Wilczec grid of quantum field there appears to be some form of relative field against which a rotating universe could possibly said to relate.

 

In the Newton bucket thought experiment there was always the curvature of the water as it rose up the side of the bucket under the action of centrifugal force which Newton said could still give indication of a rotation.

 

Could we possibly not look for an outward thrust acting within the rotating universe equivalent of the curved surface in Newtons bucket. Say Dark Energy ?

 

Center. Yes. Well if it was proved ( which although there appears to be some fairly thorough research being currently undertaken via galaxy and galaxy cluster formation , is not yet proven ) a center of rotation must exist , as with an individual galaxy. Also if the universe was shown to be similarly egg shaped like a galaxy then a center would exist somewhere . Interesting.

 

.

Research done by the Refs of AJB in previous posts seems to indicate there is evidence for a rotation of the whole universe of about one ten trillionth (10exp -13) of a radian per year.

This seems to be demonstrated by the rotation of galaxies produced by the corriolis effect and eddy currents . This is in relation to the overall structure of the universe.

Rotation seems to be a fundamental attribute of many aspects of reality: from particles; to planets; to moons; to stars; to star systems; to galaxies.

So why not the whole Universe ?

Energy Makes things happen !

Quite where this - making happen stuff - comes from is an interesting question .

N.B

What does " You must enter a post. " mean ?

Am I the only person who still believe in the existence of aether?

.

I don't think you are the only one . Reading Frank Wilczec book " the lightness of being " although not using the word aether , he uses the word Grid. I have read some other books about the Void By Frank Close. Again there seems some alluding to a far from empty void. Both these men are well recognised scientists. I think this whole issue of the aether needs re-visiting . Keep going !

.

Bear in mind that's not a very exact analogy as a tsunami is a wave-phenomenon, not a quantum phenomenon (wavefunction), but it has some use.

 

The collapsing of the wave function , is surely one of quantum theory's intriguing mysteries. Namely why should an observation, or a measurement cause a change of performance ie wave to particle. Perhaps if we embrace the fact that it happens, can lead to an idea of what is going on in part .

A bird is flying fine free in the sky. Now lets grab it and examine it to see how its flying. The act of grabbing it causes it to stop flying. Maybe waves are good if they are left alone to wave and do their business. If we or other matter get too much of a hold, then the waves have no option but to respond by taking on a particle form. Maybe this is necessary for matter to interact with waves. To change state from probability to reality. Sort of like those parallel miniature setting switches ( 8 bit switches ) [ on off on on off off on off]. Once set the switches are encoded until the system is reset [ 00000000 ]. The universe is quietly going from a probability state to a Reality state. Past to Future.

I must say that the more I dig deeper into intrinsic spin of the electron, there seems to be a lot of difference of opinion as to what is physically going on. The post that "spinjunkie " gave me with a web link as he said led to a personal interpretation, which sounded fairly plausible , though I feel many have different opinions. He referred back to the earlier work of Paul Dirac who was one of the first to try to understand spin. Mr Milo Wolff of the linked article described a spherical fields situation surrounding the electron where "in waves go in and outwaves go out " and this is the cause of the spin , which is only in the presence of a magnetic field. Outside of the magnetic field , say outside the atom, No field No spin. That the spin is reflected onto the three dimensional coordinates ( x, y, z ). and Two complete rotations were required to regain symmetry. He claimed he got most of this from Diracs work, but I am still not sure what the latest thinking is , as to what physically is happening.

 

 

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.

.

Just started reading Brian Greene's new book The Hidden Reality. He says that according to inflation theory, there are likely other inflation-caused universes beyond ours. And we are just one bubble universe in a number of these universes. Plus from our perspective inside our bubble universe, it appears "as endless space". But someone outside our bubble universe sees what "appears to be an endless time." (He explains this on pp. 66-71) . And unlike string theory and other quantum gravity approaches, inflation does have substantial supporting evidence . But it is still a work in progress.

 

I'm still trying to digest all this, so all I can say is WOW!

Intuitively I am not too keen on all these multiverse universes. Intuitively I think , from a probability point of view there is the probability for all these other universes, BUT that the one that has moved from a probable state to a real state is tho only REAL one. Of course for this universe all that is past is Real all that is future is Probable. I appreciate this opens up all sorts of questions, like whose time, whose future , whose past etc etc As multiverses are not yet proven, they must still be in the region of hypothesis, however probability is a well proven science.

So my reasoning is that "The influence and touching of the quantum field is the mechanism for the formation of the cosmos , Or how the cosmos is being Made " MKS 2008

.

.

 

. Where did everybody go ?

.

.

. Looks like I'm going to have all of the time in the world sitting on top of some hills in Italy, trying to contemplate the whole Shebang" . ( Time and all )

. No final takers ? Give me something to think about ?

.

.

. INTERESTING

.

.

. Where did everybody go ?

.

How is tunnelling incorrect if it has been observed? Quantum mechanics gives a very clear mechanism for tunnelling to occur. Also tunnelling is important in modern electronic devices, like flash memory and certain diodes.

Sorry, I was not meaning that the phenomenon of tunneling is incorrect, as clearly it makes nuclear fusion possible in stars, and as you say all the IT uses. What I meant was the description or model of a tunnel/ train tunnel is good as far as I can sea, but as you guys have "been beating me with", classical models are incomplete individually. Namely if I understand it correctly, it is not a penetrating in a strait line through a potential hill , that is happening but a probability peak, though a small peak exists on the other side of the hill by some form of wierd ( non classical ) quantum effect. An electron , according to the probability function/wave , where it will find itself at some remote small chance location in space-time ( however it does it "wierdly" ) on the other side of the potential hill . As, to whether it dug itself a level strait hole through the hill. I very much doubt. Surely this is a case, as you guys have been trying to get me to concede, ( or shut up and calculate ), makes classical models like " Hill" be incomplete. However I am very happy with the word model "Hill " or "Tunnelling" all be it , that further models are required to explain how it got on the other side of the hill, other than saying the mathematical probability wave had a small peak on the other side of the hill. Patently it works and works very precisely, which I would not dare to suggest otherwise, with the shear weight of research , development, and production of devices that work precisely as per QM prediction.

My personal scientific desire, is to back off at a distance , possibly inter-discipline distance, possibly visually distant (screwed up eyes , figuratively ), turn round and look at QM with the appropriate MODELS ( not just mathematical models ) and see what there is to be seen !

Maybe nothing ! Its like sending a scout over the mountain range to see what he can see. Maybe he sees nothing, Maybe he is killed in the process by foes. Just maybe he sees something, that just might have some relevance. Surely this is the observation, that starts the chain of scientific endevour , off ( observe, postulate, experiment, measure, conclude , evaluate/ falsify , iterate the process all over and over.

I'm off to Italy for five months next week Wednesday 13th, Up into the mountains of Umbria . I'm going to poke an internet dongle into the sky and if I can get the www then I might have some further contact. If not then in September I will return . I have a library of QM books over there, and a lot of Sun and a flaggon of wine. Should you wish to join myself and wife in our mountain Casa . Once leaving Switzerland, head south to Florence, East into the Appenines, Hit the ancient Roman North Road ( Via Appenines ) , where it crosses the pilgrims trail to Assisi, there you will find us. Leave a message on my members message pad. Look for a Dongle sticking up in the air on a bamboo pole with a long USB cable.

Thanks for all you guys interesting comments ! Mike

.

What do you mean "we?" Are you a scientist, or are you criticizing from the sidelines?

The "we " is the developed technologically based world.

Yes I place myself in the framework of a scientist . If I happen to mention a disbelief in our accepting QM at face value without a real perception of what is going on, only but belies my desire to find things out. Surely the scientific method is to :-

Observe ( QM seems a very precise yet little understood fog ).

Propose or guess ( There is a non mathematical model that has not yet become apparent )

Experiment ( go into inter-discipline mode { qm and another subject area }. Over and over rigorously view QM from afar and measure models against QM phenomenon)

Falsify the model -QM relationships.

Evaluate

Re-enter the loop until "bingo " you hit the "motherload" and publicise.

 

But to understand QM at any depth you must understand the mathematics that is the language.

 

 

I thought the copenhagan agreement on QM broke up with two camps.

 

One saying "shut up and calculate "

 

and the other group went away to think, discuss and come up with new ideas.

 

What is wrong with saying " Fine the maths is brilliant, predictive, and very useful in manufacture and quantitative analysis in astronomy . But maybe there is another whole area of neglected understanding , by taking a non mathematical look at QM, and just observing to see what there is to be seen through non mathematical eyes. " Blue sky research.

 

.

 

http://depts.washing...rg_SSN_1_14.pdf

 

 

 

 

Mike. it appears that there is no alternative but to learn the maths and get rid of commonsense if one wants to understand QM.

 

.

I am by far from being non mathematical, having studied Pure maths, applied maths , EM maths as applied to field theory and electronics at University, however I do find it hard to see models using only maths . I am sure there are models somewhere waiting to be found which will lift the fog on QM.

.

PS Thanks for your great comments. Much appreciated.

.

More than this, it predicts physical phenomena very well. Even the more crazy predictions like entanglement and quantum tunnelling are realised in nature.

Yes well , this illustrates my point. Even though quantum tunneling is an incorrect model as it is the probability wave that exists the other side of the barrier wall , it still helps with QM understanding . Similarly with the word "entanglement"

Great stuff

.

Yes out here in the classical world, its very positive and with entropy very uni-directional. ( My comment )

 

But what happens in the quantum world ? ( My question )

 

There appear to be hints of something different ? ( Richard Feynman )

 

 

.

If symmetry is the great guiding light should we not be looking for negative movement in time, as with matter antimatter, etc.?

.

What is the basis for this assertion. Wishful thinking ?

 

QM is certainly not beyond description in terms of mathematical models. QM is in fact a mathematical model. But classical imagery simply does not apply.

 

 

 

Probably not. If you wish to be recognized as a scientist it would be advisable to put your statements in scientific terms and back them up with real data and real mathematics. Vague philosophical statements are of no value.

 

No one is particularly happy with the various interpretations of quantum theories, but the theory makes extraordinarily accurate predictions and it is rather difficult to discount that success criteria.

I appreciate your engagement , and in no way disrespect your comments. ( both yours, Ajb, and Mr Swansot and others ). I do believe this sort of engagement and discussion is productive as long as it is honest and does not get dogmatic unless a fundamental truth is up for discussion. In keeping QM just mathematical I believe is a mistake and I have also noticed that many physics breakthroughs were made, even if in the wrong direction , when scientists got together and discussed at length " Philosophical ideas " .

I hasten to say that a Greek thinker and measurer , if so displaced in time as to be brought to examine a precision moulding press tool, would marvel at the precision sizes of the piece parts, but likely be totally at sea as to its use. A nearby engineer could soon explain the workings of such a machine tool, and indeed the Greek would be enlightened. Without such an explanation he would only marvel at the precision.

I am that Greek seeking such enlightenment.

.

There is a model of what is happening: it's called quantum mechanics. Things are waves, and obey the relationships described by QM. You seem to want a mechanism to explain why quantum mechanics works that way. I can't help you. And until someone comes up with a way of testing ideas about such mechanisms, neither can anybody else.

Yes. " Things are waves, and obey the relationships described by QM. " You seem to want a mechanism ( is that wrong of me ) to explain why quantum mechanics works that way. Is this not what the string theorists are up to . But there appear to be difficulties.

.

The model IS quantum mechanics. But it appears that you cannot accept QM as the model, because it does not admit of classical interpretations. In that case either you are doomed to never understand, or you will have to invent and validate some alternative to quantum mechanics. Since an army of professional physicists has found no alternative to quantum theory in roughly a century since its discovery, I would personally bet that you are doomed.

 

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

 

I cannot believe that we are conducting a technological society which is based , in the main , on quantum mechanics, which is no more than a fragmented, yet very precise and accurate technology yet fundamentally not conceptualised. We appear to be riding along on a list of phenomenon, such as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, Pauli exclusion principle, particle wave duality, de broglie probability wave, localised , entangled , spin , spooky action at a distance, God playing dice, and a whole host of parts, with not a real tangible feeling for what is going on .

( Even if one accepts that, it is nothing like the classical world ), it surely cannot be beyond words and images. ( models for want of another word ) .

Or are these the words of another "Doomed scientist who dared to look at Medusa's face "

.

<br>I refer you back to my previous post.

the predictions of quantum mechanics to within acceptable experimental

errors and the domain of validity. <br><br>

<br>I understand calculations are very very very precise in all quantum maths . They are usually around one particular feature of quantum mechanics as far as I can see.<br><br>What appears to be lacking are good models of quite what is happening ( acknowledged by such masters as Einstein, Feynman etc ). What is more; missing is some overall model /models that can draw it all together. I might be wrong. But if there were such models, why am I not hearing about it/them. All I seem to hear is " its in the maths". Unless, of course,  that  you convince me that maths is the very bedrock principles on which  <font size="3"><b>all</b></font>  is built. I concede maths is the bedrock of calculation and quantitative prediction. But I'm not so sure it is the bedrock of <b><font size="2">Reality</font></b>.      <br>