Farsight
-
Posts
616 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Farsight
-
-
I've been wondering about this issue of late. My model is telling me that there is something very unusual about high-energy gamma waves with a wavelength less than 10ˉ¹³ metres. This might sound odd, but they appear to be exhibiting the strong force rather than the electromagnetic force. I'd like to look at this some more. Can anybody advise re any measured photons with very high energies? The cosmic "rays" as per Martin's link are relativistic protons.
0 -
In my preferred view, the observer is the realisation of the record, and subjective probabilities are induced from the observer himself.
fredrik, can I say that I now think that there is a very straightforward classical explanation of quantum physics, and this does not involve observers collapsing wave functions or anything similar. I also think that this will become accepted physics fairly soon. How soon, I don't know. And I doubt that I can prove this to your satisfaction. But keep an ear to the ground for developments involving geometry or The Perimeter Institute of LQG.
0 -
Or you could think along the lines of Chinatown:
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: My sister, my daughter.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister AND my daughter!
*******************************************
Foodchain: I think Relativity is imperfect, but I don't reject it. In similar vein I don't reject QM. The mathematics works. But we don't understand what it means. The issue with Quantum Mechanics has always been the interpretation of what's actual going on in the subatomic world. I don't reject QM, instead what I reject is the idea that we can never understand what it's telling us, and I reject the weird unprovable stuff like parallel worlds. I'm now adopting the view that the underlying issues are associated with the concept of point particles, and a better interpretation is available by considering "particles" to be extended non-local volumetric entities, saying, in effect: "the wave function is the particle". It means (despite the photoelectric effect and Einstein's Nobel Prize) that the photon really is a wave, and then geometry becomes utterly crucial. I really do think this is the route to combining QM and Relativity. In a way this is "my area", and I'm much more sensitive to it than others. I know what these guys are on about. So whilst people might claim I see what I want to see, in the article, I see Gerard t'Hooft, I see Smolin talking geometry again, I see the picture of the geometrical rotations. And I see four instances of "geometric" in Joy Christian's paper, where I also see this:Well? Come on fellas. Cat got your tongue? Am I the only one who actually reads articles and scientific papers? Or writes them? Or would you rather run off and hide than apologise for your sneering abuse and admit that I've got a point?
0 -
Foodchain: I think Relativity is imperfect, but I don't reject it. In similar vein I don't reject QM. The mathematics works. But we don't understand what it means. The issue with Quantum Mechanics has always been the interpretation of what's actual going on in the subatomic world. I don't reject QM, instead what I reject is the idea that we can never understand what it's telling us, and I reject the weird unprovable stuff like parallel worlds. I'm now adopting the view that the underlying issues are associated with the concept of point particles, and a better interpretation is available by considering "particles" to be extended non-local volumetric entities, saying, in effect: "the wave function is the particle". It means (despite the photoelectric effect and Einstein's Nobel Prize) that the photon really is a wave, and then geometry becomes utterly crucial. I really do think this is the route to combining QM and Relativity. In a way this is "my area", and I'm much more sensitive to it than others. I know what these guys are on about. So whilst people might claim I see what I want to see, in the article, I see Gerard t'Hooft, I see Smolin talking geometry again, I see the picture of the geometrical rotations. And I see four instances of "geometric" in Joy Christian's paper, where I also see this:
...It is crucial to note that the ej appearing in the above definition are not the usual self-adjoint operators on a complex Hilbert space' date=' but are the ordinary 3-vectors in the real physical vector space...
...appearing therein is not the unit imaginary i = √−1, but a real geometric entity...
...a volume form...
...a classical relation...
...a local realistic model can be constructed to exactly reproduce quantum mechanical correlations...
...spacelike separated...
...sharper geometrical meaning...
...classical, local realistic framework...
...orthogonal directions in the physical space...
...algebraic properties of the physical space...[/quote']
0 -
Nearly. The time change or "time dilation" is due to the relative speed, and you need some acceleration to get up to speed.I think i have cracked this idea. The body that is moving at a given speed has a time change relative to someone's time who is stationary due to the changes in acceleration and speed etc. Is this correct?
Not quite. Acceleration itself doesn't cause the time dilation directly. You can see this if you think of travelling to a start 5000 light years away with the same acceleration and deceleration but bracketing 2500 light years of coasting. To keep things simple, forget about the acceleration and deceleration for the time being. Think about travelling to a star 2500 light years away at a speed of .99c. The equation 1/√(1-v²/c²) tells you that you'll experience a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So as far as I'm and the rest of the universe is concerned it takes you 2525 years to get there. As far as you're concerned, it took you 360 years of your time.If it is does this mean that if i set of in space acceleration at 1 earth gravity per second towards a star 2500 light years away not at but close to the speed of light the time taken for my family on earth is 2500 years but for me it would seem like alot less due to my acceleration and deceleration when i got closer to the star. Is this right?0 -
Look at the picture on page 39. That's Christian's non-commutative operation. And what sort of operation is it? Why, it's a rotation. A geometrical operation.
If you'd rather believe in spooky action at a distance than openly acknowledge what's actually in the article, or search Joy Christian's paper for geometric, maybe it's time we had a new physics "expert" round here.
0 -
Keep your alternative views in their own threads in speculations. When you come up with experimental evidence that you're right, then you will be right. Not until, just like the rest of science. You don't get special treatment. And, as Severian points out, this has nothing to do with string theory.
Where's the experimental evidence for moving through time? There isn't any. But look, I do get special treatment:
It has nothing to do with String Theory. It is special relativity. And you are not censored (are you censored at all) because you criticise String Theory (who would care). You are censored because you are a loony. And that is a relativisticly invariant statement. You are a loony in all frames, and in all models.I'm no loony. And shame on you for coming out with such an ad hominem. For your information, Brian Greene, String Theorist, wrote the book referred to in the OP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos
Farsight, String Theory is definitely NOT mainstream.Any comments anybody?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0713997990
0 -
No, I don't think that's the nutshell. The only mention of geometry is loop quantum gravity, and this is but one example of many flavors of "physics beyond QM" that are mentioned. One should note that there is nothing mentioned that has any concrete results yet. The paper by the main protagonist is still in review at PRL.
See the bottom of page 38:
Yes, the article then moves on to Loop Quantum Gravity, but search the internet on "Loop Quantum Geometry" or look for recent papers from Lee Smolin. There was one on about the 7th October that caught my eye, but I can't find it now and must dash:Smolin and Fotini Markopoilou, also at the Perimeter Institute, have been exploring how hints of that deeper theory might emerge from primitive notions of geometry.http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22loop+quantum+geometry%22
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+smolin/0/1/0/all/0/1
0 -
Note that the motion of the clock's components through space speeds up. The clock does not "move faster through time".
I am right about this, Swanson. Whatever Brian Greene says, and whatever you think is the mainstream view. Or what's it to be? No criticism of String Theory is permitted, and any challenge to any utterance by some String Theorist must be censored, because String Theory is mainstream? Ho hum.
0 -
There is no "speed of time". A body and its subatomic elements move through space. The notion of a body moving through time is an abstraction that has no basis in experimental fact. If Brian Greene begs to differ, I'll put money on the table. When "time dilation" occurs (and this is an experimental fact) what's actually happening is that the subatomic elements of the body are moving more slowly through that body's local space.
0 -
...Farsight is just plain goofy again...
Read the article. Or be an shining example: don't read the article, just insult somebody who offers information that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
0 -
...Farsight is just plain goofy again...
Read the article. Or be an shining example: don't read the article, just insult somebody who offers information that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
0 -
Will further advances in the understanding of quantum mechanics overtake classical views of the physical world at all levels eventually? Why or why not?
No. Classical will overtake quantum mechanics. Here's an example of what I mean, an article from last week's New Scientist.
Quantum Entanglement: Is spookiness under threat?
In a nutshell it says Quantum Physics perhaps isn't so spooky after all, and the answer lies in geometry. I share that view. The link is just a stub I'm afraid, but the full article is worth reading.
0 -
Will further advances in the understanding of quantum mechanics overtake classical views of the physical world at all levels eventually? Why or why not?
No. Classical will overtake quantum mechanics. Here's an example of what I mean, an article from last week's New Scientist.
Quantum Entanglement: Is spookiness under threat?
In a nutshell it says Quantum Physics perhaps isn't so spooky after all, and the answer lies in geometry. I share that view. The link is just a stub I'm afraid, but the full article is worth reading.
0 -
As well as a hadron is divided into quarks, is a lepton divisible into more fundamental particles? Based on that idea, I tried to introduce a composite model of lepton in the following site;
Look up Electron-positron annihilation where you see that an electron and a positron usually annihilate to produce two photons. In a way you can consider these photons to be more fundamental "particles" than the leptons, but it's wrong to think that the electron or the positron is divisible into photons or anything else. Also look up pair production.
PS: Collider experiments will be futile. It doesn't work like that.
0 -
Hmmn. I provide a simple and coherent exposition of magnetism, but my material gets kicked into pseudoscience whilst this junk does not. Ridiculous.
0 -
I am serious. I do write my ideas up in precise language, but because there's currently a paucity of mathematics to complement those ideas, nobody reads them, and then folk claim they're "vague" and "have no content" or are "unproven". I do know the answer to this. But sadly others don't want to know. So here we are again in pseudoscience.
0 -
Would you like to provide a link to it, just to save folks time if they want to look it up? (Personally I don't remember seeing it.)
It was this one: http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19626241.300&feedId=space_rss20
Sorry that link is just a stub, you need a subscription to see it all. It was the main feature, and included Lawrence Krauss and others.
Like it or not' date=' the physics involved in calculating the Hawking radiation is not very hard---it is a semi-classical calculation, which any graduate student could do, if given enough time. One just has to understand how a scalar field behaves on a changing gravitational background. We understand quantum field theory very well, and we understand how to make QFT consistent with general relativity (there is a book on it by Paul Davies and Birrell, if I've spelled his name correctly). If you want to do a google search, the actual method is called the Bogolubyov transformation (which I have probably hopelessley misspelled).The point of all of this rambling is that the loss of information in a black hole is very easy to show (I don't remember very many calculations in Hawkings 1972 paper). If this calculation is wrong (i.e. if you think information is not lost), then you should be prepared to explain why you think it is wrong, and how to fix the derivation from the point of view of quantum field theory on a curved space-time.[/quote'] Perhaps there's some confusion here. I've said previously that I and many others do not consider Hawking Radiation to be proven in actuality, and that we should make a distinction between this and a mathematical proof. On the other hand I've also referred to Neil Cornish saying "the fluctuations we see in the CMB are thought to be generated by a process that is closely analogous to Hawking radiation from black holes." So whilst I have doubts, I wouldn't say I've claimed that Hawking Radiation can not exist. I've also said I think information is irrevocably lost when an object falls into a black hole. Perhaps you're thinking of somebody else, or I'm misreading something.
0 -
Yes. Time dilation, as evidenced by various clock experiments and the GPS clock frequency adjustment. We know that time dilation is actually measured. We can thus be confident that we will observe it within other more difficult experiments such as the "twins paradox" and the "hammer and the nail" aka "the train and the tunnel". We can then be confident that events A and B can suffer from a simultaneity reversal and can be deemed to occur in sequence B A by some suitable oberver. This means that the "time" between A and B is subjective rather than objective, so time isn't something real that you can travel through, and it isn't something that's actually "flowing" from both A to B and from B to A.Several theories leave open the possibility of time travel (to the past), under very special circumstances. Now, these are hard to do things, so it is unlikely that we will just find things traveling backward in time. Now, there are three possibilities here:1) time travel is possible but difficult
2) the specific circumstances allowing for time travel are, in fact, impossible to attain
3) the allowance for time travel is a bug in the theories
Now I personally don't believe in time travel, so I think that either 2) or 3) are true. But since I have no evidence that time travel is impossible, I cannot say this for sure. So that is just my opinion.
Farsight, do you have evidence to support your position that time travel is impossible? I can point out lots of things that are possible but have never happened. Just because you haven't seen something happen doesn't mean its not possible.
LOL - Or else ...
It's not like that. I demand evidence before I am of the opinion that some theory or model looks correct, and I keep an open mind about any further evidence that will further shape my view.
You demand no evidence before you "believe" in something, and then you won't listen to evidence of the contrary.
Spot the difference?
No, I do not believe that we move forward in time at all. And you can't show me any evidence that we do. We move through space. Not time. We employ our motion through space to derive an abstract dimension called time, which is a dimension in that it is a measure. But if offers no freedom of movement, and we can not in fact move through it. I'll say it again: we move through space.
0 -
Ah, so you can't show me any evidence? Of course you can't. There isn't any. But fine. You believe what you like. You cling on to that faith.
Would anybody else like to show me some evidence for possible time travel? Forwards or backwards? No? Because you can't. There isn't any. Don't you get it yet? Has the penny still not dropped after all this time? I demand evidence. You can't give it. Do I have to spell it out?
Time travel is crackpot.
0 -
Does the concepts behind a false vacuum apply to the behavior of electrons in attempting to achieve the lowest possible energy state?
No.
The "false vacuum" is a hypothesis that makes no verifiable prediction and cannot be proven. Personally I think there are major issues with the concept but let's leave that to one side.
Saying that electrons attempt to achieve the lowest possible energy state is potentially confusing. They don't attempt anything, and the statement applies to an electron atomic orbital. But then again, it applies to any system. That's how things work. Energy tends to spread.
0 -
Anybody see the Black Holes article in the October 6th edition of New Scientist?
It rather reminds everybody just how much talk surrounding black holes is conjectural. And it vindicates what I said in Black Holes Explained.
0 -
I explain plenty. You refuse to read what I say and pretend it has no value. I really can explain Dark Energy, and Dark Matter. And it really is so incredibly simple. I feel sorry for this guy:ffs farsight. you say you can explain stuff but never do so. you just ramble on and use analogy after analogy and show pictures in at random intervals. you put up no math and refuse to create it. your explainations are circular or are extended versions of 'that the way it is because thats the way it is'. if you have nothing to add, don't say anything at all.http://www.newscientistjobs.com/list/ViewJob-NS20072624035.html
0 -
Spyman: the time dimension is "there" in that we use it to measure motion through space. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence to demonstrate that we can move through this time dimension. Yes, we say "time flows", but it simply doesn't. Yes, it's a dimension in that it's a measure, the original meaning of dimension. But it isn't something that offers freedom of movement. You can't demonstrate that it does, and you can offer no scientific evidence of this. Nor can you offer any actual evidence that "we all move forward in time at the rate of one second per second". This is an abstraction with no foundation in fact. So anybody who believes time travel is possible, believes in pseudoscience.
All of this is so incredibly simple. It's quite amazing how people, even those who pride themselves on their rationality, can cling to baseless beliefs that have absolutely no evidential support whatsoever. If you doubt me, try showing me some evidence.
0
6-dimensional Maxwell's equations
in Speculations
Posted
Actually, our world is composed of 3+1 dimensions. This distinction is important. If you go right back to the original Maxwell, he talked about displacement. You should look into this, along the lines of a different degree and rate of displacement in each direction. I rather suspect this would be an unmeasurable immersive scale-change, unless this difference continued to increase in some particular direction.
Such as in a radial direction, Norm!