Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KALSTER

  1. Would a superfluid medium show dispersive properties as well as nonliniear speeds depending on wavelength?
  2. Simple question with a not so simple answer probably: Why can't photons be thought of as solitons? Assuming for a moment that there is some kind of a space-time medium, could a photon not be a soliton in such a setup? I have read something against it, which stated that there are no processes that could produce such a wave. For instance an electron giving up energy in the form of a photon does not oscillate in the right way or at all. Would such a solition produce the kind of effects one sees with the double slit experiment? I would think that the idea of photons as solitons would be a straight forward idea to come up with, but I couldn't easily find anything relating to this idea on the internet (probably because I had been searching for "wave packet"). That makes we think that there is probably a pretty obvious reason that it fails. I am working from the premise that a space-time medium exists, but this is not the accepted model, so is this then the primary reason that it fails? Also, would a light beam made up of individual soliton-photons give the same result with the double slit experiment? Here are two links I found that discusses the idea. HERE and HERE. They are both from ten or more years ago though, so how did they fail? The first one is just an abstract, but the second link is a more comprehensive treatment of the subject.
  3. This seems to be a widely misunderstood concept (including by me), yet one commonly used wrongly. One of the common mistakes, for instance, is describing something as simply infinite without specifying exactly what quality of the thing is supposed to be infinite. So let me make some statements and ask some questions regarding infinity and I would like anyone properly knowledgeable to verify their validity, if not make some corrections. It seems to me that structure can exist within infinity. One example of this would be that in a hypothetical universe that is infinite in time, space and matter, that matter could exist as one particle per light year or as an infinite gas cloud and that both scenarios would have infinite matter. As I understand it, it is considered in mathematics that 0.99999..... = 1. But does this necessarily have to be the case in reality? If you have an infinite data set where 0.99999..... is supposed to describe the probability of a certain property to be exhibited by each element of the data set, does that mean that among any number of elements in the infinite data set you would care to consider that all of them would exhibit this particular property? (hope that was coherent :? ) Am I wrong though in saying that limits are only a way for us to deal with infinity? It involves choosing an infinitesimal that has to be added after a certain number of iterations of the series, no? The smaller the infinitesimal the more accurate the result that is attained. In reality you could reduce the size of the infinitesimal infinitely, ending up right back where you started. Or do I misunderstand something?
  4. Do they now? Thanks, that is what I was looking for. I'll read up on it a bit.
  5. Electromagnetism similar to gravity? Or are they the same law?
  6. Has there ever been found a relation between some properties of light (its speed, how mass increases as an object nears light speed, the degree to which light is bent by a gravity field, possible energy levels of photons, etc.) and the equation ? Or rather, are there any phenomena ascribed to light/photons that can be reduced to or is described by the equation? I know this is a pretty vague question, but any answer would be welcome.
  7. This could be difficult and tedious to follow as a result of the lack of proper terms on my part , so please bare with me. I’d like to know if it is possible for a mathematical constraint to be the cause of emergent properties or self organisation. (1)Lets say that you have an infinite number of points on a boundless 2D plane. The distance between any two points is a 1D line/string, and is related by a probability curve. This curve is , where x > 0; x is Distance and y is Probability (The first quadrant half of a Hyperbola). It is my understanding that there can be structure within infinity. An example of this is that in a hypothetical, infinite and unbounded universe, it would contain an infinite amount of matter, whether it consists of one proton every light year or if it is one continuous gas cloud. Similarly I am thinking that such an arrangement can exhibit structure as well, that is, areas of varying density. I am not sure how exactly to frase this. :? OK. If you start with any given physical system, you can analise the workings of such a system by observing behaviour and then trying to find the causes behind each occurrence. Eventually one would start to see patterns emerging, patterns that could be described by equations/formulas. Each pattern could be further analysed until the cause and effect relationships between constituent participants in the pattern can be deduced. This process can be repeated again and again, further reducing the system to a larger number of constituent predictable processes each time, but then eventually a limit is reached, which can be the limit of computing power, etc. I am wondering, after sufficiently reducing the system, if one could eventually reach a point where a simple mathematic expression can be the direct cause of all the macro observed effects. Take the setup at (1). The distance between any two points tend toward 0. If the formula is valid for an infinite plane, could a clumping of points, that is nearer to each other than surrounding points, actually directly cause the surrounding points to be further apart from each other in order for the formula to stay exactly valid? That is, if a clump of higher density points are formed locally, that the “violation” of the formula could cause an equal amount of deviation in the opposite direction (lower density) in the surrounding point space, starting from a maximum deviation at the clump’s border and petering out to zero deviation. Would this require base/minimum units of distance and/or time to be possible? How (if at all) would other areas of higher average density be affected by areas of lower density it might be passing into? Would further parameters be required for one high density area to affect another (by way of the low density “aura”)?
  8. I had this problem on another forum as well. Let me provide a hopefully clearer discription. I agree with what you are saying. I said a finite number of point sources, meaning point sources that have the added attributes as I discribed. If the construct were to be able to exhibit volume, then starting with an infinite number of point sources would negate the role the sphere/bag/skin plays in the setup, which is that you could form an intuative picture of volume created by the construct. I wanted to set up the experiment in my mind with some added particulars and then see what happens. Points are, as you say, zero dimensional. Lines are one dimensional. In physics a string is defined as a vibrating one dimensional line. I wanted to add the vibrating property of the strings into the construct later on, only after I have formed a complete mental picture of what is happening. Anyway, the points I am talking about do not physically exist, only as the point of origin through which the physical one dimensional lines fluctuate. These fluctuations occur roughly according to this graph: As you can see from the graph, the chance of the strings being smaller increases substantially the smaller they get. In fact, one could describe the limit where the deviation from zero tends towards zero. So large deviation become unlikely to the extreme quite quickly. That is, they can go in any direction and can elongate to any length, but with the constraint that they are more likely to be small than large. Let me make the speed at which they elongate, arbitrarily, the speed of light. So then my question was if this setup could exhibit volume. A point source will, over a sufficient period of time, form the rough appearance of a sphere. I am just wondering if, since the lines are only one dimensional, if a confined finite number or an infinite number would be able to affect each other, or “push” against each other. If the answer to this were to be no, that is when I would have to introduce the extra condition of the lines/strings vibrating (as proposed in current string theories). That would provide a measure of volume to each string, but it would also then force the necessity for gaps to form, that is, areas in the volume that is not occupied by anything at all. I was trying to avoid these gaps, for reasons to be discussed later. You see, I am trying to consider candidate constructs for the space-time fabric, of which this one seems the most promising to date. At the moment I am thinking about whether the formed strings need to vibrate in order for the construct to be able to exhibit volume. The variation of two variables I can identify can then be responsible for inflation, namely the amount of vibration of the strings and the frequency distribution of longer deviations from zero of the strings.
  9. This is one of a few scenario's I was contemplating today while on a trip. Suppose you have a square sheet of rubber. This rubber has zero internal friction and perfect elasticity. Now, take two sides and join them, forming a cylinder. Take one end and start rolling it up so that you are turning it inside-out. When you have done a bit, give it a final yank and let go. This is done in a perfect vacuum with no external interference. What will happen? As I see it, it should keep on rolling until it is completely inside-out. But then I think it should continue (as a result of momentum) and keep turning itself inside-out perpetually. The initial energy applied can't dissipate, so it has to keep on moving. Now, imagine that in one oscillation, when the two open ends meet they fuse together, forming a torus. What will happen to the motion then? I think a reference dot made on the inside of the torus should then move around in a circular motion around the outside and back to its original position, no? Now on to a second and slightly more complex thought I had. Suppose you have a sphere enclosing a near infinite number of zero dimensional points. It would then simply be a single zero dimensional point. But let's say that each point can stray into any one of three dimensions at any time, forming a one dimensional string and then reverting back through the origin and into another dimension. The dimension it strays into is completely random. The degree to which it fluctuates, though, is determined by a probability curve. The smaller the fluctuation, the more likely it is. This probability curve might look something like a hyperbola, but with the symmetry being along the Y axis. The X axis would then be the vector degree of fluctuation (vector, as in it can fluctuate in any of two directions from the origin for each dimension) and the Y axis would be the frequency. Now, how would the sphere look and behave now? It's size would be determined by the shape of the probability curve. The more likely larger fluctuations become, the bigger the sphere gets. Every now and again a very large fluctuation might occur and the sphere would only be spherical on average. In fact, it could statistically form almost any shape given enough time. It could even form all kinds of shapes, or geometries, on the inside with varying density. So how would the point sources fit together when the fluctuations occur? Does there have to be spaces in between? Would it still be able to have volume with no empty spaces in between? Each formed string should push away any adjacent strings, creating volume, no? Now what if we extend this sphere into infinity. Would shapes still be possible internally as density varies? I think sure. EDIT: It has occurred to me that if only one of three dimensions are allowed that the skin enclosing the point sources would be a rough cube. Only if combination vectors are allowed would a sphere result. But then, how would the frequency and variety of possible geometric shapes be affected by either scenario in an infinite volume?
  10. I have been having a lot of fun with my theory trying to judge its qualitative compatibility with observation and current theory (lacking the maths required for quantitative explorations) as I expand on the emergences of the premise. I am glad to see someone doing serious research on a somewhat similar model. I will watch your progress with interest.
  11. Well, thanks a lot for that description. I have my own little hypothesis (devoid of math) that involves the medium behaving like a superfluid, with the constituent "particles" being sub-Planck lengthed to get rid of the base reference frame problem. I apparently also have wave packets in it mostly as representing photons (I have been calling them wave bundles though, more complex ones being particles). Yours looks much more detailed and thorough though. Good luck to you.
  12. Does this imply the involvement of some kind of medium? Are you describing photons as solitons, maybe topological solitons? Could this be extrapolated to describe particles? If my questions don't make sense or aren't even pertinent, it is because I am a layman that doesn't know what he is talking about. "No, no and stay out of this thread, idiot" would then be an acceptable response.
  13. First a quote from the NIST page on recent Bose-Einstein Condensate experiments: ” Working at JILA, physicist Carl Wieman's [pronounced wy-man] team has explored tuning the self-interaction of atoms in a BEC. By making a BEC in a particular isotope of rubidium, rubidium-85, and then changing the magnetic field in which the BEC is sitting, the team is able to adjust the wavefunction's self-interaction between repulsion and attraction. If the self-interaction is repulsive, all the parts of the wavefunction push each other away. If it is attractive, they all pull towards each other, like gravity. Achieving a pure BEC in rubidium-85 required the cloud of atoms to be cooled to about 3 billionths of a degree above absolute zero, the lowest temperature ever achieved. Making the self-interaction mildly repulsive causes the condensate to swell up in a controlled manner, as predicted by theory. However, when the magnetic field is adjusted to make the interaction attractive, dramatic and very unexpected effects are observed. The condensate first shrinks as expected, but rather than gradually clumping together in a mass, there is instead a sudden explosion of atoms outward. This "explosion," which actually corresponds to a tiny amount of energy by normal standards, continues for a few thousandths of a second. Left behind is a small cold remnant condensate surrounded by the expanding gas of the explosion. About half the original atoms in the condensate seem to have vanished in that they are not seen in either the remnant or the expanding gas cloud.” They change the properties of the magnetic field trapping the BEC, but how does that affect the forces present in between the constituent atoms? Do they simply tune the field so that it cancels out repulsive forces by destructively interfering with them? Can this only be done with BEC’s because of the uniformity of the wavefunction the atoms collapsed to? Does it mean that the virtual force-carrier particles of each field (van der Waal?) interfere with each other and cancels out? What happens to the energy then, or does it simply revert to the ground zero point energy? What do they mean when they say that “this procedure caused the BEC to implode and shrink beyond detection”?
  14. New Science, you can't call your philosophical musings a theory. It has none of the requirements. You make a variety of claims, with no supporting evidence or even logic, and then build on them with still more assumptive claims. Did you think you'd be taken seriously? And don't start mumbling about "narrow-mindedness" and "power science" and other pseudoscientist fodder please.
  15. Your ideas have a few similarities to the ideas I posted on this and other sites in the past, i.e. particles being quantized waves themselves and some others. One thing you do not address is that these waves of yours need a medium that you attribute to the generic thought of "space-time", but hint at some form of aether instead. Do you have any ideas about the nature of this medium?
  16. I made this same thread on another forum and it got Really Interesting over there!
  17. Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying?
  18. You know, I have been considering something similar HERE on another forum. Some of the ideas has evolved somewhat while still keeping with the initial premise, which is the possibility that all of the universe (matter and forces) are geometric distortions of an infinite (and lately superfluid) medium. I want to satisfy Einstein's requirements for an aether to be compatible with SR, which is that it can not be thought of as existing of individual particles in relation to which motion can be measured. A primary reference frame if you will. So a way to circumvent this requirement, I thought, was if the particles in question were sub Planck-lengthed. Trying to consider them in relation to anything on the macro scale becomes meaningless. So in that way it can become a truely continuous medium maybe?
  19. Ok, cool, thought so. So when the photons leave, nothing would stay behind, so there is nothing to consider. But in a strong electromagnetic field the photons might hit a virtual pair and impart enough momentum to create some more true particle-antiparticle pairs. You could detect that, no?
  20. That they stay local or travel at C?
  21. You could apply the same logic to any movement, yet we can move! Zeno's_paradoxes are what we are dealing with here in your proposal, and as you suggested, calculus takes care of it. Time is the way we measure relative movement and nothing more. Time would not exist in a universe of zero size, or T = 0 as you call it. Some people have in the past suggested that there exists a fundamental increment of movement. This would take care of your problem, if it existed. Modern theories dealing with vibrating strings mean that at small enough scales things get "fuzzy", so I guess that could mean that at small enough scales movement becomes a misnomer, similar to electron orbitals. In current quantum theory they can't be thought of as orbiting the nucleus, but rather that the electron is governed by a probability function, which means essentially that it could be thought of as being at every possible point in its orbit at all times, creating an electron cloud as it were. It is called quantum uncertainty or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. PS: Never heard it explained that way before:D
  22. Found a pdf for you, hope it helps.
  23. But a massless particle is supposed to travel at C, no? So how could the products (photons) stay local?
  24. I didn't know they moved it here, oh well. Very true. That is why it has tie up with observation, experimentation, and verified predictions. Then after this it can make predictions of its own (with the aid of appropriate mathematics) that can be tested. If these pan out, it can call itself a proper theory, while still being inherently falsifiable. The initial assumptions are my attempt to provide a bridge between QM and relativity, explain wave-particle duality, and maybe even bring back logical consinstency to QM (explain H Uncertainty, non-locality, true chaos, etc) by elucidating the exact processes involved. You mean other than what i have been considering as an explanation for forces (excluding gravity)? Do you maybe have a link?
  25. More or less, but it has to be coherent, i.e. the shape has to be constant to at least a predictable degree.
  • 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.