throng

.doc's are not images. Which is why they're not showing as such...

 

Save the diagram you want as some image file (jpg or png is probably best depending on what it is)...

I'm not great with computers but computers are great without me.

I still cant make a picture, I need the total idiot explanation i'm afraid.

hope it works

reference frames diagram.doc

hope it works.

reference frames diagram.doc

Please excuse a beginner's question. I don't see the need for superluminal or hidden varible theories to avoid what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Couldn't the spacetime contraction in relativity theory provide the answer?

 

Let's suppose that we could put an observer on the back of a photon. For that observer, spacetime will have contracted to zero or near-zero. The inception of that photon's life and its ending would be simultaneous or nearly so.

 

For two entangled photons, our observer would see near-zero distance between the two and near-zero time for information to pass from one to the other. Our observer would not experience nonlocality and would find no need for hidden or superluminal varibles.

 

So, isn't our spooky experience of the entangled photons just an artifact of our frame of reference? From the photon's frame of reference their is no nonlocality and no need to construct a hidden varible theory.

 

What am I missing?

That’s the problem, isolating the two photons creates the isolated observation of the two movements. Assuming rest seems somewhat obscure…

The observer can interpret movement anyhow as he can’t co-ordinate himself.

Being directly between the photons is like being everywhere in between, because the photons move “forward and backward”, being everywhere on the line. So, being "still" on the line is exactly like riding a photon in that motion is unobservable.

So its instantaneous on the line and anything can be assumed observing the line. It is tricky interpreting the isolated observation of two photons.

A mechanical failure resulted in a large helium leak around midday Friday (yesterday) in sector 34. The mechanical failure is presumed due to a bad electrical connection between two magnets. The magnets carry high current, so if a part of the circuit loses superconductivity and develops resistance, it can quickly heat and blow.

 

CERN press release:

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR09.08E.html

 

 

The repair is expected to be quick (a few days at most.) What will take time, and will cause at least a two month delay, is that sector 34 will have to be warmed up first (to permit opening for repair) and then cooled down again---to restore superconductivity. It is the warming up and cooling down that takes time.

 

I would guess that collisions will be put off until next year---hopefully early in the year, perhaps right after the winter break.

 

This is sad and frustrating news, but it is remarkable how well the engineering has gone in general, and how little delay there has been, given the complexity of the project.

G'day, I'm pretty interested in the collider. Its just a high tech, high speed, head on collision to smash things and catalogue the bits. Kind of primative in that way, but smashes are pretty exciting.

I guess any valuable findings would be top secret.

In finding the knowledge we seek, I hope we apply it with subtlety that's becoming.

As we manipulate the fabric of space/time, creating mini black holes and completely unknown phenomena, particles that wouldn't normally exist, will we "modify" space for our convenience? (futuristically).

Anyway however we apply the knowledge it will offer great insight to the universe.

Here's the scientists involved on a documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6PMfnz2E

Would somebody please explain what should be done to post images from my files. I want to put up graphs and diagrams.

Thanks everyone, hope you can help.

It has occurred to me:

why? = y so wh? = 1

This means though the problem is solved, I think this could greatly reduce the anagram uncertainty.

> I don't know what this expanding mass is.

 

Well never mind, then.

I do actually get the drift. It is a good visual challenge. I've got a notion on moving points which I think may represent the radius of what you see as a sphere. I'm a bit iffy in the physics but the visual image has exact proportions.

It starts with an infinitely small elementary solitary primary point which is the actual source of future movement, so it is moving, and the observer, whos point of reference is the point. He has observed nothing and doesn't know time or anything.

The point is called (e1). Observation nothing. Nothing can be deduced.

The point splits (we assume that now but confirm it later) and (e1) and (e2) move away from eacthother. (which is akin to your radius). You see that the observer on (e1) has a perception problem at the time of the split.

The observer is strictly restricted to (e1). The observer is fairly intergral in this.

If you are interested in discussion I would love to pick it appart a bit. The disparity is at the "time" of the split I have one dimention and you have three. (In loose terms.) I'd have no use for Pi, in one dimention.

From the perspective of a photon traveling here from the big bang the world as it is now would appear to have been instantly created. For me this implies the idea of predestination. That is, everything that has happened and will happen was determined in the big bang itself. Hope you can follow my logic. It also implies that there is a unseen dimension which is timeless and in which all matter is in immediate contact with all other matter.

I have a question which is probably commonly asked.

If a photon/observer takes no time to traverse distance it would mean he was at all points simutaneously. so the universe would be the size of the photon, from that perspective. It'd be infinitely small too. Or big, I don't know.

Is that hypothetically right?

Thanks Severian

So the standard model can compute the life time (or should I say the half-life time ?) of the neutron! I asked because the only thing I saw on the standard model is little table with the "fundamental particle" and some Feynman diagram .

What would be a good start to go deeper than that ? What level of math is necesary ?

 

I completly agree and I am at that step.

He did these very entertaining lectures. Get a pen and paper and draw as it goes along, Its such a simple overveiw. probably have to pause it a few times to process it.

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

I reckon we won't. That would be far too easy woudn't it. Well probably find the HB to actually be a thousand and one new particles!

It's probably like the begining of time or the edge of the universe (same thing really), You can never quite see it. Just keeps on getting smaller.

and what about other languages, such as chinese, french, german, spanish, afrikaans, japanese, indian, hebrew, etc. etc.

if there's a question mark it can be divided out so you still get nonsence, but in a different language. I'm working on a relativity theory there.

I have worked out the answer to the eternal questions:

who am I? what am I? where am I? when am I? how am I? why am I?

The only known solution is: when am I? = now.

Multiply all equations by “now” so they are proportional to the known solution.

Strangely enough they all have the same answer, as I’ll prove below.

Who am I now? What am I now? Where am I now? How am I now? Why am I now? And the real doozy … When am I now?

Then simplify the questions as shown below.

Divide out the common symbols “w.h.a.m.I.?.” and find the solution: “oatereenoy”, by removing the question mark, but allow for variances in anagrams. We’d express this “atrny.e^3.o^2” of course.

So, the solution to the eternal problems is:

atrny.e^3.o^2.

There is an uncertainty caused by anagram, and I can’t work out why

y = why? after division by wh?.

But I reckon I’ve just about cracked it!

The outside has no volume, volume is space.

Considering its all little movements of energy the universe is the existence of energy forms.

A singular elementary state and a shifting form state. Not inside and outside

As we ponder the question we assume a solid universe, like rocks shooting outward.

The universe is movement of energy and the smallest particles are “strange” states of matter.

In relative motion, if time stopped, it would take an instant to traverse distance and the traveler would be everywhere at once. The universe would be very very small.

Slowing down has an expansion effect as distance takes longer.

At infinite speed the universe is infinitely small; at total rest it is infinitely large.

I guess there’s an observational frequency, related to time. As distances take longer at a given speed we interpret it as expansion.

I’m trying to get a picture in my head of relative movement by starting with the solitary and exploring the possibilities of movement. I’m not sure if it’ll help with light speed, probably not.

Imagine you are at solitary particle (e1). Nothing is observable.

The movement splits into (e1) and (e2). The observer is restricted to the line between the sources of movement. He establishes his co-ordinates as x (not x,y,z), which could be anywhere on the line.

I don’t think the observer could detect movement or his co-ordinates under these hypotheses, as the line links the sources of movement.

Please show how movement is detectable in these environs.

I’m trying to get a visual picture of the relative movement of particles.

Imagine you are in the solitary particle. There is nothing outside the particle.

So you’re inside, observing nothing and the particle splits (replicates) and the two particles move apart.

The observer can’t detect movement from his particle so would he detect the split?

My guess is, the second particle would suddenly appear, but you couldn’t judge its movement.

I guess red shift would tell its distance and speed.

The observer sets out toward the particle he can see. His particle suddenly appears behind him.

His speed is only one tenth of that of the separating particles.

Will he reach the other particle?

It seems to me his movement would only be relative to the two particles. He’d still leave one and approach the other. Wouldn’t he?

Why do you think a 3rd observer could only see an "expanding straight line", conversation of momentum would say the two would have to be moving away from each other but relative to the observer there's nothing that says they have to be moving at a given velocity...

I never mentioned a "given" velocity. Only that velocity is detectable, and only from a reference point not on the trajectory.

From any point on the trajectory no motion is detectable, no line is detectable, no distance is detectable and no velocity is detectable.

From within the linear universe the point of observation is the only thing observable. (as opposed to a point universe where only nothing is detectable from within.)

Can that be denied? If not, I'd like to expand the concept a little furthur so as to more accurately define c.

If I am not there to measure the motion, does that mean the particle doesn't travel a specific distance?

I understand your point.

There is an actual distance travelled. The observer would perceive the motion and distance relative to his own perspective.

You point out the actuallity that the observer's perception is relative to.

It is not included in relativity.

This thread is just visual thinking about particles, movement and c so if you can picture it, thats all you need.

I appreciate your point that perception seems relative to an actuality and hope you contribute to the thread.

Don't be intimididated by the knowledgable. Those who know most know how little they know.

I think it best if we use massive particles not massless ones. As massless ones lead to all kinds of questions...

 

So your particle splits into two identical ones that start moving away from each other in the rest frame of the original particle.

 

An independent observer could tell that the particles are moving in relation to himself.

 

You seem to be heading along the right tracks.

 

Speed, distance etc are all relative. What someone measures in one frame is different to what someone else will measure in another frame, and neither frame is absolutely correct, neither is preferred.... On earth we often use the earth as our fixed reference frame because it's easy to do. But if we used the reference frame of the sun it would still be possible to work everything out it'd just be more annoying.

ONE PARTICLE:

From a second point of reference, motion is anything.

From within the point universe, there is nothing.

TWO PARTICLES:

The observer at a third point of reference would see motion as an expanding straight line. He has no perception of “sideways” or orbital movement. He can’t tell which or if both are moving. Only straight relative motion can be observed. The universe is an expanding straight line.

From within the linear universe motion remains undetectable, though there is a relative movement.

Is there flaw in that notion?

Think about what "move forward" means.

 

I.e. move forward with respect to/ in what direction?

I used inverted commas as I understand the solitary partial can neither be inert, in motion nor even exist relative to another thing. How would one describe this state? Inertia is equally inaccurate as motion. Is it c?

In observing movement in the two halves we could assume that movement of the primary particle was the cause. It could be potential energy, which in turn must be kinetically derived.

For the sake of sanity let’s say the primary particle is potential energy and call it E.

It splits and movement becomes observable. The particles move in an expanding line. The observer at a third point of reference can’t tell which or if both are in motion.

From a particle’s point of view distance is meaningless. The two halves would appear to have distance of “anything”, for there is no third point.

So E is conserved in motion and the two particles move in an indefinable way. The linear universe is only observable from a third reference point. (similar to a point universe)

The movement between two reference points is as meaningless as the movement of one. How would one assertain distance or speed? At best it could be said the halves are “relative” to each other.

Are my visualisations still in the realm?

HI ONE AND ALL.

I am a songwriter, I practice expanding simple concepts until they just dissapear into meaninglessness in an endeavor to open myself to more inspiration.

The concept of motion is my latest musing and delving into its inner workings is the widest imagining I have had. How is inertia and c the same? furthermore, what is motion as a whole related to? Seems c isn't imaginable and eventually my expansion will dissapate into nothingness. Then I'll recieve the inspiration and produce my silly song.

So you now have two particles with which you can compare the velocity of one of them with respect to the other. There's nothing else to compare it to.

 

The universe has no absolute rest frame.

 

...

Imagine the massless solitary partice splits.

Both “move forward” at indefinable “speed” and apart relative to each other.

We can’t tell which or if both are moving and only velocity (not speed) is detectable.

Line motion is detectable so we have time, distance and velocity.

“Space” is expanding in a straight line between two massless particles.

I don’t know much math. Am I still in the realm?

Hello everyone,

I wonder how to define light speed.

Imagine a solitary particle. It isn’t moving toward or away from anything so it “looks” like its still. There is no way to ascertain if it is moving or how fast. Movement and inertia are the same.

Is this the nature of light speed?

I was kicked off a physics forum for twice posting this notion, so they see it as crackpottery. A generous compliment, I think.