Tsadi

UFO's are real. Alien Aircraft though, maybe not. + Eric is a good author, but perpetuates the truth to his control of the audience. He hs no proof whatsoever, but shakey evidence at best.

You lot bicker more than actual conversation.

All due respect, i've read it in other places as well. I based the last part on something i remember, but still not well, as i said.

I've seen this statement a few times... my memory does NOT serve me well, but i do believe there is a mention of this quantum fact in The Anthropic Principle, by Tipler and John Barrow. It's been a while, i might be wrong.

Though, if you are asked in college, what are the forces acting on, lets say a rocket, one of the forces are given as resistance.

I stand by it like stone. The actions, such as quantum actions are memorized by the vacuum. They are never lost. Depends on the type of your training perhaps, but you will learn it eventually; the fact you haven't i cannot comment on. But quantum actions are not forgotten in the vacuum, as everything is recorded. Now the implications are huge. It means to some extent, nothing is ever lost, even simple actions themselves. I do believe the first physicist i heard mention this was Frank J. Tipler. (back in the day).

Oh well, more and more physicists are coming to the conclusion that time really doesn't exist at all, and really without us there, there is no flow of time, and everything is more like discontinuous fleeting flashes of existence. So it kinda works well with what you said. In fact, i do believe Stewart Hameroff has said time isn't actually a river, and even Frank J Tipler had developed a theory where existence itself flashed in and out of existence at Planck Time. I can understand if existence was going to pop in and out of existence at Planck Time, it would be that time acting as a zero point.

I see no correspondance in any of this with any coupling. Help me out here. Also, for the record, what is a cosmic coupling phenomena?

I took Chemistry and Biology at college level, and i certainly found the biology most difficult. Chemistry was very easy, i thought, and physics was pretty much easy for me. But for some reason, biology made me shake at the knees.

Let's look at this from a thought-experiment. Imagine we moved a rock to the top of a cliff. We know that from [math]PE=mgh[/math], we can deduct that the work put into the object (from moving a rock from a ground state to the top of a cliff) seriously determines the potential energy derived. We scale ourselves just how much potential energy a thing can have, due to the past variables no? This is the way i have always envisioned it. I'm asking, how does one put a relativistic description of reality (one where the past is an illusion), into physics that kind of depends on some measure over time, relying on a past to exist? Does anyone understand what i mean? Moving the rock to the top of a cliff, seems straight forward, and relies on some past to exist to get that rock to the top of cliff. But in relativity, there is no past, so how can two theories like this ever work in a sensical way? Well gravity so far has failed as fundamental theory, but predeterminism is something else. But i do believe that the future is a history that we simply can't remember, not in the sense we can remember the history we call ''past''. I believe, as many scientists do, that somehow every event is written into spacetime. Everything i do, come to do, say or write, is somehow stored into the vacuum itself. We are taught in physics that quantum actions are never lost. The process of a bit of energy being shared between two atoms, is in fact stored in the vacuum itself, in a form of memory. So actions moving from [math]t_0[/math] to [math]t_1[/math] is ''memorized'' by the vacuum. If this is true, and if relativity is correct in its conclusions, then everything in the future has already happened, and somehow the future effects us in a statistical way, as to say, the probable future can be determined in principle whilst still living in the present. But how much knowledge we can gain, is probably more complicated.

This is very insightful. Thank you.

No, but surely it is obvious from the luminous colours?

On a wider scale of thought, every fleeting moment we call the present time, consists of the same ''constituents'' it had at any other time. This is true, as i think you point out, but potential energy is written in respect to its past state, and potential energy of ''thing'' will continue without any past reference in a relativistic mainframe. In order to overcome such a problem, i would have thought, is to say any potentiality, has already been made, and hence collapse in the wave function. If it didn't, i ask, how would such a system know how to propogate, without determination into the future? It seems when Einstein said everything was predetermined, could not be so far from the truth, as to any potential is to actuality.

Right so we agreed on the same thing... Maybe it was the way i worded my last post.

There are some models that deal with a shell, such as positroniums, with an outer shell, containing an electron and a positron whizzing around; so the shell contains the momentum of the particles.

I argue it wouldn't. I would argue it would become a molten ball that would eventually be consumed. When i read the post above, i assumed he meant totally vaporized. I don't think it would. I think it would become a dense ball of molten rock.

I doubt we could ever split a quark.

The earth would certainly scorch: Become molten before it ever reach the sun, or the sun reached the earth... but it would not melt entirely.

I know what potential energy is, i personally have a problem with the notion behind potential energy. I am not trying to speculate in this thread, just forward a few of my displeasures behind treating it a ''real thing.'' I hope for good discussion to come out of it. Right, so where do i start? Well, i always try to integrate relativistic framework into my thinking. In fact, i often believe, that if you integrate a relativistic framework into an idea, fitting quantum mechanics (usually), is easier, than fitting quantum mechanics into relativity. You might think i am rambling, because surely, fitting one into the other, despite which way you do it, should yield the same difficulty. But i often believe, if it works well with relativity first, then any conclusions you draw forth on the idea, should be able to fit into a quantum framework relatively easy. (I am sure people may disagree with that line of thought, but its how i have come to understand integrating theories together.) Now, in relativity, a few weird situations arise when considering actions; those moments in time, which appear to us as linear representations of events unfolding around us as the hand on the clock passes us by. These events seem very real to us (the observer), but events in relativity that are seperated by a past cone and a future cone are stressed as being illusions -- or perhaps even better said yet, illusory of the mind. Time does not seperate into a past, present and a future. Instead, we seem to accept in relativity that there is only a present time, and that ''all time''* is in fact one large river, that does not flow, but instead is frozen in its own framework. (Read Brain Greene's book, ''The Frozen River'', for some good insights.) * I mean this ''all time'' to represent the notion of all events from the alpha point to the omega point. So instead, we envision spacetime as a single frame of existence; or stops and starts, fleeting flashes of existence without a past and a future, but focused on the here and now. If that is true, then how can potential energy fit into this picture? For something to have a potential energy, we consider the past work put into that system; but if a past does not exist, how can these two seemingly accepted notions of science ever work together in a sensical way? Tsadi

I do beleive, observing couplings would suffice.

Oh, i now see the problem. You are believing i was insighting as gospal. I certainly wasn't, and i apologize if my post came across that way. The post was actually there to show that we do have other arena's we can follow, without the worry (or constant worry), that the laws of physics are somehow not the same in every direction. This statement alone, as you will know, is based purely on the fact if singularities do exist, then the laws of physics certainly break down in certain area's of the universe. As for Doctor Hawking's age, i agree, age can certainly take the juice out of you. I am young, as you guessed. I'm still within my education of sciences, but i am still allowed my conjecture. In the end, i seriously don't think wedding quantum mechanics and relativity together into a single framework will be enough. In fact, i would be surprised if a grand unification theory can ever be achieved at all. There are simply too many variables, and probable chaotic systems to deal with any absolute theory in general. As for the books, i tend to shy away from talking about popularized science. I tend to base what i know from (either learning it in class), or by reading scientific papers. In the end, i don't like singular regions, because i simply won't accept a totally lawless region of spacetime. I think any appearance of a singularity in our work, is just the equations gone wrong.

The post truely was innocent to show we don't need to have singularities. Nothing more and nothing less. However, just to address some of your points; Why is the wormhole statement bizarre? Here's a little cosmological physics for you: Depending on what state our universe began in, the beginning of the universe can contain either a singular region, or a wormhole: A topological opening in space and time linking this universe with another universe. If our universe began in a ground state, then the beginning of the universe will look more like a singularity. However, if it began in an excited state, then the universe will have begun with one of these topological openings, we call wormholes. And i don't have Hawkings work backwards AT ALL. I know my stuff quite well; Hawking no longer believes that singularities exist, because YOU CAN apply quantum mechanics at the beginning of time. DH, i am very sure you are a good physicist, but just as you try and not give Hawking the honor he deserves, by saying to me he is not the all and be all of cosmological physics, i'm affraid to inform you he is yet the best at the moment, so when i am going to qoute him, i will do so with great beleif he has more understanding into the subject either me or you will ever have. Good day

Where abouts in scotland do you live severian?

It is false.

Well, singularities don't need to exist, in our mathematics. There was a time when Hawking considered the singularity, and realized, not only just one could exist (namely the big bang), but in fact an infinite amount of singularities could exist. And this bothered Hawking. In the 1970's (i think), Hawking was fixated on the singular problem, so he introduced quantum mechanics at the very dawn of time, and by doing so, this meant that even quantum events where occurring during the big bang. By introducing quantum mechanics, when the laws where supposed to break down, removed singularities completely, and replaced it with a wormhole. So we don't need singularities any more, a common mistake people still believe in, even professional scientists. We can actually deal with a theory that doesn't permit them.