Jump to content

Edgard Neuman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-18 Bad

1 Follower

About Edgard Neuman

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

4589 profile views
  1. in that case you have products of x * (1 - x) that are all irrational but I understand that you don't reach the sequence starting from another irrational (unless the expression if infinite) Ok so no bijection ! So you have a family of number (that are irrational) for each irrational and the expressions using them (like sqrt(2)* p /q for instance are all irrational of the family of sqrt(2)). That's the object my other question : Thanks a lot.
  2. I don't 😩 For instance, with : x[n+1]=r * x[n] * (1-x[n]) With r = sqrt(2)*2.6 for instance X[n] is always in [0 ; 1] How do you find y in [0 ; 1 ] that is not in { x[n] } ? Thanks for your help
  3. nobody answered that question, but I think it's important.. if logistic map sequence never repeat and still stay in the interval [0 ; 1], and if we can prove than any x in [0;1] eventually is in it, then it's a way to build a bijection between N and [0;1]..(that wouldn't surprise me, but you probably) I suppose some real in [0:1] are not in the sequence, but how can we build these numbers ?
  4. Picture the family tree of a specie (that's an analogy)... at any point in time you have several versions of the prototypical individual (each version of the DNA of the specie) living concurrently.. but as time pass, every branches eventually die off. Until you get to a point where only one ancestor is still represented by its descendant.. (the last common ancestor). At each point in time there are several individuals simultaneously, but far enough in the past, only one of them is needed to explain the present. Now replace "individuals", by "alternate universes" (concurrent versions of the Feynman diagram). I love this analogy, because it also understand how branches that died off are still necessary to explain what happened in the past, just as you need all the concurrent Feynman scenari to compute the probability of the final state..
  5. Hi, I'm going to loose some other reputation points.... (I invoke the 1st amendment) Everything is made of particles, the human, the brain, the air, the photomultiplier.. So maybe the only way of seeing the difference between multiple states and single states is relative to the present.. all states of photon hits the screen, maybe its only when it is multiplied into macroscopic world than states are selected... Imagining that reality as a big tree of consequences made of various states branching into multiple new states at each moment. - suppose simultaneous realities can always only differ to a certain extant (so the universe doesn't split into parallele stories).. (that is not limited by distance, allowing all the entangled things) - but still at each point in time, there's always multiple state for each particles.. - stories always divides into several branches, but some branches constantly dies... (That's really what need to be solved in my opinion) - so from the present, when we look far enough in the past (relatively to the scale of what we are looking at), what remains is only the common ancestors of all current states.. the states who branched into the reality that remains when all the others died. In that views, (which I suppose is what the "quantum darwinism" is about), there's no need for "decoherence"
  6. As always, you seem to not understand my very complicated question, and give me very basic answers, that I understood a thousand times. I'm challenging the theory. I try to understand it fully, and I thought of a specific case that seems (at least to me) to contradict it. I may be wrong, but I want to understand HOW. Imagine a gas. In a perfect closed (or opened ?) chamber. All molecules of the gas are bouncing on the walls of the perfect chamber according to its shape. I'm a well aware of the laws of thermodynamics. That's not what I'm asking. My "vivid visual imagination" tells me (and some article I read about specific shapes that modify the density of things when they bounce in it), that, maybe for some specific shapes of the chamber, ordinary bouncing of particles could be altered in a certain way so that, from a state where all molecule are going in a random directions, they end up all going in the same direction and at the same speed. It's a box that SORT molecule and ORGANIZE them because of it's specific shape. It's a kind of maxwell's demon, doing so only with its shape. Because of the shape and the bounces. You know that parabolas for instance, have specific properties.. I know you can create some chamber with very specific shapes where some place are only accessible after a certain serie of specific bounces (at least in 2D), or with forbidden area where a bouncing never goes. I'm thinking of very specific asymmetric shaped billiard that affect trajectories is a particular way. Are you aware of that ? (the problem is I read a lot of articles and it's very hard to find this one back) I understand, that in that very particular case, if in the end, (after the bounces in the very specific shapes) molecules effectively all go in the same direction, at the same speed, one could then argue that the entropy of the gas diminished. (because in their own shared frame of movement, they are not moving relative to each others, therefore their temperature is zero (may I remind you that "temperature" is not a mathematical object that exists by its own or is carried by space, but a statistical property of the molecules of a gas) ). There's two possibility : - such a shape does not exist (I don't see why but maybe for mathematical reasons). That would solve the paradox. In that case WHY NOT ? - in that thought experiment, if the shape exist, did something gained entropy that I missed ? (we have to suppose the walls are perfect)..So in that case WHAT DID ? I think I have the answer : the box necessarily gained some momentum in the opposite direction (the momentum of molecule that were redirected by the box), so for the law of thermodynamic to work, and the whole thing should have globally the same entropy : the box and the gas moving in opposite directions have globally the same entropy, because of their relative movement. That give me some insight (believe it or not )... so the entropy of a system of objects is proportional to the mass of the component of the system and to the disparity of speed around the barycenter.. (because speed is relative to the frame, but the disparity of speed is the invariant)... it's like the "n object gas" and a zero entropy box turned into "2 object" gas with high entropy (because the high mass).. Don't bother answering, I have my answer..
  7. hi, that may be a stupid question, but I'm not sure about the answer.. is it really impossible to reduce the entropy of a gas ? Picture a cavity with a special shape (probably parabolas) where molecule would preferentially bounce in carefully selected directions.. it could also be some sort of tube, where when you put some gas at one end, molecules end up going all parallel at the other end.. I suppose what would be difficult is to make the speed of the particles uniform, but maybe if you use some material with a specific bouncing properties (i mean that molecules would bounce to different direction varying with their speed, and so you can filter them using only geometry) is it really impossible ?
  8. Hi, I have a lot of experience in coding, and this is a common problem, ranking objects (usually you need ranking to store them in a tree that you can request fast, using a "index", the index need ranking).. if what you need is just a way to rank objects. A usual way is simply to sort them using each of their properties sequentially : compare them using the first method, and if they are equal, then use the second method.. it's what we all do with word with more than 1 letters (we compare the first letter, then if it fails, we compare the second letter etc..) but if the methods must have the same importance, there is no method that wouldn't give equality, because your values are symmetrical.
  9. and what about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory
  10. I realize maybe we would have to define them each as a unique "set" of integer powers of a specific irrational number between ]0;1[ but the idea remains the same
  11. Hi, Here is a math question : First I'm going to define some things (some names may already exists that I don't know of, so please take my definition into consideration) - let's call p[n] the nth-rank prime number p[0]=1, p[1]=2, p[2]=3, p[3]=5 etc - as you know, each integer >0 can be written as a product of integer powers of prime numbers.. let's call it the "prime writing" of a number... i'll write u[n] so for any integer X we have X = product( p[n] ^ u[n] ) - we can extend this to rational numbers, simply by allowing u[n] <0 My question is : can we define a set of irrational numbers in ]0 ; 1[ that extends p[n] when n<0 and are the building blocks for irrational numbers ? Let's call them subprimes.. Those numbers would have the properties following : - they are not power/products of primes and other sub-primes and of course integer powers of some other real number (other than themselves) Are they already known ? Do they exist ? How to construct them ? I have some (very faint) clue : When you elevate these numbers to positive powers , you get closer and closer to 0.. so the more you go close to 0, the more likely to find a power of a bigger subprime.. so the density must decrease closer to 0.. you get some sort of sieve, but closer and closer to 0.
  12. First : thanks for taking the time to actually think. Allow me to answer and disagree (because I can) : No but, when I wrote this, I supposed the bridge had some internal length.. (and half of the loop would be in it). I admit I don't exactly know the topology of a einstein rosen bridge. But it's not necessary. The rope (or the particle loop) can just be straight, go from left to right.. (it would be a loop but straight).. I don't know either if you can make some ER Brigde with entries face to face.. (if you can't that would ruin everything.. that why I supposed you would have to make a topological inversion of one end).. It's a very simple and stupid idea really.. If you played portal , you'll understand instantly the topology of the room. (Somebody probably had it before, but i've never heard of it) (sorry for the poor quality of the schematic, i don't have photoshop)
  13. I'm sick and tired of all your peremptive general answers : - "math or it's nothing" - "you're not a genius" - "it's not math." - "you know nothing" bla bla I've heard it all. I won't waste another full day talking about "my/your legitimity" "the importance of math", "the rules of the forum". I have a life. I'll make a list of people who are not objective, try to waste my time and discourage me of having ideas (what a absurd thing to do really) and who I will answer only once. Who care "who I am" ? You do, because you don't know what "science" is about (obviously) This idea is very simple. So spare me the b*llshit, and criticize the idea or leave me alone. Your next answer can only be one of those : a) "It wouldn't work because .... XXX (math if you want)" b) "that's a good idea, I don't see why it won't work" c) "I don't know, but it's worth thinking about it" The rest is absurdity, misplaced ego and noise.
  14. ... now that's just absurd sadism. (of course I know we can't make a einstein rosen bridge).. From now on, I won't even answer to you, and only to people who have a brain. I wonder how many good ideas you throw to the bin because of your abusive self-importance. Learn about objectivity, it will do good to you. And the idea that i can't submit some idea without doing the math. That's absurd. A idea is a idea. Math is math. I'm not here for a medal in math. I don't do math, I hate math. I submit a idea. You need the math ? YOU DO the math, you seem to like it. I just submit the idea. The idea isn't wrong because I didn't do the math. You need math, I don't. It's just a very simple idea rightfully written in the "speculation part" of the forum. Contrary to you, I'm here to "share", not to make myself believe i'm important. The math here is as simple as the idea ER-brigde math + linear particle accelerator math, so you can figure it out.
  • 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.