Tests for TOE on a speculation via correct scientific procedure

[swansont]

Hm no relation between GR and the SM then in your opinion then?

 

As I understand it it was on the basis of observing some particles (photons) of the now SM that the general rule even law of GR was based. Take away those particles and you have no law left that states how these particles move through space time. Ergo they are interlinked.

Wrong, once again. Photons were introduced (though not the name) the same year that special relativity was: 1905. Again, preceding the SM by several decades. However, relativity was not founded on the concept of photons in particular, but in EM radiation in general; the discrete nature of the energy does not form any part of the theory, simply that the radiation moves at a speed that's the same in all inertial frames. (as dictated by Maxwell's equations)

[ajb]

Hm no relation between GR and the SM then in your opinion then?

No that is not my opinion, but my point is that you don't know what it is!

 

There is no known relation between them. What the diffeomorphism group of a 4-d pseudo-Riemannian has to do with the gauge group of the standard model, U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), is unknown. People do think about this, but as far as we know there is nothing deep that connects the two.

 

But then if we expect a TOE to exist then there should be some relation. Finding this could well be the key to a TOE.

 

My opinion; there should be some relation but it is not obvious and will be hidden in some deep mathematics.

 

As I understand it it was on the basis of observing some particles (photons) of the now SM that the general rule even law of GR was based. Take away those particles and you have no law left that states how these particles move through space time. Ergo they are interlinked.

In a sense okay, you remove all the particles from your universe and you see nothing!

 

More seriously, you can consider classical test particles in GR and take the sources to be classical objects. This does not depend on the details of the standard model in any way. This is what is usually done in gravitational physics.

 

You can also consider quantum fields on classical backgrounds. This is tough and very interesting. In principal one should be able to put the standard model fields on an arbitrary curved-space time. But this brings up lots of technical issues and even on the best behaved curved space-times I would say we have little feeling for gauge theories. This too I feel has been a tricky issues when working towards a quantum theory of gravity or a TOE.

 

We know that there are problems in science concerning GR; it doesn't mix with QM and it is at odds with several dark issues.

By mix we mean there is no satisfactory quantum theory of gravity.

 

By dark issues I assume you mean dark energy?

 

This could signal some physics that cannot be accommodated in GR, but the more standard approaches to understand this are to either simply add a cosmological constant or new scalar fields like in quintessence.

 

Apart from that as a general rule any formula has its regime in which it is assumed to be valid. So must the law of GR (in so far it has been verified (= found by observation to be true up to the accuracy required because otherwise unverifiable = not as yet to be held true)) have its limits.

Yes, and we have a good idea situations in which we would not expect GR to hold. One example would be very near curvature singularities.

 

If the extrapolation of mathematics holds true for many other later discovered particles then one can not hold that GR will hold true in say a black hole where we can't assume that even a photon can exist. Or that it holds true outside our visible universe or holds true given the assumption that there are sub SM particles.

I don't know what sub SM particles are. I will assume you mean particles not described in the SM, for example the supersymmetric partners found in the MSSM.

 

That is a good point, but we assume that we do not have a privileged position in space. This is one form of the cosmological principal. It means that we expect the basic physics of the Universe to be the same everywhere.

 

So far that seems a good assumption, but as we cannot actually go to every point in the Universe it is an assumption. But I will stress, as far as we know it seems true.

 

What then does man have to offer in your opinion in reaching TOE?

Great imagination and mathematical prowess.

[kristalris]

Well AJB, then we are in agreement on these conclusions it seems, but I guess we differ that great imagination may be used in this context on TOE wider than just on mathematics i.e. also by thought experiments and logic especially where assumptions are unavoidable.

 

So I guess the heart of the GR problem lies in the question whether or not we have massless particles or we should as I state call them matterless. I.e. that a photon doesn't exert gravity thus this being at odds with an unverifiable part of GR. If I read what Verlinde is doing it looks strikingly similar to what I'm on about.

 

The ignored particle (actually two sorts of them) in my view is simply the Higgs particle when it is not in spin. When it starts spinning we can have a glimpse of it. Now I read on the Wikipedia on MSSN that a second Higgsfield is then required. Just what I say.

 

As my dad taught me early on and what has stood me to great effect in later years is, especially in extremely complicated matters: keep it simple. As a thought experiment then:

 

Integrating the entire picture: assuming an infinite universe with an infinite amount of two particles creating both Higgs fields we have pressure in the system. Having all matter picking up mass out of this field like little black holes creates an underpressure and thus gravity. It also adds momentum: and thus DE and extra speed causes extra mass to be added causing DM. As simple as it gets as a concept. To get the holographic effect Verlinde is also looking for it has to be a double dynamic crystal, immediately explaining waves and (non) interference. Interlocking counter rotating strings form the SM. The big bang is a result of bringing unspun Higgs particles in spin. As happens in the Higgs field as well. Thats why the illusion something from nothing is created. Simplex veri sigillum. (Occam dixit)

 

I'm not saying it is production worthy science - yet - but it is a experiment worthy idea because its simplicity is appealing and thus provides a possible (even IMO probable answer for a TOE).

 

The experiment for a computer simulation is also extremely simple in concept (but maybe impossible in practise, but that is another problem):

 

Take a 10000 X 10000 x 10000 simulated superconductive identical near as perfect massive spheres (billiard balls). Place them in a perfect matrix of 100 diameters apart to create empty space. Place a cube around the matrix at 100 diameters. Give them each a random vector and identical slow speed. (Slow because accuracy is critical)

 

I predict the balls will go to order in the middle after a long while in the middle far away from the disturbance of the walls. An order of a dynamic crystal whereby each ball remains in its own virtual cube. Even if it goes to near order akin water starting to freeze you immediately will have a paradigm shift. You then are on track of the (extremely complicated mathematics) at the heart of it all.

 

What would it cost in time and effort to do a feasibility study on this simulation? Because I guess the simulation is accurately now described accurately enough.

 

If after tinkering with it you can't get it to near order, I'd say the heart of this idea is busted. For it should have a certain ruggedness to it because a bit of chaos is needed as well.

[swansont]

Take a 10000 X 10000 x 10000 simulated superconductive identical near as perfect massive spheres (billiard balls). Place them in a perfect matrix of 100 diameters apart to create empty space. Place a cube around the matrix at 100 diameters. Give them each a random vector and identical slow speed. (Slow because accuracy is critical)

 

What role does the superconductivity play in this?

 

I predict the balls will go to order in the middle after a long while in the middle far away from the disturbance of the walls. An order of a dynamic crystal whereby each ball remains in its own virtual cube. Even if it goes to near order akin water starting to freeze you immediately will have a paradigm shift. You then are on track of the (extremely complicated mathematics) at the heart of it all.

What's the mechanism that would cause this?

 

If after tinkering with it you can't get it to near order, I'd say the heart of this idea is busted. For it should have a certain ruggedness to it because a bit of chaos is needed as well.

I've heard that before. I want to know specifics before suggesting anything, so that there is no backpeddling.

[ajb]

Well AJB, then we are in agreement on these conclusions it seems, but I guess we differ that great imagination may be used in this context on TOE wider than just on mathematics i.e. also by thought experiments and logic especially where assumptions are unavoidable.

Thought experiments may well pay a role, I never said they would not, but these will come from attempting to understand a theory, which is really a mathematical construct. Logic will also be applied as it is all the time in mathematics and science. It is the "verbal logic" and "garbage" I don't understand.

 

So I guess the heart of the GR problem lies in the question whether or not we have massless particles or we should as I state call them matterless. I.e. that a photon doesn't exert gravity thus this being at odds with an unverifiable part of GR.

It seems to be an issue with your thoughts on gravity. "Matterless" would be at odds with general relativity, if you actually look at general relativity you will see why; photons/electromagnetic fields carry energy-momentum.

 

Any field that does not couple to gravity in this way, would be "a gravitational field". For example, one cannot formulate a sensible notion of the energy-momentum tensor for the graviton field (i.e. linearised GR) and so it does not contribute to the matter content of the field equations. "Matterless" fields would have to be something similar and would appear as extra fields in the gravitational sector.

 

If I read what Verlinde is doing it looks strikingly similar to what I'm on about.

Entropic gravity you mean?

 

If so there are some deep links between black hole physics and thermodynamics, which is the root of all this. I don't know much about the details of entropic gravity, but it is not widely accepted.

 

 

 

The ignored particle (actually two sorts of them) in my view is simply the Higgs particle when it is not in spin. When it starts spinning we can have a glimpse of it.

What do you mean by "a particle starting to spin"?

 

 

I'm not saying it is production worthy science - yet - but it is a experiment worthy idea because its simplicity is appealing and thus provides a possible (even IMO probable answer for a TOE).

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein.

 

 

The experiment for a computer simulation is also extremely simple in concept (but maybe impossible in practise, but that is another problem):

The trouble with computer simulations is that you have to be careful with physics you give them in the first place. The system can only be driven by mechanisms you put in, the interesting thing is how all these mechanisms come together in your system to show the collective behavior of your constituents.

 

For example, I went to a talk by a quack who did some numerical simulations on distributions of matter coalescing. The trouble is that he did everything in Newtonian gravity and did not have any mechanisms for the gravitational field to radiate away any energy or angular momentum. Thus matter distributions in his models did not condense as you might expect.

 

The moral here is obvious I hope.

[Bignose]

The trouble with computer simulations is that you have to be careful with physics you give them in the first place. The system can only be driven by mechanisms you put in, the interesting thing is how all these mechanisms come together in your system to show the collective behavior of your constituents.

quite right. Simulating 1000s of particle is something I have actually done. We were looking at macroscopic granular materials flowing through pipes and hoppers and the like, but the idea is similar.

 

And the really important parts of the simulation was in the models of the forces. With the exact same initial distribution, the granular materials would act very differently depending on what friction model you used, whether you included angular momentum or not, what particle interaction model you used (such as how much energy dissipation and what that depended on) and so on.

[kristalris]

 

Q. What role does the superconductivity play in this? EQ

 

(In my first idea I thought I needed absolute conductivity: i.e. no bits flying off or any indentation. For various reasons it is IMO closer to nature that the particles of the Higgs field are - at least - superconductive. This means that the fundamental particles act like actual atoms in the sense that they are unsplittable yet do indentate a bit. Having a bit of disorder is what I need to more easily explain getting particles in and out of spin in a not to complex way. And for not having it ever get repetitive in a not complex way for then it is difficult / impossible to explain life as a not one off. It must be "atoms" (= unsplittable) to explain perpetual motion. => the main force is order disorder and not energy )

 

Anyway: not having to simulate more than superconductivity is less complicated (if it can be simulated at all by current computers) Apart from that only one of the two dynamic crystals needs its mechanism proven in priciple to warrant further investigation.

 

 

Q What's the mechanism that would cause this? EQ

 

Apart from that the aim of the simulation is only to achieve a proof of concept which is already achieved if set sim goes (or nearly so) to any kind of order. Akin the sim on fractals. That would already IMO warrant much more time and effort. This because given current science it should go to mounting disorder as I believe. The best scenario is that it goes to the order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. each ball stays in its own virtual cube. I.e. look at it like a Rubik's cube of dice placing on the center die the other dice side 1 on 1; 2 on 2 etc.. Now the center ball will remain in its center cube for it will meet the neighbor every time on the virtual wall. (Any other form than a cube is also possible as long as it gives order.)

 

Ultimately the search is for the formula creating this order in order to subsequently try and find how MN has actually "used" this formula i.e. what constants are in play.

 

 

Q I've heard that before. I want to know specifics before suggesting anything, so that there is no backpeddling. EQ

 

Okay a bit of backpedaling beforehand. The simulation is not tailored to what I think MN is exactly at but to find part of the basic principle. However if the principle can't be shown by expert programmers and creative mathematicians after tinkering with it - given IMO - current supercomputers I'd say it's busted.

 

The tinkering involved will be sizing up the box (say up to 1000 x) because nature will have extremely more nothing than something. However the principle should show given less room than MN in reality in the Higgs field has. (MN needs more room for other reasons than having it go to order.)

 

Another problem is to get an accurate enough near perfect sphere that doesn't indentate to much in a sufficiently uniform way built up digitally. This might prove to be impossible by current computers. This I don't know yet it remains potentially testable.

[ajb]

For various reasons it is IMO closer to nature that the particles of the Higgs field are - at least - superconductive. This means that the fundamental particles act like actual atoms in the sense that they are unsplittable yet do indentate a bit.

This needs a lot of explaining. What does it mean for the Higg's particle to be superconductive?

 

Fundamental particles act as point-like objects with no internal structure, or at least as far as we have seen. Thus any internal structure must be tiny. I am sure you can find some limits on this.

Edited September 12, 2013 by ajb

[swansont]

(In my first idea I thought I needed absolute conductivity: i.e. no bits flying off or any indentation. For various reasons it is IMO closer to nature that the particles of the Higgs field are - at least - superconductive.

I echo ajb's comment that this requires a lot of explaining. Materials can be superconductive. Not particles.

 

But you haven't answered the question of why this effect depends on superconductivity. You haven't explained the mechanism of the effect at all.

 

Apart from that the aim of the simulation is only to achieve a proof of concept which is already achieved if set sim goes (or nearly so) to any kind of order. Akin the sim on fractals. That would already IMO warrant much more time and effort. This because given current science it should go to mounting disorder as I believe. The best scenario is that it goes to the order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. each ball stays in its own virtual cube. I.e. look at it like a Rubik's cube of dice placing on the center die the other dice side 1 on 1; 2 on 2 etc.. Now the center ball will remain in its center cube for it will meet the neighbor every time on the virtual wall. (Any other form than a cube is also possible as long as it gives order.)

That's not what I asked. I asked what the mechanism was that would cause the particles to act this way.

 

Okay a bit of backpedaling beforehand. The simulation is not tailored to what I think MN is exactly at but to find part of the basic principle. However if the principle can't be shown by expert programmers and creative mathematicians after tinkering with it - given IMO - current supercomputers I'd say it's busted.

If you don't require superconductivity I think an actual experiment is pretty straightforward. Which is why I want to know why superconductivity is required.

[kristalris]

 

This needs a lot of explaining. What does it mean for the Higg's particle to be superconductive?

 

Fundamental particles act as point-like objects with no internal structure, or at least as far as we have seen. Thus any internal structure must be tiny. I am sure you can find some limits on this.

In my model the two fundamental particles have a size and are a small one and a larger one. Yet are extremely small and fast. For the simulation it is only relevant that it has a size and mass. In this experiment spin (like a toy top or gyro spins and rotates) is not an issue. In this experiment you only need one sort of particle. Like a billiard ball. It is just a physical unsplittable lump of mass for the experiment to be taken as a near perfect sphere that is superconductive in the sense that when it collides with other billiard balls in 3D hardly any deformity takes place. Even better would be if possible to simulate absolute conductivity even though MN doesn't require this. Yet the mathematical principle of it going to order will work then even better. It is that principle we are after. Albeit that I guess that absolute conductivity can't be simulated. Maybe even superconductivity can't be simulated. If so then we would need better computers to do the sim.

 

A billiard ball not being absolutely conductive means it will be to that extent behave chaotic. There must be a critical point I guess superconductivity under which the balls will not go to order due to too much chaotic behaviour. I.e. all the energy is transmitted between the balls. They may deform a bit as long as the energy in the system stays the same. I need perpetual motion for I assume MN is in perpetual motion (which would explain a lot) I.e. not energy is the driving force of MN but chaos and order in an ensuing movement game.

 

So you need a lot of balls and a very large box. There will also be a critical size of the box but I'm sure it doesn't have to be as large as MN requires in reality in order to show the principle. Yet if it is to confined it won't work either (of course) yet the larger the box the harder to simulate i.e. the more accurate it has to be. If possible give each ball its own cubed billiard table size box as needed space per ball. Yet it may already work at a smaller scale.

 

As such the sim is straightforward. Lot of balls in a large box at random the rest exactly the same.

 

So if superconductive billiard balls can be had in a sim that when they strike each other with such accuracy 3D as if it indeed where billiard balls for the correct angles. Getting those 3D angles accurate is critical. Speed isn't because you can take a long running time for the sim.

 

edit I BTW don't rule out that it might work with less than superconductive. But it must work at superconductive or else it is busted. this because I don't believe MN requires absolute conductivity because it then becomes much more difficult to explain.

Edited September 12, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

In my model the two fundamental particles have a size and are a small one and a larger one. Yet are extremely small and fast. For the simulation it is only relevant that it has a size and mass. In this experiment spin (like a toy top or gyro spins and rotates) is not an issue.

This is not what anyone in physics would understand as a fundamental particle.

 

 

In this experiment you only need one sort of particle. Like a billiard ball. It is just a physical unsplittable lump of mass for the experiment to be taken as a near perfect sphere...

Not really how we should think of fundamental particles other than very heuristically.

 

...that is superconductive in the sense that when it collides with other billiard balls in 3D hardly any deformity takes place.

Why is that superconducting?

 

You are describing a rigid body. That has finite size and during collisions no deformations occur. This is of course an idealised body.

 

superconductivity can't be simulated. If so then we would need better computers to do the sim.

 

We have models of superconductivity, though there are plenty of questions left in the subject, especially high temperature superconductors. Anyway, I don't think you are describing superconductivity here anyway.

 

A billiard ball not being absolutely conductive means it will be to that extent behave chaotic.

What does absolutely conductive mean?

[swansont]

In my model the two fundamental particles have a size and are a small one and a larger one. Yet are extremely small and fast. For the simulation it is only relevant that it has a size and mass. In this experiment spin (like a toy top or gyro spins and rotates) is not an issue. In this experiment you only need one sort of particle. Like a billiard ball. It is just a physical unsplittable lump of mass for the experiment to be taken as a near perfect sphere that is superconductive in the sense that when it collides with other billiard balls in 3D hardly any deformity takes place. Even better would be if possible to simulate absolute conductivity even though MN doesn't require this. Yet the mathematical principle of it going to order will work then even better. It is that principle we are after. Albeit that I guess that absolute conductivity can't be simulated. Maybe even superconductivity can't be simulated. If so then we would need better computers to do the sim.

I will echo again: it isn't superconductivity that you are describing. You are describing rigid objects undergoing elastic collisions. If elastic collisions are all you need, then the experiment you describe has already been done. Atoms collide pretty much elastically. So if I have a collection of separate molecules in a container, i.e. a gas, it seems like you are predicting they will spontaneously collect into some sort of crystal. Which, of course, they do not do. You can do this in a vacuum setting, with a small number of atoms, by collecting them in a laser trap. When you turn the trap off, the atoms do not spontaneously form into a crystal — they expand, just as a physicist would expect.

[kristalris]

I will echo again: it isn't superconductivity that you are describing. You are describing rigid objects undergoing elastic collisions. If elastic collisions are all you need, then the experiment you describe has already been done. Atoms collide pretty much elastically. So if I have a collection of separate molecules in a container, i.e. a gas, it seems like you are predicting they will spontaneously collect into some sort of crystal. Which, of course, they do not do. You can do this in a vacuum setting, with a small number of atoms, by collecting them in a laser trap. When you turn the trap off, the atoms do not spontaneously form into a crystal — they expand, just as a physicist would expect.

Well call it absolutely rigid then to get at the ideal formula for a dynamic crystal. If that can be simulated that would be great for then one could later simulate it with mounting elasticity and see where it stops going to order and how it changes the order with varying elasticity. Because the amount of elasticity is critical it might be that atoms can do the trick when cooled down sufficiently yet near zero kelvin they will I guess start sticking and forming a normal crystal. Of course atoms as such will not suffice. This one doesn't stick. I guess if you run a computer sim slow enough it should be possible to simulate absolute rigidity?

 

I see that ajb objects to calling this a particle. Well, formally I could argue that it is the actual atom i.e. the unsplittable building block, the larger one is anyway. The other one acts more like the billard table. But that isn't part of this test.

[swansont]

Well call it absolutely rigid then to get at the ideal formula for a dynamic crystal. If that can be simulated that would be great for then one could later simulate it with mounting elasticity and see where it stops going to order and how it changes the order with varying elasticity. Because the amount of elasticity is critical it might be that atoms can do the trick when cooled down sufficiently yet near zero kelvin they will I guess start sticking and forming a normal crystal. Of course atoms as such will not suffice. This one doesn't stick. I guess if you run a computer sim slow enough it should be possible to simulate absolute rigidity?

 

"Of course"? Really? You don't explain your model in sufficient detail that this is suggested, let alone obvious. If cold atoms didn't stick together, how cold would you have to get them to see this? 1K? 1 millKelvin?

–––––

 

Related: another reminder why unification is not a TOE, or why a TEO really can't exist: science has important edges that are decoupled

 

http://physicsfocus.org/mike-evans-universality/

 

This is a very important fact. It means that the detailed features of elementary particles do not determine how the universe works. Large-scale physics is not controlled by those details, but only by a few of their symmetries and by the statistical properties of large numbers.

 

[Bignose]

I guess if you run a computer sim slow enough it should be possible to simulate absolute rigidity?

It's not a question of 'slow enough'. It is a question of interaction model. If all you are doing is perfectly elastic collisions of rigid objects, nothing interesting will happen. The randomness will continue forever.

 

This has been done. See Hill's An Introduction To Statistical Mechanics (I have the Dover reprint edition from 1987, the original is from 1960.) as an excellent introduction.

 

Perfectly elastic sphere collisions of Helium atoms give very good agreement to the ideal gas laws. No 'order' is ever found.

 

Where you get 'order' is actually something closer to the sims I wrote about above. The granular materials that are inelastic. The loss of momentum and energy when they collide leads to the formations of clusters and some very fascinating fluid mechanic implications.

 

If you really think that this idea has merit, why don't you program it yourself? I'd suggest something like Satoh's Introduction to Practice of Molecular Simulation. What you are describing does not sound very difficult to model at all -- and in fact is usually used as a test case before programming more complex problems. That is... someone programs a molecular dynamics test case, but they turn of the complicated force models and inelasticity and let the sim run for a while. They they periodically check the the system isn't losing mass, momentum, or energy. If it is losing any of those, they know there is a problem in the collision detection subroutine or the post-collision calculations. If the programmer can't get the simple case of perfectly elastic to work right, there is no point in moving on to more complicated models.

[kristalris]

 

"Of course"? Really? You don't explain your model in sufficient detail that this is suggested, let alone obvious. If cold atoms didn't stick together, how cold would you have to get them to see this? 1K? 1 millKelvin?

–––––

 

Related: another reminder why unification is not a TOE, or why a TEO really can't exist: science has important edges that are decoupled

 

http://physicsfocus.org/mike-evans-universality/

 

Nice link thanks. And I agree that a TEO can't exist because I JFGI and it is not known by Wikipedia so it thus indeed can't exist. In short I don't know what a TEO is. Given what I say is true then there is no arguing possible that it is then fundamental, because then it all exists of just three things two spheres and absolute nothing interacting in a mathematical in part deterministic in part statistical way.

 

As a purely mathematical test then:

 

Then we can leave the normal atoms be.

 

Now Bignose says that my sim is easy I doubt that very much. Because indeed if you just compute some balls then they will keep on hitting each other in a non exact way and not go to order. Sure.

 

BTW in the ideal situation of absolute rigidity there is thus then no elasticity or inelasticity because there is no deformation whatsoever. Furthermore then you don't have to take into account mass either making it I guess even less complicated to simulate. Because only when elasticity comes into play do we need the acceleration and deceleration of the mass have to be taken into account. A digital sphere isn't a perfect sphere and only will get close to being that if it is very large. If you can compute say the accuracy of a really good billiard in 3D (maybe for ease it might work 2D as well) with a great many balls then you are getting close to what I'm talking about. Bignose says that has been done. I doubt it. If you can play billiards you will know what I'm talking about and that is IMO very difficult to simulate especially when a great many balls are in play.

 

And yes, if that goes to order it will be fundamental without a shadow of a doubt.

 

edit so if you can truely exactly simulate a really good billiard with many balls it should work

Edited September 12, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Nice link thanks. And I agree that a TEO can't exist because I JFGI and it is not known by Wikipedia so it thus indeed can't exist. In short I don't know what a TEO is. Given what I say is true then there is no arguing possible that it is then fundamental, because then it all exists of just three things two spheres and absolute nothing interacting in a mathematical in part deterministic in part statistical way.

TOE. It was a typo. Now you tell me what JFGI means.

 

 

As a purely mathematical test then:

 

Then we can leave the normal atoms be.

Sorry, what?

 

 

Now Bignose says that my sim is easy I doubt that very much. Because indeed if you just compute some balls then they will keep on hitting each other in a non exact way and not go to order. Sure.

 

Hit each other in a non-exact way? What does that mean?

 

BTW in the ideal situation of absolute rigidity there is thus then no elasticity or inelasticity because there is no deformation whatsoever. Furthermore then you don't have to take into account mass either making it I guess even less complicated to simulate. Because only when elasticity comes into play do we need the acceleration and deceleration of the mass have to be taken into account.

 

If energy and momentum are conserved, as they are in an elastic collision, then no, the accelerations do not need to be taken into account. (This is first-year physics). The result is completely determined by the conservation laws. No deformation is an approximation for macroscopic objects when you want to model elastic collisions.

 

It seems the only reason to avoid using atoms is that they won't give the answer you want. It's not like you have presented a model in any detail, where you could point to a specific conflict between atom behavior and the model.

 

A digital sphere isn't a perfect sphere and only will get close to being that if it is very large. If you can compute say the accuracy of a really good billiard in 3D (maybe for ease it might work 2D as well) with a great many balls then you are getting close to what I'm talking about. Bignose says that has been done. I doubt it. If you can play billiards you will know what I'm talking about and that is IMO very difficult to simulate especially when a great many balls are in play.

 

You doubt it. Well, that's good enough for me. After all, you're the expert in all this.

 

/sarcasm

 

The reality is that what you have shared with us is identical to an ideal gas, and as such has been studied in detail. Ideal gases do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[Bignose]

Bignose says that has been done. I doubt it.

Statements like these really tarnish what little credibility you have left.

 

In other words, it would be nice if you demonstrated at least a tiny, tiny bit of knowledge about the literature and subject before you just dismiss it out of hand. A few hours in a reasonably well stocked university physics library would have yielded many results.

 

See

as one of many, many examples. The research group I used to be involved with would do many of these... flowing through hoppers, pipes, cyclones, etc. And we sat next to a group who did the same thing but on models of molecules and atoms for thermodynamics research to foster knowledge sharing. When I left that group, they were doing simulations on the order of millions of granules.

 

In other words... there are many, many of these simulations out there. You can even buy commercial software that does molecular dynamics!

 

If you can play billiards you will know what I'm talking about and that is IMO very difficult to simulate especially when a great many balls are in play.

The game of billiards is much more complicated than the model you are talking about. Billiard balls roll on a surface. Billiard balls have friction and rotation. Billiard balls are not perfectly elastic.

 

And, yet, people are still modeling them. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf And in fact are modeling not just the interaction of the cue, ball, table, and rails itself, but working on teaching an AI how to win the game! http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558040 http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-156.pdf

 

All this in a simulation of a much more complex interaction than the one you are proposing. Your elastic non-interacting sim can and has been done, many many times. As I wrote above, it is a very simple test case to test your code before introducing more complicated simulations.

 

I'm going to say that it is extremely good that kristaris' personal incredulity of what can and can't be done doesn't direct scientific funding! Your displayed lack of knowledge on the mathematical modeling that is available is appalling when you couple it with authoritative-sounding statements about what you think can and can't be accomplished. Your total lack of knowledge on the subject means you have no justified opinions on what can and can't be done.

 

Or, to put it another way, there is a pretty wide body of knowledge out there on how to program these simulations, if you;d bother to actually look at it. Again, if you so strongly believe in your idea -- why don't you actually do it?

[kristalris]

 

TOE. It was a typo. Now you tell me what JFGI means.

 

EQ

 

https://www.google.nl/search?q=JFGI&oq=JFGI&aqs=chrome..69i57.2431j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Q

 

Sorry, what?

 

 

 

 

Hit each other in a non-exact way? What does that mean?

 

EQ

 

That the computer sim of a billiard for instance doesn't exactly enough replicate the real thing.

 

Q

 

If energy and momentum are conserved, as they are in an elastic collision, then no, the accelerations do not need to be taken into account. (This is first-year physics). The result is completely determined by the conservation laws. No deformation is an approximation for macroscopic objects when you want to model elastic collisions.

 

It seems the only reason to avoid using atoms is that they won't give the answer you want. It's not like you have presented a model in any detail, where you could point to a specific conflict between atom behavior and the model.

 

 

 

You doubt it. Well, that's good enough for me. After all, you're the expert in all this.

 

/sarcasm

 

EQ

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_modulus No aproxiamations: it is criticle: so try simulating no deforamtion at all. So no elasticity or in-elasticity.

 

Q

 

The reality is that what you have shared with us is identical to an ideal gas, and as such has been studied in detail. Ideal gases do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

EQ

 

An ideal gas is something different than a great many spheres that do not deform (or deform as much what first years physics students are taught to ignore) on impact with another sphere.

Statements like these really tarnish what little credibility you have left.

 

EQ

 

Okay, yet I still doubt it.

 

Q

 

In other words, it would be nice if you demonstrated at least a tiny, tiny bit of knowledge about the literature and subject before you just dismiss it out of hand. A few hours in a reasonably well stocked university physics library would have yielded many results.

 

See

as one of many, many examples. The research group I used to be involved with would do many of these... flowing through hoppers, pipes, cyclones, etc. And we sat next to a group who did the same thing but on models of molecules and atoms for thermodynamics research to foster knowledge sharing. When I left that group, they were doing simulations on the order of millions of granules.

 

In other words... there are many, many of these simulations out there. You can even buy commercial software that does molecular dynamics!

 

EQ

 

Are you implying or even stating that these simulations are as exact replications of a game of billiards in space (delete the table)? Or are they very impressive approximations of spheres hitting each other? What I'm talking about is cutting back the approximation bit to the extreme.

 

Q

 

 

The game of billiards is much more complicated than the model you are talking about. Billiard balls roll on a surface. Billiard balls have friction and rotation. Billiard balls are not perfectly elastic.

 

EQ

 

According to Wikipedia and as far as I know perfectly elastic means that the object perfectly returns to its initial form after deformation. What I'm talking about is deleting all deformation. That as an ideal mathematical model.

 

Q

 

And, yet, people are still modeling them. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf And in fact are modeling not just the interaction of the cue, ball, table, and rails itself, but working on teaching an AI how to win the game! http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558040 http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-156.pdf

 

All this in a simulation of a much more complex interaction than the one you are proposing. Your elastic non-interacting sim can and has been done, many many times. As I wrote above, it is a very simple test case to test your code before introducing more complicated simulations.

 

EQ

 

Impressive yet I'm talking about a much higher degree of accuracy in where the balls go and not about complications of cue, table etc.. You imply or even state that the granulin sim has the same accuracy as the billiard sim?

 

Q

 

I'm going to say that it is extremely good that kristaris' personal incredulity of what can and can't be done doesn't direct scientific funding! Your displayed lack of knowledge on the mathematical modeling that is available is appalling when you couple it with authoritative-sounding statements about what you think can and can't be accomplished. Your total lack of knowledge on the subject means you have no justified opinions on what can and can't be done.

 

Or, to put it another way, there is a pretty wide body of knowledge out there on how to program these simulations, if you;d bother to actually look at it. Again, if you so strongly believe in your idea -- why don't you actually do it?

EQ

 

Well, I've seen several sims of complicated situations on extremely powerful computers being performed and the guys working on programming it stating that it (realtime) is at best only a rough approximation of reality. They must be wrong then. BTW even I could see that it was not the real thing though breathtakingly genius in programming I'm sure.

 

[swansont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_modulus No aproxiamations: it is criticle: so try simulating no deforamtion at all. So no elasticity or in-elasticity.

You need not model the collision itself, so the elastic modulus does not have to be part of the model. You have, as far as I can tell, proposed elastic collisions. The presence of "elastic" seems to be the problem. In physics, an elastic collision is one in which no kinetic energy is lost to e.g. the deformation of the objects.

 

Given that there is no kinetic energy lost in the collision and momentum will be conserved regardless, what specific role does deformation play in your model? (This, by the way, is the sort of thing that you should have already told us)

 

 

An ideal gas is something different than a great many spheres that do not deform (or deform as much what first years physics students are taught to ignore) on impact with another sphere.

No kinetic energy is lost in an ideal gas collision. So again, what is the specific requirement that deformation be take onto account?

[Klaynos]

There are so many mistakes and misconceptions being made by kristalris it's difficult to know where to begin. I'd suggest he goes away and learns what the words he's using mean in the context of physics. And no a dictionary isn't a scientific source.

[ACG52]

 

 

I'd suggest he goes away and learns what the words he's using mean in the context of physics

It's not going to happen. He's a lawyer, and so thinks words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

[Bignose]

An ideal gas is something different than a great many spheres that do not deform (or deform as much what first years physics students are taught to ignore) on impact with another sphere.

I don't need to add anything more here except to support 100% swansont. The assumptions that go into defining an ideal gas are rigid perfectly elastic spheres. And the molecular simulations of ideal gases has been done very, very well.

 

For example, here's one of 2 ideal gases mixing:

 

Again, there is a rich literature on this stuff.

 

Oh, and ideal gases have never shown any kind of clustering or crystal structure forming. Again, if you don't want to just take my word for it, do it yourself.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Bignose

[kristalris]

 

You need not model the collision itself, so the elastic modulus does not have to be part of the model. You have, as far as I can tell, proposed elastic collisions. The presence of "elastic" seems to be the problem. In physics, an elastic collision is one in which no kinetic energy is lost to e.g. the deformation of the objects.

 

Given that there is no kinetic energy lost in the collision and momentum will be conserved regardless, what specific role does deformation play in your model? (This, by the way, is the sort of thing that you should have already told us)

 

No kinetic energy is lost in an ideal gas collision. So again, what is the specific requirement that deformation be take onto account?

 

EQ

 

Again it is NOT about energy (because it remains the same) it is about - very accurate - movement. Taking the ideal situation of absolute rigidity (= no deformation at all (if possible)) makes it more easily computable via elimination the chaos problem (as far as possible).

 

Atoms do NOT meet this requirement because at the temperatures that they would fit the bill they crystallize in normal crystals.

 

You need to emulate - extremely accurately! - the collision of two billiard balls that don't strike at high speed. But then done an enormous amount of times.

 

So I'm striving for an idealised a purely mathematical sim as possible. That is the easiest way to show it going to order. Only after that introduce deforming to see how that affects the outcome.

 

Edit: try playing billiards with soft clay or tennis balls. It won't be very accurate. That specific enough?

 

 

I don't need to add anything more here except to support 100% swansont. The assumptions that go into defining an ideal gas are rigid perfectly elastic spheres. And the molecular simulations of ideal gases has been done very, very well.

 

For example, here's one of 2 ideal gases mixing:

 

EQ

 

With my bare eye I can see that this sim is not up to scratch to simulate that many or even a few billiard balls colliding. This doesn't mean it isn't a nice sim. Go observe billiard balls move and compare.

 

Q

 

Again, there is a rich literature on this stuff.

 

EQ

 

Observe your own sim.

 

Q

 

Oh, and ideal gases have never shown any kind of clustering or crystal structure forming. Again, if you don't want to just take my word for it, do it yourself.

 

EQ

 

Again ideal gasses don't fit the bill. They have to be cooled down extremely in order to do that. And what happens to gasses when cooled down?

[Bignose]

With my bare eye I can see that this sim is not up to scratch to simulate that many or even a few billiard balls colliding. This doesn't mean it isn't a nice sim. Go observe billiard balls move and compare.

All right, I'm a glutton for punishment. I'll ask the question. What does your (heretofore proven untrained) eye think is wrong?

 

You keep talking about absolute rigidity, and yet don't seem to believe that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IDEAL GASES ARE. That the sims you are describing have been done in the simulation of ideal gases. If you really think this isn't so, please explain.