• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Dimensions, Universe, and Time

Seriously. I don't think I've ever heard of any physicist say they have a firm grip of quantum mechanics/particle physics/string theory.

"I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." richard feynman

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." Niels Bohr

:)
 
I'm down with quantum mechanics.

String theory, not so much, I don't like the mathematical fantasy genre of physics.

Empirical verification over unfalsifiable speculation for the win.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't I know about zero point energy before? >_<

I think I just came.
 
Manifespo said:
Let me know when you find proof (or any bit of empirical evidence) of the OmniStrings, until then I win by default.

Nice use of "the astronomers argument": "That star up there has a planet near it with intelligent life. Prove me wrong."
 
Manifespo said:
Btw, Einstein was an inveterate plagiarist who stole the "space-time" idea from Lorentz, Poincare, and Wells.
Einstein made no claim to be the first person to think up the notion of 'space-time'. Hence he didn't steal it. He, building on the results of the afore-mentioned people, constructed a fully coherent and experimentally predictive model of space-time.

It is said that if Einstein hasn't constructed SR someone else would have in the first decade of the 20th century.

However, Einstein then vastly extended relativity into it's general form in a way noone had thought of. Even then he didn't claim to be working in a vacuum. Minkowski put relativity into a very geometric formalism and Hilbert made vast strives in the area of differential geometry.
Manifespo said:
AlphaNumeric is known on many forums for being an pompous, pretentious, and deluded soul stuck in a world of imaginary symbols, thinking he's steaming hot shit because he studies theoretical physics in the UK. A man with his quite respectable talent would be better studying the ways to improve our ridiculous transport system. His mind could create something practical/pragmatic to improve the lives of others. Instead he whittles his time away trying to impress people with unsupported theories of imaginary manifolds and string theories WHICH lack empirical support.

There is indeed animosity, but I see it as justified AND constructive. I strive to warn people not to be deterred from their spiritual journey by haters as AN. The universe is not what he tries to impress upon us. It exists with or without his D-elusions.
You're referring to PhysOrg. I'm known as blunt with cranks. The cranks don't like me (hence why you don't) but the people who know a bit about physics and maths like me.

People who don't know much or who don't like being corrected see my confidence in my (and other physicists') knowledge as arrogance. It's not arrogant to say "My statements have a vast quantity of evidence to back them up and are elaborated on in thousands of books".

And there's plenty of people with 'my talent' working in many different areas. Some of us work in transport (as you want), some work in biology, some in medicine, some in physics, some in chemistry. If none of us worked in physics you'd be saying "Why is noone researching physics? We need people to expand our knowledge of the universe!". Catch 22.

Besides, I don't try to impress anything on people. I correct you and others when they make incorrect statements about string theory or any other theoretical physics. I have NEVER claimed string theory is undeniably correct.
Manifespo said:
and his stolen relativity dead-end cast a pall on science in the 20th centur
Except he developed GR in a way noone else had thought of and relativity is one of the most experimentally verified models of the universe we have.
Manifespo said:
We are just now escaping the demonic black hole of his treachery.
Complete nonsense. It's people like you who whine when I correct you on your complete ignorance of physics.

Relativity works. Fact. It works a lot better than Newton. Fact. Yet cranks never say "OMG! Newton was a liar! We've been trapped in 350 years of Newton's lies!!" Why? Because Newtonian physics is nice and simplistic on many levels. Einsteinian relativity is a lot more complex but it works better.

When Einstein's work was justified, it demonstrated the incompleteness of Newton's work. Yet noone says "We only just escapes the black hole of Newton's work in 1920!". Doubtless when Einstein's work is extended by someone else and experiments demonstrate that people like you will proclaim "We've escaped Einstein's lies!!". No, we haven't. We've just found a regime of physics where you need to consider more than classical relativity. We know such systems exist anyway.

Pull your delusional head out your backside and learn how physics works.
Manifespo said:
Thus once again, vegan, you've provided no empirical support for string theory
Actually, string theory has a fair chunk of support. Unlike the inability of usual QFT to describe gravity or the ad hoc addition of gravity as relativity, string theory requires gravity in order to be self consistent.

The issue with string theory, which you're close minded is unwilling to process, is that string theory implies a great deal more about the universe and it's that which is unsupported.

String theory predicts X, Y and Z. X and Y are experimentally verified in string theory and other theories. It's Z which needs justified before string theory is taken as a viable model of the universe on experimental grounds.
Manifespo said:
MaXPowers, I write as I see fit, and I just wrote 550 page trilogy called the OmniCapitalist Manifespo.
What a fantastic waste of your time. Plenty of other nuts on PhysOrg (NeoNo.1 and Farsight) claim to be writing books in the range of hundreds of pages long, yet they consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue about even high school verified physics.

Why bother building a house of cards when you can't even build good foundations?

And I can't find the post now but someone said that quantum mechanics is not as experimentally justifed as other parts of science. Completely wrong! If anything, it's the part which can be tested easily (unlike say biology) because it makes such precise predictions. Quantum electrodynamics and general relativity have, in some parts, been tested to the 9th decimal place! Parts per billion. That makes them the most verified theories in human history. And string theory predicts the behaviour of general relativity without the 'by hand' construction required previously.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
And I can't find the post now but someone said that quantum mechanics is not as experimentally justifed as other parts of science. Completely wrong! If anything, it's the part which can be tested easily (unlike say biology) because it makes such precise predictions.

That was me who said that. Like I've already mentioned, physics is not my cup o' joe. I only said that based on what I've picked up in brief articles in pop science magazines over the years. I barely was able to manage a good enough grade in introductory physics to get into med school. My mind just doesn't do physics.

Glad you showed up to defend yourself in your own words, AN.

By the way, the book Manifespo is writing isn't necessarily a waste of time if it's a work of philosophy, which is what I get the sense it is. I don't think he ever claimed the book was going to have anything to do with physics, and I highly doubt it does. But I'd have to see the manuscript before I said anything else.
 
Omni-books suck anyways. Even the omni-paper it's written on. My guess is that this level of ineptitude trickles all the way down to the omni-publisher.
 
Uh oh Max...You caught the Omni-inSanity!

By the way, the book is a fictional trilogy,
not a physics journal submission.
 
Manifespo said:
Uh oh Max...You caught the Omni-inSanity!

By the way, the book is a fictional trilogy,
not a physics journal submission.

Oh common, normality is more insane than the realization one is in the process of creating a fantasy novel. %)
 
Big

Mass does not affect gravity. Gravity is the force caused by mass. A mass left to itself will not affect anything. It just exists, as does its gravitational force. Increasing a mass causes gravity to become stronger, but that does not imply that mass left to itself will have some anomalous effect on its own gravity. General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1907 - 1915. General relativity replaces the global Lorentz symmetry of special relativity with a local Lorentz symmetry in the presence of matter.

The presence of matter "curves" space-time, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). General relativity uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation as an effect of the geometry of space-time. This theory is based on the general principle of relativity, which requires all observers to experience the same laws of physics, not just those moving with uniform speed, hence its name.

General relativity (as well as most other metric theories of gravity) not only says that black holes can exist, but in fact predicts that they will be formed in nature whenever a sufficient amount of mass gets packed in a given region of space, through a process called gravitational collapse. Anything of infinite mass would collapse upon it's self.


It would also pass through an event horizon, and become unrecoverable, in any universe governed by physics. In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumption that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created.

In the event of event horizon

the collapsing of structure is not physical or elemental but particle and in theory requires a time trigger understood as the metric tensor, as such. The metric tensor is a central object in general relativity that describes the local geometry of space-time (as a result of solving the Einstein field equation). Using approximation, the metric can also be thought of as representing the 'gravitational potential'.

The metric is a symmetric tensor and is an important mathematical tool. As well as being used to raise and lower tensor indices, it also generates the connections which are used to construct the geodesic equations of a motion although that is theoretical as it would require time measurement to achieve a required invariant.


In the occurrences of

a time A - the invention of such structure whether theoretical or not

a time B - in the event of such mass that B time

(a stone of mass and structure that it is the whole form in place occurring between A and C in time)

You could probably, due to form, and time prove that there is a prolonged duration in which reincarnation could take place as there does not have to be life for there to be matter however time being based on the duration between Point A and Point B and this being a mathematical language you could put forward the idea that there is in fact no Point B and B is merely the human understanding of the stopping of time. But how do you stop time and if time is also a quantity as it is form also if represented in language.

K may be the structure of the thus understanding of physics; that there has to be a point in which time must stop but that which is belonging to the physical structure of the universe continues:

Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity (and, by extension, the general theory) very explicitly permits a kind of time dilation that would ordinarily be called time travel.


The theory holds that, relative to a stationary observer, time appears to pass more slowly for faster-moving bodies:

for example, a moving clock will appear to run slow; as a clock approaches the speed of light its hands will appear to nearly stop moving. The effects of this sort of time dilation are discussed further in the popular "twin paradox".

Imagine if there was no longer anything. That would be Point B.

"Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously."

We may well become someone or something else in time. It all depends on whether we exist in/within the interval point AB in this universe and when K occurs are simultaneously appearing at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M and so time is passing itself due to K having K, K being structure of the thus understanding of physics;


That there has to be a point in which time must stop but that which is belonging to the physical structure of the universe continues:

K may be people sent apart, point A {because injury or death occurred between}. Being at the same point in time but as a consequence of the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation, in which a moving clock is found to experience a reduced amount of proper time as determined by clocks synchronized with a stationary clock, they may arrive at a point, in which they arrived previously during, the idea that at Point B there is no structure making Point A transpire again. Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB.

Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously.


As we are belonging to the physical, K may be people sent apart, point A,

K at the same point in time but as a consequence of the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation, in which a moving clock is found to experience a reduced amount of proper time as determined by clocks synchronized with a stationary clock, they may arrive at a point in which they arrived previously during, the idea that at Point B there is no structure (as it is an impression of what is an idea) making Point A transpire again, time dilation at constant acceleration.

In Special Relativity, time dilation is most simply described in circumstances where relative velocity is unchanging. Nevertheless, the Lorentz equations allow one to calculate proper time and movement in space for the simple case of a spaceship whose acceleration, relative to some referent object in uniform (i.e., non-accelerating) motion, equals for example, H, throughout the period of measurement.

Let T be the time in an inertial frame subsequently called the rest frame. Let X be a spatial coordinate, and let the direction of the constant acceleration as well as the spaceship's velocity (relative to the rest frame) be parallel to the x-axis, which is a human time.



Assuming the spaceship's position at time t = 0 being x = 0 and the velocity being v0, the following formulas hold:

v being any velocity
Time in the rest frame as a function of time (X) :

Observer at rest sees time 2L/c
time > 2L/c at the same speed, C

Time dilation can be inferred from the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames as follows:

Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a photon is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is 2CL, and the clock ticks once each time it hits a given mirror. In the frame where the clock is at rest, the photon traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light. From the frame of reference of a moving observer, the photon traces out a longer, angled, path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running slower.


The relativistic energy-momentum equation

The relativistic expressions for E and p above can be manipulated into the fundamental relativistic energy-momentum equation. Note that there is no relativistic mass in this equation; the m stands for the rest mass. This equation is a more general version of Einstein's famous equation "E=mc2", and can be regarded as the defining equation for invariant mass.

The equation is also valid for photons, which are mass less (have no rest mass):

Therefore a photon's momentum is a function of its energy; it is not analogous to the momentum in Newtonian mechanics.

Considering an object at rest, the momentum p, in the first equation above, is zero, and we obtain which reduces to suggesting that this last well-known relation is only valid when the object is at rest, giving what is known as the rest energy. If the object is in motion, we have V, V being any Velocity. From this we see that the total energy of the object E depends on its rest energy and momentum; as the momentum increases with the increase of the velocity v, so does the total energy.


This E is in fact equivalent to that of the relativistic energy equation in the previous section, and that energy equation differs from the relativistic mass equation by a factor of c2.

Therefore the relativistic mass is essentially the same as the total energy — but scaled and with different units. Since the energy-momentum equation is more convenient to use, the relativistic mass is hardly ever used in practice.

When working in units where c = 1, known as the natural unit system, the energy-momentum equation reduces to the equation is often written in this form to show the invariance of mass (rest mass), as the energy and moments of single particles changes, when seen from different inertial frames.

The equation above reduces to m² = E² or m = E, when v = 0, showing that proper choice of inertial frame gives the rest mass of a particle as the rest energy. The same reduction happens for systems of particles (where E and p are sums), when the inertial frame is chosen as the centre-of-mass frame (COM frame, sometimes called the system rest frame) where total p = 0. Such a frame can always be identified for any system.


In this case, again m = E, showing the useful property that in the COM frame of a system, the system mass (invariant mass) is given by the system total energy. Unlike the case of single particles, the system total energy, as a sum, may include kinetic and photon energies.

These energies by themselves have no "rest mass," but which in the case of systems, they still contribute to system "rest" mass. Energy is typically in units of electron volts (eV), momentum in units of eV/c, and mass in units of eV/c2.

This is the primary unit system in particle physics. Energy may also in theory be expressed in units of grams, though in practice it requires a great deal of energy to be equivalent to masses in this range, and these energies are expressed in other units. For example, the first atomic liberated about 1 gram of heat, and the largest thermonuclear have generated a kilogram or more of heat. However, such energies are instead always given in tens of kilotons and megatons referring to the energy liberated by exploding that amount of Trinitrotoluene (TNT); or teravolts and joules.


Say you have a twin, and you go off into space, travelling near the speed of light, when you return, will your twin have aged more?

When travelling at speeds near the speed of light special relativity says that time is dilated. Thus relative to another inertial frame where perhaps a stationary twin sits, time for the moving twin is slowing down. Hence the stationary twin is aging faster. While the moving twin remains in an inertial frame (that is, continues to move at a constant velocity) the moving twin will observe time running slower for the stationary twin.

As for 'no' or ‘not’, it is trying to get the twins back together at the same place and the same time so they can compare their ages. That's the 'return' in this question. This will necessarily require a change in velocity -- hence an acceleration. But an accelerating frame is not an inertial frame.

Thus, without knowing the details of how we bring the twins together, there really is no way to say for sure who will be older -- but in most cases it will be the travelling twin. This is a well-known question, at least for anyone who had a course where special relativity is discussed. It is generally known as the 'Twin Paradox'. Let me first spell out what the apparent paradox is, then try to explain why there is in fact, no paradox.


The question is this. We have two twin brothers. We send one of them to space, travelling at relativistic speeds (speeds close to the speed of light) who then comes back?

Now, special relativity predicts (and it is in fact very well confirmed) the phenomenon called 'time dilation', which simply means that a clock in motion relative to an observer seems to run slower than a stationary clock; that is, the seconds on the moving clock seem to get 'stretched out'; the closer the velocity to the speed of light, the greater the effect. Also, it is noteworthy that this is not a feature of the mechanics of the clock, it is actually time itself that gets dilated. So, a regular clock, our body's biological clock, or elementary particles' decay clocks, all seem slowed down when moving relative to the observer and since the travelling twin was moving at relativistic speeds with respect to the twin left on earth, from the point of view of the twin on earth, the travelling twin must have aged less. Which means, on return, the twin which travelled will be younger than the one who stayed on earth. But then, as the argument goes, from the point of view of the travelling twin, the twin on earth was moving at the same speed with respect to him, just in the opposite direction. So, should it not be the twin on earth that should be younger?


Who will be younger, if any twin at all?

The correct answer is, the travelling twin will be younger, and there is really no paradox there. The resolution comes from the fact that the situation is not really symmetric. The twin on earth was at rest and never accelerated (much), while the travelling twin accelerated, felt all the jerks and pressures, and at some point in the travel even had to turn back.

So why does the twin who accelerated remain younger?

Special relativity states its rules with respect to 'inertial' frames, which means, the frame of reference should not be accelerating. The frame of reference of the twin on earth, (to an excellent approximation), conforms to this constraint, therefore any calculations done taking the frame of reference of earth are correct. However, the travelling twin, at least during some point in the journey, accelerates. So, the simple special relativistic calculations taking the frame of reference of the travelling twin are in a non physical form are incorrect. So, in fact there is no paradox, and the travelling twin will be younger.


String theory is flawed because if that actually transpired an infinite form would be finite rather than numerical and therefore tenth dimensional. It would be God.
 
In the occurrences of

a time A - the invention of such structure whether theoretical or not

a time B - in the event of such mass that B time

(a stone of mass and structure that it is the whole form in place occurring between A and C in time)

You could probably, due to form, and time prove that there is a prolonged duration in which reincarnation could take place as there does not have to be life for there to be matter however time being based on the duration between Point A and Point B and this being a mathematical language you could put forward the idea that there is in fact no Point B and B is merely the human understanding of the stopping of time. But how do you stop time and if time is also a quantity as it is form also if represented in language.

K may be the structure of the thus understanding of physics; that there has to be a point in which time must stop but that which is belonging to the physical structure of the universe continues
 
^^ i think that the main point was the "K" in the last sentence
... you shouldn't write after having taken K
 
Who else thinks we've gotten gravity wrongagain? I think dark matter/energy is a very good sign that we have.
 
I believe gravity is merely the 'magnetic' attraction of electrons by quarks.
 
Top