Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
| | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 71 | artificial evanescent reality -
01-12-2006, 01:21 PM
In contrast to the proliferation of inexpensive (but profitably booming) virtual reality (VR) witnessed by the rise of video games which at most improved certain manual dexterity and moments of brief mental concentration for the young adults or younger young adults or even adults or older adults nothing more can be gained. To gain more out of VR, at the very least is to breach the computer codes of pseudo random number generators and into close contact with actual artificial evanescent reality (AR). AR is definitely much more expensive toy for a few seriously volunteered and chosen adults who have at the very minimum spent years of academic research acquiring doctorate degrees in specific area. For examples, elementary particle physics, and those less mentally but physically demanding pilot training simulation, lunar-landing simulation, and many other similar computer modeling and simulations. Yearly, governments, joint consortia, and international groups dispense billions in monetary fund and without actually barter human resources into AR in order to get up close, and closer; personal, and more intimate with evanescence. The average lifetime of a weak vector gauge boson is clocked at 10^{-25} second, measured mass about 83 GeV with unit spin as first detected within CERN’s facilities circa 1983. Since weak particles live such an insignificant existence, for all practical purposes, they can be called man-made or artificial. However, in the early universe, in the era of Planck time and energy, they were prolific together with all the other evanescence: magnetic monopole, Higgs boson, isolated quarks and gluons. At this early epoch of extremely high temperature and density, they all exist as natural, ordinary, normal particles. But 15 billions years later, it takes more or less 15 billions dollars to coerce them up on stage for much, much less than 15 billionths of a second. Adding lightly religious allegory or symbolism, if the early universe is the idea of Hell and what the universe is now is the next best thing to Heaven, why would the heavy weak bosons prefer going back to Hell than to stay in line in a queue impatiently waiting for a chance to get to Heaven? Nevertheless, the massless energetic photons have been to Heaven and back to brag about it a quadrillion times over. Although the massless weak gravitons relishing the secret of eternal good life in Heaven refuse to share or even to send a signal of gravity waves brandishing the promise of immortality. These lacks of cooperation on the part of W-bosons and refusal to share on the part of graviton with the understandable over eager magnanimous photons prompted mortal scientists in creating electroweak theory, standard model, and general relativity and finally TOE hoping to close the gap between Heaven and Hell on planet Earth. Physically, Heaven implies absolute zero, while Hell implies infinite temperature. Both are scalar fields with no directional attributes or no escape routes. Once inside, it’s permanent residence without expiration date, even longer than what a diamond is forever. Incidentally, a diamond symbolizes eternal devotion, romance, strength, beauty, wealth, and happiness and even everlasting life. That’s the price of evanescence. Is there anything more to ask for? Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² | |
| | | | | | The Observer
Status: Offline Posts: 1,731
Thanks Given: 15
Thanked 130x in 111 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005 Rep Power: 33 | realy! What is a Boson? -
01-12-2006, 02:14 PM
Hi Antonio;
I am quite surprised we are not working for computers yet. Oh; maybe we are!
I have been amused by particle physicist for many years. They seem to be the entertainers and philosophers of the science world. I don't remember who it was that said, "it's like taking a hammer to a Swiss watch and then trying to figure out how it was made." (it sounds like one of Feynman's) Like the Swiss watch, I think man is creating the pieces, not nature; but, if the numbers work to sooth the mind, why give up the illusion.
NOMENA: "The Unknown Something" http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/pcu/noesis/issue_v/noesis_v_2.html David | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 71 | pure energy -
01-12-2006, 02:55 PM
Dave,
A boson is the closest thing to pure energy. But the energy calculated by E=mc^2 is tainted with matter hence not pure. Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² | |
| | | | | | The Observer
Status: Offline Posts: 1,731
Thanks Given: 15
Thanked 130x in 111 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005 Rep Power: 33 |
01-12-2006, 03:13 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao A boson is the closest thing to pure energy. But the energy calculated by E=mc^2 is tainted with matter hence not pure. | Maybe a boson would be more analogous to E=6.5*10^11(mc), the quantum state of a singularity.
How do you taint energy with itself? I would like to read your source. If it is your original idea, it could be an interesting topic. Thanks; David | |
| | | | | | The Thinker
Status: Offline Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005 Rep Power: 47 |
01-12-2006, 03:22 PM
A boson is a fundamental quantum of a Force. When it is in motion it is transferring Energy through spacetime because if there is force and dimensions, then there is energy neccesarilly. | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 71 | matter are antisymmetric wave -
01-12-2006, 03:25 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by dleviwing How do you taint energy with itself? | matter has odd parity wave functions and classified as fermion, while boson has even parity wave functions. Since these are statistical, there are always mixture or superposition of wave functions from both pure states. Therefore the mixture cannot be pure either way, matter or energy, but we can assumed a noumenal state of pure energy or vice versa pure matter. These ideas are not mine but approximately or could have been erroneously borrowed from quantum mechanics. Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² | |
| | | | | | Moderator
Status: Offline Posts: 7,201
Thanks Given: 335
Thanked 617x in 591 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005 Rep Power: 90 | Re: artificial evanescent reality -
12-22-2006, 07:30 PM
Would there not be greater purity Antonio if matter and energy were seen as one composite whole!And that by fully understanding what is meant by the term singularity?
Any acceptance of plurality,and of this,and of that,will always end in confusion,I feel
you already know this Antonio,so why flog a dead horse,bury the poor beast?
warm regards michael. Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself? | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 71 | Re: artificial evanescent reality -
12-27-2006, 02:28 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Would there not be greater purity if matter and energy were seen as one composite whole! | Matter and energy are not exactly equivalent otherwise Einstein's equation E=mc would become E=m, that is without the c factor. Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² | |
| | | | | | Moderator
Status: Offline Posts: 7,201
Thanks Given: 335
Thanked 617x in 591 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005 Rep Power: 90 | Re: artificial evanescent reality -
01-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Matter and energy are not exactly equivalent otherwise Einstein's equation E=mc would become E=m, that is without the c factor. | That then implies an imbalance,how can this be?
regards michael. Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself? | |
| | | | | | Raider of the lost time
Status: Offline Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003 Rep Power: 71 | Re: artificial evanescent reality -
01-24-2007, 03:56 PM
Quote: |
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick That then implies an imbalance,how can this be? | Energy waves are more in phase than matter waves even they could be both made of the same waves in action. Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² | |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | |