Another small question Prof. If apcetime has matter, where did this matter come from? Can we account for this matter? How does it relate to dark matter??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Hi Dipayankar;
Welcome back to my thread. I've missed your questions like the one above.
I like your logic and my answer is I don't know. I would say this however, If space has a fabric, which I believe it does ( Ether, made up of strings or radiation or whatever ), then it already has matter.
I accept antimatter as described by the standard model, namely the same particle, with opposite charge. And so the electron has a positron with a positive charge. A proton has an antiproton with a negative charge. Chargeless particles like the photon and neutron are their own antiparticle.
There is still much to explore here Dipayankar, and so let's explore.
Another small question Prof. If apcetime has matter, where did this matter come from? Can we account for this matter? How does it relate to dark matter??
Another great question Dipayankar.
If I had the answer to that one I'd be the smartest S.O.B. in the valley.
So here are my thoughts.
Something has to be eternal, in that I don't believe you can have something from nothing.
But do we have something? Are thoughts something real and tangible? Is it not possible that this relative reality is an illusion? But than we would still have the question where do thoughts come from?
So we either have a universe which is eternal or God who is eternal. Maybe they are one and the same.
Needless to say thinking about eternal is more confusing than thinking about something from nothing.
I hope this confuses you as much as I am, regarding this subject.
Thank you, Austin. I never thought of myself as funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com
What if stringiness had another way of raveling, say, that the ether was of such tiny stuff that it wasn't so particulate in nature but was more of a liquid thing?
Then currents passing oppositely alongside would twirl and swirl into a neutron, over millions of years until compressed to some limit dictated by the centripetal that we call 'solid', then break a bit into a proton and and an electron. (see thread of Fluid Energy Theory (FET))
I have a confession to make, Austin and Pat, in that I now regard strings as possible. However, before getting all happy about that, I want to clear this up as my having detected a confusion of words that I now see as untangled:
I cannot accept anything as one-dimensional and real; I believe my confusion stems from strings being presented as one-dimensional. My half-Zen particles, described in an earlier post, is the smallest particle available, yet this is a 2D-particle, meaning it needs another half-Zen particle of 2D to become 3D. You will probably recognize my 2D+ set up of having two fake/art dimensions making one actual reality.
So, I consider it now possible that the strings are the same as my 2D+ Zen particles. A quick reminder: a Zen particle is the originating point at the potential universe, with materialization starting out with a squazillion half-Zen particles, all in desperate need to get whole again. They do so with the newly experienced limitation of materialization. A variety of 2D+ Zen particles would then exist (in the squazillion as created, but with that number divided by two of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Speaking of images here is one of polarized entangled photons. Look familar?
The "Iconic Image" of entangled photons
HMMMM!! My Avatar:
Yes/No, Pat
I recognize it and I would say the basic set up of your avatar is visible if you have a twisted mind. It is very close (but no cigar).
Really, I love this picture: thank you.
Questions: Do photons always come entangled? Is this picture a visualization of two objects entangled or do they exist one behind the other? Where do the colors come from (real/false)?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I have a small question for Prof. If matter is essentially an extension of rip-offs in the fabric of space time, then what is anti matter? Is it also a rip off of the space time fabric? Because if they anhilate each other, then the hole in the fabric should heal.
If you allow me to answer this question, Dipayankar, I would suggest the fabric should be viewed as the surface of water (but with the surface existing everywhere), and waves the only visible parts of materialization. If two waves come from different directions, the water can get very choppy because two valleys and two crests would enforce each other, while one valley and one crest would annihilate each other.
I would not use the term hole, but I would use the term void or nothing with this void/nothing being an aspect of matter (not equal to the void being taken in by matter). Rather, matter is made up of energy that is more than the void but additionally it is also taking up the void location, warping the energy in the process.
Consider the potential energy the tissue and the void a little spot of water. The tissue gets warped and the wet spot is fully incorporated in the tissue, creating matter. Matter would therefore be more than just taking up the void. Potential energy + void = matter (warped energy).
The universe is a dynamic place, meaning the waves are there, and in our materialized universe they are always there. Though individually they are going in all directions, collectively there is only a single direction: outwardly. Playing tennis, you can consider matter the warped ball of energy going in a particular infinite direction (but influenced by encountered circumstances, with itself also creating circumstances experienced by other matter).
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Are thoughts something real and tangible? Is it not possible that this relative reality is an illusion? But than we would still have the question where do thoughts come from?
Here's a little story on that very subject:
The Quarken Wakes
"Professor Starling, we're ready when you are" called the teckie. "It's all set on line two and Johnson is asking if you'll look in on this one, we're completely stumped".
"I'll be there in ten" he responded polite as he ever was, but not a man to waste words. To waste them would distract from his thinking time and that might mean that that his time on earth was reduced by that exquisite fraction that meant he would not achieve his goal.
Ever since his schooldays he had been like this when his interest had been awoken in science, not by the tedium of the chemistry or physics lab, but by the British science fiction writer John Wyndham. He had read and reread The Day of the Triffids but his favourite remained, as always, ‘The Kraken Wakes’. The anti-matter particle, which was the subject of his life's work had been named the Quarken as a sort of pun between its parent opposite - the Quark and Wyndham's Kraken.
And now it was in sight - literally. The new particle analyser could pick up the traces resulting from the collisions that were produced at the end of the accelerator and turn out a computer generated image that was better than anything the Americans or CERNE could produce. The unravelling of the nature of anti-matter was just a matter of time.
Starling's success at Cambridge had come, not from following scientific method but from the source of all great scientific discoveries - inspiration and intuition - a realisation that here or there was a new possibility that had not yet occurred to anyone else. He based his ethos on a quaint mixture of eastern and western philosophies, having been greatly influenced by Oppenheimer and the Los Alamos project. Oppenheimer had named the first bomb "Trinity" after the Hindu Gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Starling thought the choice significant and had wondered why Oppenheimer had not gone simply for Shiva - the Destroyer. His researches had taken him into eastern philosophies and the result was a blend of science and occult that no-one but he recognised or acknowledged.
All of his major advances had come during sleep, meditation or out of the blue - you know that feeling you get - "I wonder where that came from?" Starling had long given up on his colleagues in the physiological and psychological sciences who continued to insist that they would soon unlock the secrets of the brain. His argument that it was simply the receiver of messages and controller of the physical body.
Unable to get time on the CERNE accelerator he looked for alternatives and just as the personal computer had revolutionised its field he had produced a particle accelerator that would fit in a lab instead of underneath a whole mountain. The concept was elegant and simple and it revolutionised particle physics as every physics department with $2m to spare could own one. The accelerator itself was cheap but the devices that they used to record the particle tracks had not kept pace and they were now developing this alongside their original research into the Quarken.
Today, as they had every day for the last ten weeks, they would accelerate a charged particle to within a fraction of light speed and crash it into a target particle suspended in a magnetic fluid. As the particles broke fleeting glances of their constituents could be caught on photographic film - at least that was the way it had been done. The trouble with film was that it was two dimensional and this was where Starling had aimed his next major advance. The nature of the Quarken would be his as soon as he had the new three dimensional analyser working and correlated. But first they had to solve this little bug that the teckie had discovered.
The apparatus was based on holding the target particle in a magnetic field which was steady and continuously recorded in three dimensions by remote devices that did not themselves disturb the field. When the accelerated particle hit the target the changes in the magnetic field were recorded and this was used to track the resulting particles. The computer enhanced results were providing a new look at the meaning of matter - or at least one small piece of it - the Quarken.
The lab technician and his assistant sat beside the optical viewer which was the only opening into the collision chamber. This was used to set up the physical components before each test. Like a laser the whole operation used only low power and it was possible to watch the collision through the porthole eyepiece. From the size and colour of the minute impact you got a feel for the quality of the run. They decided to run the experiment and Starling would add his observations to his assistants' to see if they could iron out the bug before going home. The problem was the normal particles were not tracking where they should and this was making it difficult to pick out the Quarken from the background.
"I've tried a new setting on the target angle and we appear to have lost the particle completely" said the assistant, "neither of us can see it on the analysis afterwards. Perhaps you could look?"
Starling put his eye to the eyepiece, fine tuned the focus, and then gently pressed the start button. The emitter came to life and, within seconds, the accelerator warmed up, the green light came on and he initiated the fire sequence. He saw a small orange flash within the target area and the particles split as expected. However, instead of the Quarken streaking out beyond the target area it shot at right angles into the eyepiece, through the optics, through Starling's eyeball and into his skull where the soft spongy tissue of his brain halted its progress and his great mind absorbed its full impact.
"I just had a thought," he said, turning to his colleagues.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
I recognize it and I would say the basic set up of your avatar is visible if you have a twisted mind. It is very close (but no cigar).
Really, I love this picture: thank you.
Questions: Do photons always come entangled? Is this picture a visualization of two objects entangled or do they exist one behind the other? Where do the colors come from (real/false)?[/quote]
Here is an article you and others may find interesting Fredrick. ( Colors are real they come from lasers )
Einstein and BohrBy the 1920s, it had become clear to most physicists that classical mechanics could not fully describe the world of atoms, especially the notion of “quanta” first proposed by Planck and further developed by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Physics had to be rebuilt, leading to the emergence of quantum theory.
Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and others who helped create the theory insisted that there was no meaningful way in which to discuss certain details of an atom’s behavior: for example, one could never predict the precise moment when an atom would emit a quantum of light. But Einstein could never fully accept this innate uncertainty, once famously declaring, “God does not play dice.” He wasn’t alone in his discomfort: Erwin Schrödinger, inventor of the wave function, once declared of quantum mechanics, “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.”
In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen introduced a thought experiment to argue that quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. Known today as the “EPR paradox,” the thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the innate conceptual difficulties of quantum theory. It said that the result of a measurement on one particle of an entangled quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on another particle, regardless of the distance of the two parts.
One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement: if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function. So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state.
This is known as “nonlocal behavior;” Einstein dubbed it “spooky action at a distance.” It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality.
It’s worth noting that Einstein wasn’t attempting to disprove quantum mechanics; he acknowledged that it could, indeed, predict the outcomes of various experiments. He was merely troubled by the philosophical interpretations of the theory, and argued that, because of the EPR paradox, quantum mechanics could not be considered a complete theory of nature. Einstein postulated the existence of hidden variables: as yet unknown local properties of the system which should account for the discrepancy, so that no instantaneous spooky action would be necessary. Bohr disagreed vehemently with this view and defended the far stricter Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The two men often argued passionately about the subject, especially at the Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930; neither ever conceded defeat.
There have been numerous theoretical and experimental developments since Einstein and his colleagues published their original EPR paper, and most physicists today regard the so-called “paradox” more as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical physics, rather than as evidence that quantum theory itself is fundamentally flawed, as Einstein had originally intended.
But the paper did help deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before that paper, most physicists viewed a measurement as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system: one shines light onto an electron to determine its position, but this disturbs the electron and produces uncertainties. The EPR paradox shows that a “measurement” can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.
Today, quantum entanglement forms the basis of several cutting-edge technologies. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be intercepted by an eavesdropper without leaving a trace. The first viable quantum cryptography systems are already being used by several banks. And the burgeoning field of quantum computation uses entangled quantum states to perform computational calculations in parallel, so that some types of calculations can be done much more quickly than could ever be possible using classical computers.
Thank you both for very insightful deliveries; one serious, the other playful, but both quite good.
I once read on ToeQuest an explanation (sorry, I forgot to mark this post) how QM functions at a distance. When taking a hollow pipe filled with round balls, and adding a single ball into the pipe, one ball will fall out of the pipe on the other side. The behaviors of the two balls are linked.
The information from your delivery, Pat, would suggest our universe is a well-balanced place, where once-connected photons remain 'in touch' as if existing in such pipe line, and the change of one photon causes a change in the other photon. I would be interested to learn if that is a perfect score, meaning does this occur all of the time, or does this occur only sometimes with the times it doesn't happen being called lab failures (of establishing the link).
Do you know of tests in which one of the linked photons was linked to a third photon, and if anything scientifically notable came out of this manege-a-trois?
If our universe is a conceptually balanced but dynamic place of outward-moving matter, then a movement at the elementary level of one particle may have consequences for particles elsewhere. It would be like walking a tight-rope and catching a ball with your right hand out of the air; you must adjust your body in various places to accomodate the added weight and movement.
What do you know about QM, Pat, in light of the fact that at a distance of more than 50 km the effect is no longer there. Could that be the location of diminished effects to the balanced nature of our universe, with the required re-adjustments then already made by other particles than the linked photon? And could that give us any information about the size of the Big Bang and/or the Empty Nest location I propose for the middle of the BB?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Good story, Felix. I was just struck by a cosmic ray and so I just had the thought that we are an electrochemical machine subject to such.
Fredrick, it was funny when you said that you weren't born funny but normal.
Stringy liquid stuff of ether which doesn't really have to be stringy, I guess, would wrap around itself in perpetual motion until compressed to some limit, but this might take a long time as ether is so 'thin' as to be infinitesimal. This final spin rate becomes the measured spin of a proton that can throw off a photon at that speed, the speed of light. Then, too, galaxies whirl and much else in nature, as well.
Spooky action at a distance occurs, maybe, because the twins ARE still the same particle or because they are a projection. That solves that one!
I believe it's just 2 particles Fredrick a third is used for measurement. Currently I think I read where they have a success rate of 70% in creating these entanglements up from 46%. Here is another interesting article on entanglements where science fact is approaching science fiction.
Teleportation in the Real World
March 5, 2008
By Chris Gorski
ISNS Contributor
So there they were, Hayden Christensen and Doug Liman, the star and director, respectively, of the superhero teleportation movie Jumper, sitting at the front of one of the giant lecture halls at one of the most serious schools of science on the planet -- the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their movie stormed through U.S. box offices over the past few weeks, and is now doing the same in Europe.
Next to Christensen and Liman were MIT physicists Edward Farhi and Max Tegmark, lecturing a hall full of students on the reality of the science that is inspiration for Jumper. Press materials for the movie envision several different ways to teleport a person, including the old “beam me up, Scottie” Star Trek standard of deconstructing someone in once place, then reconstructing them somewhere else.
While the film tries hard to connect its human teleportation and wormhole jumping with real science, in the end the movie is just Hollywood fantasy, with lots of special effects and very little science. But as Farhi showed as he scribbled electron transport diagrams across a vast blackboard, teleportation is part of real science.
And Tegmark’s explanation that scientists are changing their views about the rules governing unstable collapse of a wormhole due to energy violation clearly brought the phenomenon into the realm of serious science -- although wormholes remain entirely theoretical. The students got it, even bursting into laughter when Farhi noted that you “you have to collapse the wave function” to make real teleportation work.
The serious science of teleportation and wormholes is actually mind-blowing. Physicists can perform a phenomenon called quantum teleportation over a distance of a few miles. Unfortunately, the only items currently teleport-able are photons and electrons -- and they must teleport one at a time. In practice, teleportation doesn't really mean sending an actual item anywhere, but recreating the exact state of a given object in another location, which is possible because of something called quantum entanglement.
Here is how it works, sort of. When two subatomic particles like photons come near each other, they share a connection that cannot be fully understood until one half of the pair is measured. They maintain this connection, even if separated by considerable distances. Measuring the properties of one particle reveals the properties of the other, even if it has traveled far away. This connection is so strangely counterintuitive, yet so tied into the theory of quantum mechanics, that it troubled Albert Einstein, who called it "spooky action at a distance." But to determine the properties on one of the quantum pairs, scientists have to bring in a third particle -- it has to do with being able to do a measurement.
By measuring the state of the one of the pair, you can determine the state of the other electron, even if it is a mile away, because the two are paired and connected. The state of one is “teleported” to the other. This experiment has been done, and it works.
Taking advantage of this effect to teleport something made up of multiple particles – like Captain Kirk - is a whole lot more complicated. “It requires you to have something at the receiving end,” Farhi said. For a human, you’d need a huge bag of electrons, neutrons and protons waiting for the teleporting person. The person wouldn’t really teleport, but the state of his or her electrons, neutrons and photons would, through “spooky action,” be communicated to the bag of particles. Out of the bag, Farhi said in reference to Jumper’s Christensen, the actor would come.
It’s messy and clearly isn’t ready for humans. But it could be a great way to communicate inside of a very fast quantum computer, Farhi said.
Wormholes are the preferred method of transportation in “Jumper,” but a lot of scientific work needs to be done before considering them as a real possibility. Wormholes have never been created, or even observed. Wormholes, if they exist, could connect distinct parts of space-time. A connection between two areas would allow something to pass through and reemerge in a different location, or even a different time. This idea forms the basis for many science fiction tales, but until scientists determine if wormholes exist, or even if they can exist, it remains far-fetched to suggest them as a mode of transportation.
To see a Discoveries and Breakthroughs Inside Science TV segment on a Los Alamos National Laboratory effort to use quantum entanglement and teleportation to provide computer security, go to: http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2000/privacy.html
ISNS contributor Chris Gorski is with the American Institute of Physics’ Discoveries and Breakthroughs Inside Science program. He is a news researcher, writer and filmmaker who specializes in science. ***This story is provided free for media use by the Inside Science News Service, which is supported by the American Institute of Physics, a not-for-profit publisher of scientific journals. Please credit </I>ISNS</I>. Contact: Jim Dawson, news editor, at jdawson@aip.org.
P.S. Check out the red link for a short but interesting video.
Fredrick, it was funny when you said that you weren't born funny but normal.
So, what you're saying is that I wasn't born funny, but underneath those nice words you really trying to tell me I was born funny!?!
Thanks!
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
This is known as “nonlocal behavior;” Einstein dubbed it “spooky action at a distance.” It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality.
Linear Mode
