An Idea

[austintorn@aol.com]

Dip,

Time had no beginning either, unless there was a stillness to the ether, in which case there was not time since no movement yet.

[Fredrick]

Dip,

Time had no beginning either, unless there was a stillness to the ether, in which case there was not time since no movement yet.

My four cents (sorry, inflation has been crude lately):


Space only occurred after time had already started.

The set up is simple: the potential state had to create the condition on which materialization could begin. Indisputably, that took up time. Once materialization began, time simply continued.

The conditions of time and space belong first of all to the potential state, but time started ticking within the potential, while materialization belongs to our side of the equation.

Had the condition to create materialization failed, then time would have returned to the original condition again, just like space, of being just potential. Time is therefore more like the potential than space is like the potential; space had to go through quite an alteration, while time only needs to adhere to space where appropriate.

I believe the ancients already agreed upon this and therefore called seconds seconds and not firsts. The first 'second' belongs to the potential state. In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus won the battle with his father Chronos, the person we still honor with our word chronology. Of course, when placing them in an order, a father comes before the son.

[austintorn@aol.com]

True, Fredrick, an alternative to the smallest energy being eternal is for it to have become of potential. I usually oscillate between the two theories and put two cents on each one.

The potential is neither material nor nothing, but a new state of 'being', which I often propose as well as Fundamental Possibility, timeless and formless, trying everything at once to see what gives, (timeless and formless at least as we see time and form on this side of the Wizard's curtain).

We can see the curtain, more or less, but it's hard to see behind the curtain, so don't know if anything was there, but what would be there, I would think, it not just smaller and smaller stuff, or some big complicated mind, but some possibility with workings as unknown as how the quantum realm manufactures material.

[Fredrick]

True, Fredrick, an alternative to the smallest energy being eternal is for it to have become of potential. I usually oscillate between the two theories and put two cents on each one.

I like that a lot, too, Austin. But as you and others said, energy already belongs to our side of the universe. Though the potential can still 'shine through' to our side and may have some connection to energy, on our side we really have laws in place that are not identical to the potential state. I would say that matter is bound to more laws than time, but that time is also bound to matter.

I like your way of gambling: you put two cents on each option, and if it is double or nothing, you always get double, and always lose nothing.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I'm sorry Felix I checked and rechecked the internet to see where Brian Greene revisited the string loop theory. Everytime I do he affirms it. You'll have to give me a link to support your statement.

Hi Pat

Watch Chapter 5 in Hour 3 of 'The Elegant Universe'. BG is trying to explain (fruitlessly IMO) why gravity is so weak. He introduces the concept of strings with fixed ends:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant...3014_r_05.html

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Thank you Felix for that link.

I'll be gone for a week. I'm going to San Diego to see my children and grandson. Feel free to continue your discussions here.

Best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Have a good time with your family, Pat.

Soon, I'll probably be posting less often, too.

Summertime, and the living is easy...

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

I'm back from San Diego, only to return there to get married in two weeks. ( 8/2/08 )

In the meantime I watched a program on the CERN, called THE BIG BANG MACHINE. In it they stated that the standard model had problems accounting for mass. Indeed the formulas came up with everythig being massless. Part of the reason for the theory of the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson.

However in my An Idea I proposed that the mass was created by the energy being bound in the the quarks. we all accept that energy = Mass C2.

Here is an excerpt of an article talking about how the much of the mass of a proton is created by just such interactions.

As always your comments will be most welcomed.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004


EnglishSwedish


Information for the Public

5 October 2004
The discovery which is awarded this year's Nobel Prize is of decisive importance for our understanding of how the theory of one of Nature's fundamental forces works, the force that ties together the smallest pieces of matter – the quarks. David Gross, David Politzer and Frank Wilczek have through their theoretical contributions made it possible to complete the Standard Model of Particle Physics, the model that describes the smallest objects in Nature and how they interact. At the same time it constitutes an important step in the endeavour to provide a unified description of all the forces of Nature, regardless of the spatial scale – from the tiniest distances within the atomic nucleus to the vast distances of the universe.
The strong force explained

The strong interaction – often called the colour interaction – is one of Nature’s four basic forces. It acts between the quarks, the constituents that build protons, neutrons and the nuclei. Progress in particle physics or its relevance for our daily life can sometimes appear hard to grasp for anyone without a knowledge of physics. However, when analysing an everyday phenomenon like a coin spinning on a table, its movements are in fact determined by the fundamental forces between the basic building blocks – protons, neutrons, electrons. In fact, about 80% of the coin’s weight is due to movements and processes in the interior of the protons and neutrons – the interaction between quarks. This year’s Nobel Prize is about this interaction, the strong or colour force.

Best to all,

Pat

[Mikal]

Prof...let me take this opportunity for congratulations and all best wishes in your upcoming marraige....


smiles Mikal

[Profpat]

Prof...let me take this opportunity for congratulations and all best wishes in your upcoming marraige....


smiles Mikal

Thanks Mikal;

I appreciate that. Linda and I have known each other for 9 years now and lived together on again/off again over 5 of those years, and have discovered we are pretty compatible. So we figured why not. She is tired of running away from me, and I am tired of living alone. Truly a match made in Earth, a true Yin/Yang. The biggest problem is our age difference, she is 34 and I am 63. She is young and beautiful, and I am....we'll skip that.

Thanks again,

Pat