An Idea

[austintorn@aol.com]

It could be Michael Jackson.

[dipayankar]

Thats a good photo. So it seems that dark matter is not dark anymore.

I just wanted to share this picture of dark matter I found on the internet:

[Fredrick]

I'd say it's lacking matter, Pat.

Sorry, guys, I was quite busy for a long while, and I may not have much time to visit this thread much in the coming time, but I'll try catching up.

While busy and away (yes, hard labor and sweet pleasure can sometimes be found in each other's vicinity), I had some thoughts on how it is all fitting together. I moved an inch further to accepting Classical Mechanics as the standard.

I am not in denial about Einstein and Bohr and who not (well, some not), but I place their deliveries now as special aspects to good old classical mechanics. I do not regard quantum mechanics and general relativity as conflicting with one another, simply, because they are aspects of classical physics.

General relativity is not an absolute phenomenon in the absolute way; rather, it is an absolute phenomenon in a relative way. If you think about it, that makes a lot of sense because general relativity cannot be absolute and true at the same time. It is like Godel showed with his incompleteness theorems. Despite evidence for GR, the overall approach of GR is that there is no overall approach to GR, except as a framework.

Same goes for quantum mechanics. This is a framework of much proven information, but is itself not a reality, only a framework; it does as such not belong to the overall level.

Dark Matter is indeed also fascinating, yet dark matter is not where the essence of our universe lies (even when it may be seen as part of the universe). For the ToE, we must position ourselves to be thinking about all that fits at that ToE level, not what belongs to the other levels.

I don't reject GR or QM, but they are not the same as classical physics that state essential information about our universe. GR only states relative information about our universe. Quantum mechanics only states information about the smallest levels. They inform classical physics; they do not belong to the same level as classical physics.

To find the ToE, we must deliver it the classical-physics way. No more hocus pocus or getting lost in frameworks. Let's focus on the real stuff.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Real Stuff

[dipayankar]

I also feel that we have digressed too much in quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory, m theory etc. etc. Good old classical physics can provide us with the ToE.

I'd say it's lacking matter, Pat.

Sorry, guys, I was quite busy for a long while, and I may not have much time to visit this thread much in the coming time, but I'll try catching up.

While busy and away (yes, hard labor and sweet pleasure can sometimes be found in each other's vicinity), I had some thoughts on how it is all fitting together. I moved an inch further to accepting Classical Mechanics as the standard.

I am not in denial about Einstein and Bohr and who not (well, some not), but I place their deliveries now as special aspects to good old classical mechanics. I do not regard quantum mechanics and general relativity as conflicting with one another, simply, because they are aspects of classical physics.

General relativity is not an absolute phenomenon in the absolute way; rather, it is an absolute phenomenon in a relative way. If you think about it, that makes a lot of sense because general relativity cannot be absolute and true at the same time. It is like Godel showed with his incompleteness theorems. Despite evidence for GR, the overall approach of GR is that there is no overall approach to GR, except as a framework.

Same goes for quantum mechanics. This is a framework of much proven information, but is itself not a reality, only a framework; it does as such not belong to the overall level.

Dark Matter is indeed also fascinating, yet dark matter is not where the essence of our universe lies (even when it may be seen as part of the universe). For the ToE, we must position ourselves to be thinking about all that fits at that ToE level, not what belongs to the other levels.

I don't reject GR or QM, but they are not the same as classical physics that state essential information about our universe. GR only states relative information about our universe. Quantum mechanics only states information about the smallest levels. They inform classical physics; they do not belong to the same level as classical physics.

To find the ToE, we must deliver it the classical-physics way. No more hocus pocus or getting lost in frameworks. Let's focus on the real stuff.

[Profpat]

Welcome back Fredrick. I missed your daily postings.

I think quantum, classical, and relative physics is all the same physics. In other words it tries to describe how physical reality is and reacts.

We need to know how reality reacts at the quantum level, this ushered in our electronic and atomic age. Radio, TV, Computer, Phone, etc.

We needed to know about relative physics when things go very, very, fast to get our GPS to work.

Classical physics is needed for the general overall approximate reality.

My An Idea, is of course, quantum in description. We need to explore the limits, from the smallest to the largest, from the fastest to nonmoving, and everything in between.

I agree that observing nature and the universe you can detect some of the underlying principles of the universe. Such as symmetry, duality, probability and so on.

I think there is no problem reconciling the three.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Is it so that the very basis of the two physics is completely different? Can they ever meet?

Welcome back Fredrick. I missed your daily postings.

I think quantum, classical, and relative physics is all the same physics. In other words it tries to describe how physical reality is and reacts.

We need to know how reality reacts at the quantum level, this ushered in our electronic and atomic age. Radio, TV, Computer, Phone, etc.

We needed to know about relative physics when things go very, very, fast to get our GPS to work.

Classical physics is needed for the general overall approximate reality.

My An Idea, is of course, quantum in description. We need to explore the limits, from the smallest to the largest, from the fastest to nonmoving, and everything in between.

I agree that observing nature and the universe you can detect some of the underlying principles of the universe. Such as symmetry, duality, probability and so on.

I think there is no problem reconciling the three.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Interesting?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39802

[Profpat]

Is it so that the very basis of the two physics is completely different? Can they ever meet?

Hi Dipayankar;

That excellent link you provided is a good example of reconciliation.

The two problems that seperate the theories is gravity, and probability.

Since I believe gravity is an effect and not a force, there is no reconciliation necessary.

I've always believed at the quantum level probability theory reigns, but at the macro level it APPEARS to be deterministic because of the law of large numbers. Flip the dice enough times and you come up with a very " DETERMINISTIC" pattern.

So to me both are very good at describing what they are attempting to describe. It is the same physics.

Best,

Pat

P.S. The probability pattern of the number total of 2 dice tossed very determined. The actual event of tossing 2 dice very probabilistic. The two are the same. The pattern is DETERMINED only after a large number of tosses or mathematically.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Interesting?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39802

Hi Dippy

Yes, very interesting and it might indicate something about the nature of probability.

It's the buddleia season here so imagine a butterfly which is trying to decide which of many flower spikes to land on next. Presumably the butterfly uses a degree of intelligence and judgement but is also affected by the wind and other random factors. If our particle has an underlying (apparently) random pattern which is influencing its decision in where to appear next, then it will appear to wander as described in the paper. This underlying pattern (the vacuum energy) is what I call 'The Dance of Shiva'. http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html

regards
Felix