That's a gas. Now I see why no one will respond to my letters. I sent an article that I thought was earth shaking to Scientific American, which I read for years and they just rejected it out of hand and It was not so much the rejection that hurt, but the sense that I got from them that it really didn't matter what I wrote, but who wrote it.
Perhaps the ether could refer to what everything actually seems to be composed of.
Two articles of yours are up now and these last two will be up in a few days. I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now.
Perhaps you could explain what cyclical Universe based on Big Rip Scenario means in laymans terms so I can understand it. I maintain that all those 'time beginning' senarios are false because they all seem to start with pre-supposed conditions. I mean how can someone have a theory about how it all began when they start their theory with space and some form of matter??
I'm not trying to put you under any pressure. Go have your holidays or whatever.
later Rufe
Don't lose heart, it is the fact that you have tried that matters. For all we know the science may be exactly right after all. If not then there is a wealth of thinking for describing the theory of everything as long as the ideas are recorded.
I believe there are a good many people who are developing ideas so that if a change of direction is required then a transition will be very smooth. In other words I believe in the nobility of the human spirit to try unselfishly to work on an idea in the hope that it helps or may just prove interesting even if never needed.
I do value and respect scientists, I hope my last post was not too harsh. Perhaps if I run the same scenario for politics. A youthful thinker trying to add value to the cause of humanity may take up politics ... not to be a politician but to benefit the community with fresh thinking.
What happens is an apprenticeship and an adopting into a vast system and maybe a realisation years later that the ideas and changes they were looking to bring in could not be adopted, not because they were wrong as such but because the system is so big and must move very gently in any direction for stability.
Politics like so many other things is somewhat counter-intuitive ... in order to have individual freedom the system needs to be fair and stable. That is not to say it is inflexible but perhaps our youthful aspirant might achieve some measure of their goals given enough determination ... it is most likely that it would be seen as guiding and a move ever so slowly and carefully like gently turning a great corner as opposed to a sudden change in direction. I see science as the same, many add value a lot of value but only in rare circumstances is there a change in direction.
Perhaps to know the start of a cyclical universe one should assume some end conditions for the previous system. The main point here is that in no case has anyone been there at the time to verify the events happen as estimated. So the question is answered with two things in mind ... one that it is a question that will be asked ... two that for every answer given is it material that is able to be rigorously questioned. The rigorous questioning is fine if it explains an idea or makes clear some curiosities regarding any new thought process. It is not quite as helpful if it is only required as something to be torn apart by those who should also admit they were not there to witness the events either,
So the end. A cyclical universe is one that comes together ... which is the model that I am looking at ... or one that opens from inside to draw a new beginning from within itself.
This first example is a one universe model, the second a many universe model based on many shells. The one universe model ends with all of the matter contained in two final massive matter antimatter streams electrically and gravitationally bound. I am treating the streams as one would a balloon ... if a section of the balloon is stretched in a bubble, as a child a partially inflated balloon demonstrated this quite well. By sucking a portion into a little bubble and the twisting a cherry or little balloon could be formed on the surface or the main balloon. This is the no loss of information scenario. When the two final streams are tight enough they merge all the event horizons back within a gravity density environment the main force containing all that is within all black holes is released back into the very tight compressed universe.
The substance and energy within each black hole is released back into the main body of the collapsing universe and each stream has a vector or final direction of flow. There is terrific heat but not a collapse to a point because that would create an infinite singularity.
I have tried to stay clear of infinities. Each proton and neutron or whatever higher boson in the final stages represent the one boundary and there is a collapse of energy through to form a single large fireball from the gravitational collapse of the old universe. In essence the universe or the accumulation of matter in the old universe becomes the single monopole to form the new universe. An hourglass inversion but not touching. It is speculative ... I am sure that better minds will make a more reasoned and structured analysis. What this does is conserve every energy form and charge to pass to the next universe which must then push out its own space.
I am most interested in the now and the structure I believe unites the quantum world with the world of general relativity. I will say I have tried to visualise beginnings and endings and have hit on many variations ... I do not intent to be there for any of them, so I think it is fair game for whoever has better ideas.
I like the idea of the wall of the proton being roughly spherical because it means that whatever is thrown at it can bounce back in a number of useful ways. An up or a down bounce or left or right, with spin or a strange bounce like throwing a punctured tennis ball at a wall. The strange bounce comes back with less energy which may be the magnetism that quantum has not yet found. If it can be linked to magnetar stars or neutron stars then that would be a useful match.
For an initial beginning I was inspired by Bogie who is also on this site. To my delight there are those who seemingly for no reward other than an altruistic attempt to describe their world strive against the odds to make a difference. That is what it is about, thought that is there if and only if it is ever needed, cheers
The big rip is scientifically described as something other than what I would use it for. For me it is a universe that repeats at a size, small but not infinitely small. And thank you Rufe I have enjoyed the holidays. I like to call this my hobby (sounds so much nicer than obsession), this is exactly what I enjoy ... it keeps the brain alive.
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
Well that's some hobby. Sorry I missed this earlier but I had to take the box apart to do some repairs and clean up a bit. I have one of those plexi cases with the colored lights and all and it has to be kept clean so I use three filtered fans in and one out. That way there is a positive pressure inside and the seams are blowing out as upposed to sucking the dust in. I'm still using an older gigabyte board but it does everything I want it to do and I'm not a gamer.
You mentioned other universes and I've heard this before, many times. There was a big discussion here at one time but I don't recall what the consensus was. We as individuals have the inability to actually recognize other individuals (solipsism) and be able to verufy that they indeed recognize us. You can take that dynamic and replace individuals with beings from other planets, other dimensions and indeed other universes.
You also speak of the futility of being able to verify theories and that extends to anything. There cannot be proof of anything beyond one being convinced that it is true.
I have another question for you. This concerns string theory, supersymmetery and m-theory. I understand that m-theory was Mr. Whittens' idea of combining all five (or so) string theories into something supersymetrical but what I don't understand is: Is this whole idea a new model for atomic theory or are we still retaining quark theory etc. Have we lost some of the old particles like gravitons and tachyons. I ask you this beacuse I have so much trouble trying to figure out what the scientists are saying, not being mathematically inclined. I can do electronics and close tolerence machine shop math but when it come to quantum mechanics I'm completely lost.
I am glad your computer is back together Rufe. The many universes idea comes about through the quantum mechanics. According to theory the smallest particles are in all possible states on, off, spin and in any position until looking at them determines where they were. That came about by the mathematics and the curious nature of very small particles. They are so small that to look or measure them in any way changes what they would or could have been and so the idea of many universes ... as many as a one followed by 150 zeros.
There is a need to try and define beginning and end as it allows further insight to explain what we see when gazing to the stars. There have been quite a few and out of interest I got a count of 16 or so beginnings ... some quite bizarre. By insisting we have the right answer instead of a best guess may suit those who need firm answers but the longer an idea is held the harder it is to update or replace if a better candidate is available. The big bang for instance has its critics and a large number of scientists are looking for dark energy solutions or to find dark matter.
I am not saying they are wrong but with such devotion to an idea and belief that it is right it makes it just that much harder to step in with an alternate like shape of structure, density of force and movement through a space reference frame. Admittedly there are any number of alternate theorists that would like to be heard, myself included but there just isn't enough of the scientific community to go around.
It is easy to agree with J. B. S. Haldane “Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” I have not helped as I can imagine very strange indeed and it came across that way, so the idea found its way into the too hard basket more than a few times.
Wow string theory. That was terrific. In one sentence you were able to round up a group of some of the most complex mathematical ideas that run to thousands of pages and documents. But to any normal person they do sound like a similar lump. String theory is that a unit of energy smaller than any atomic scale thing like an atom or quark is the building block of all matter. They carry a vibration and so are like very tiny strings like violin strings perhaps able to carry their unique vibration. When enough form the right way they make up the quarks and atoms which then function as quarks and atoms should, not like mountains of tiny vibrations. I suppose the idea is like leggo or enough of the right tiny building blocks so that when they combine correctly they make the larger object and so on which eventually goes on to make us and the world we live in.
There were a number of mathematics describing string and it was a stroke of genius that Mr Whitten saw the way to combine them into 'M' theory. That combination gave shape to much larger structures of clouds or super formations of membranes filled with the string waiting to connect and form worlds. So when science talk of 'branes' it is a shorthand for membranes or clouds or layers filled with string vibration waiting to merge.
A year ago when I first came across brane theory I thought the spelling was wrong. It is a huge field and one weakness is the difficulty of defining a beginning although Turok and Steinhardt do have a cyclical theory that is getting attention with each universe splitting to become two at the end of the cycle. I may be wrong here but I think mergers are also possible. I will get back soon with super strings and symmetry, cheers Michael
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
Thanks for that. I actually knew about the branes. I was reading about them and not understanding any of it when I ran across an ns brane of course it meant namron soar to me so I read on and it turns out that it's a type of p-brane and to me that sounded like pea brain. Soo I'm a freakin' pea brain. When it comes to understanding ten or eleven dimensions, some so small that they are curled up, just blows me away. It means nothing to me.
It's all very convenient that strings change when you look at them isn't it? Many feel that it all closer to philosophy than physics. What do they intend to do with the new cyclotron? Is it finished yet? I think it's called CERN?? They were building one in Texas that got canceled after they got about 2 k of tunnel built. What kind of facility do you think they should build? If there is no known way of approaching strings then what?
Another point I need to have clarified. It's great to talk to someone that answers these questions in a way that I can refer to later because I have found out several things that I had very wrong in my articles. You said that a string is a very small bit of energy or something like that. Is there supposed to be any matter connected with that? The old atomic theory stated that the quark was the matter and the orbit was the energy.. clarify this please. Either that or the atom was the matter and the orbit gave it energy.
Anyhow what I said was energy could be defined as the motion of matter and could not be separated from matter. The building blocks of matter is what the original cyclotrons were supposed to be finding and they failed to do this because no sentient matter has ever been found. Another thing that I have said that may also be wrong is: E actually equals M and therefor is the same thing and cannot be separated.
I not sure that string theory is going anywhere because it is background dependent—the background of their own appropriate choice. A string can also form a loop, Their only constraint is that they sweep out equal areas in equal time, or something like that, but I'm not sure why. There's currently no way to prove string theory. Also, there are 2**500 possible string theories.
With strings the idea is to build them and so shape becomes very important. Now the mathematics can be complex but a quick idea is the original strings were vibrations an so energy is a good candidate. If it is a zero dimension a dot it is a pulse at a point, one is a line like a violin string, two dimensions is flat like a table top which gives the membrane. Using letters allows shape and also magetism and allows the different string ideas to be identified.
Now a table top can be square or round and nature does seem to like circles. Three dimensions is like our real world length depth and height. To go higher means some strange shapes but in a very simplified form four dimensions in structure is a cone like an ice cream cone. The circle at the top is two dimensions and the cone is a wormhole to the point of the cone. That separates the circle and the dot, the dot being one dimension and the separation being the forth dimension. That is a vortex or twistor and is currently still being worked on by Sir Roger Penrose. It has some interesting possibilities that include movement through time.
Another four dimension is the tesseract and the Wikipedia here has a really good set of diagrams. The possibilities for shape grow for each dimension. Five dimension space was being considered up to 1905 when Einstein amazed the world with his theories. I have not gone into five dimensions. I did look at six. Six is surprisingly easy if you think of it like the human body. It is like taking the human shape as your outer layer and going down through say the circulatory system arteries, veins and capillaries down to the red blood cell. Like going from a big roundish shape down through a whole set of connected wormholes down to a small roundish shape (probably any shape would do). In six dimensions each inner cell is as connected or separate to the outer shape as each other inner cell can be but can be as simple to view as a human body.
Six is the dimension of structure used to make programs to design pipes or say in the case of imaging the body through various scanners a way to map blood vessels, nerve pathways and one member on this site proposed a brain scanner again neural pathways. Six dimensions is how quantum is worked to the level of real particles like atoms at the top right down to the really small and hard to see stuff. So six quantum dimensions and then our three normal dimensions length, depth and height then add time as one more dimension to get ten overall. Then just to make it all a bit more interesting our world is called the eleventh dimension but it is a name only to say this is earth that is being talked about.
If I have messed you up in shapes already then I apologize because even with good graphics it is very hard to picture in words. Then using mathematics and super computers there are designs that may be beyond the ability to show visually. And that is just structure ... once you start adding a time line for one way flow or two time-like lines it gets very complex. That is from our world down inwards. The five dimension idea that Einstein replaced was a large outer space idea but we didn't get to that one.
That is fairly regular physics. With higher dimensions it is a matter of trying to describe extra shapes at a smaller and smaller scale. I believe Professor Stephen Hawking got up to around 27 dimensions of ever smaller bends twists folds and loops. I do not even try to visualise to anywhere near that level of complexity.
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
I not sure that string theory is going anywhere because it is background dependent—the background of their own appropriate choice. A string can also form a loop, Their only constraint is that they sweep out equal areas in equal time, or something like that, but I'm not sure why. There's currently no way to prove string theory. Also, there are 2**500 possible string theories.
That is a huge number. I think if the whole universe was make of string theory papers there wouldn't be a whole lot of room for the rest of us, cheers
In the article I linked to in the previous post has gravity at right angles to the energy of the string. That would have the effect of making right angles very important to the look and shape of string theory as well.
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
I like to use stories to paint an idea. Since string theory uses gravity at a right angle it may be easier to picture as a sail.
On a boat on a calm day the boat just sits in the water. Give it a breeze and there is more air on one side of the sail than the other. So the sail pushes the boat through the water. The push is at right angles to the sail.
Now to look at the same picture using gravity density. Where there is no breeze there is equal pressure on the sail. The pressure like air pressure can be as strong as you like there is no movement. Call it the strong nuclear force.
Here is the gravity flow idea, if one force say the weak nuclear force acted on one side and the electromagnetic on the other then the sail would move the boat if the forces were not exactly balanced. Gravity acts at the level of the atoms. So gravity we measure at the level of the atoms of the sail are ... weak nuclear force minus electromagnetic force.
The strong nuclear force is 10,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force combine to make the electroweak interaction and actually fuse together at 1,000,000,000,000,000 degrees K. It means they were only together around the time of the big bang. Now if the whole flow of gravity that we can feel and see and measure is only the very slight difference between them ... that would mean gravity at the level of the atom would seem to be incredibly weak.
That is the idea anyway. It would take a mathematician to calculate the numbers. That is why I thought if I asked the question and someone could calculate the answer and take credit for that answer then I have saved myself years of study and received the answer I wanted so much more quickly. That is important to me because if I am wrong then I could have put those years into other better ideas.
Best wishes all for the new year, cheers Michael
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
I not sure that string theory is going anywhere because it is background dependent—the background of their own appropriate choice. A string can also form a loop, Their only constraint is that they sweep out equal areas in equal time, or something like that, but I'm not sure why. There's currently no way to prove string theory. Also, there are 2**500 possible string theories.
Re: Cyclical Universe and big rip 
Linear Mode
