View Full Version : With regard to space access tech
There's lots of talk about the things we already know -- like light sails and antimatter drives. However, I'm confident that there's still a lot of fundamental physics to be discovered. These discussions probably will end up sounding like Jules Verne's ideas about getting to the moon: by getting shot out of a cannon.
There certainly are possibilities of manipulaing the structure of space, or even matter itself.
For example, what if we could completely negate the inertial properties of matter -- thus accelerating to any speed (including faster than light). And what if we could actually reverse those inertial properties, so that matter would prefer acceleration over rest -- thus effectively using the fabric of space to push it as fast as we want! Electromagnetic radiation by definition propagates at speed of light -- but through what medium, why or how is still not known; what if we could make matter propagate at speed of light by similar principles? Heck, it may even turn out that matter and light propagate naturally at some harmonic multiple of c, implying that there could be things that move at 2c, 3c, etc!
The possibilities are endless, and I'm not the one to think of them all. But certainly I'm optimistic about humanity eventually getting to the stars, most likely through technology we can't even foresee in our wildest dreams...
Mike McManus
05-23-99, 09:44 PM
Even if the inertial properties were cancelled, the interstellar craft would be subject to Einsteinian space time. Therefore the speed of light would would still be the limit. The craft would become more massive as the speed of light was approached and time would slow down as experienced on the craft. This of course would apply only to an outside observer, everything would seem normal on board the craft. Another concern with near light speed travel in normal space time is collision with any matter in the craft's path. Even collisions with sparce intersteller gas (let alone passing through a nebula) would cause severe radiation on board the craft. Also, as the craft approaches another solar system there is the more catastrophic chance of collision with an object in the Oort cloud or Kupier belt while still far out from any planets. I think the answer may lie in superstring physics. It is believed that superstrings make up quarks, which make up everything else. If this is true superstrings would be the "unified field" everyone is looking for. And for superstrings to be possible physics / mathamatics predict the existence of 11 dimensions in order to be stable. This would give us 7 unknown and unused dimensions that we could possibly travel through. The microcosmic and macrocosmic are linked. Perhaps we could use this link to circumvent the ordinary four (h x w x d x time) dimensions that currently limit our travel.
------------------
MGM
Sirius B
05-24-99, 03:44 AM
Boris and MGM both have very well thought out points of view. I would like to introduce something that is a bit more SCI-FI if I may, can anyone entertain the idea of an interstellar mode of travel that involves "thought?" I mean, could there possibly be a way to travel (albeit virtual) from point "A" to point "B" without enduring any of the harsh elements that are placed on our "ooh-soo" fragile bodies? Wouldn't that allow us to study other environments and to gather information that could be used to help us right here on Earth? What do you think?
light is a condition...either on or off!
With respect to the light speed limit: the increase in mass is an increase in the inertial mass, not the gravitational mass. This is what one of my conjectures is about: if we can circumvent inertia, this unbounded increase in inertia as one approaches the speed of light would never happen! But the point may be moot anyway -- the relativistic effects appear because there's an assumption of no absolute frame of reference. That's a philosophical assumption that has a 50% chance of being wrong. I'm wagering it'll be wrong -- call me old-fashioned, but I just can't accept the idea that EM 'waves' propagate through *nothing*.
There's got to be some sort of an ultimate 'aether' that gives rise to waves, particles, matter -- that even encompasses what we call 'space' with its three degrees of motion and ability to stretch or expand. Lately, there's been evidence of a universe-wide inflationary force pushing everything away from the point of the Big Bang; such effects can't exist in a vacuum -- they must be a manifestation of the underlying medium that gives rise to the observable physical reality. The inflationary thing may be a false alarm, or here to stay; but, regardless, we have too many examples of 'action at a distance' that, in my opinion, inescapably suggests an underlying frame of reference. Maybe it'll end up being some n-dimensional string, maybe something we can't even liken to an object we are familiar with -- the point is, possibilities are endless and we are only at the beginning of the road.
But the concerns about collisions with all the cosmic 'dirt' are certainly valid. We'd need some kind of an energy shielding technology, like in Star Trek or Star Wars, before we could realistically hope to travel anywhere near light speed. Then there's of course the possibility of traveling along some other dimensions -- but as those are currently nothing more than mathematical possibilities I wouldn't hold my breath (especially since they are supposed to be 'wrapped up' upon themselves at sub-quantum scales).
As for 'travel by thought' -- what's that about? Thought is only a congregation of electrochemical activity in the brain; it has no more capacity for travel than the patterns of electrical currents in the hardware of your computer. It can certainly take you places, but if you want to go anywhere for real, thought alone won't get you very far :)
Double Overdrive
05-24-99, 08:47 PM
There will definitly be more tech advances in the travel of interstellar space. In fact, humans will never cease to gain more knowledge. Even if we create robots thousands of times smarter the us, they will never find out all the secrets of the universe. Every partical found in the universe is formed by smaller and smaller particals. The deeper we get into a particle the more sub particles we will find. If i'm not mistaking, even a photon must be made of smaller structures. This type of particle regression can also be used to look at our universe. All the galaxies combined might make up a tiny particle, and then a whole bunch of those tiny particles would make up another bigger particle. So when I think of universes inside other universes i think of this concept. Our universe along with countless others might be the fundamental particals of a whole nother universe inside itself, Possibly with life.......(the life would be unaware that a tiny little particle in its body would be our HUGE universe)
The same thing applies with us. Mabye there lies countless universes in the particles of our body.
When i think about reality this way, a BIG BANG doesn't really seem so big.
What do you'all think??????????????
Boris,
I think we all agreed that the ether theory was a dead end at the beginnin of this century. The thing that you are looking for is the underlying field.
Photons are the quanta of the maxwell field like electrons and other spin 1/2 particles are quanta of the dirac-field. Relativistic quatuantum fieldtheory (a whole mouth full) shows that particle fields which are gauge invariant (this means that they stay the same under Lorentz transformations) give way to particles and their interaction particles. This means that the maxwell field can be derived from the dirac field if one makes it gauge invariant.
Changing the properties of timespace to travel at greater then lightspeed would involve making a wormhole where the lightspeed is like n times the speed in our universe and making at the same time the restmass of your spaceship much smaller. This will make your ship upon entering a wormhole go much faster then light without violating conservation of impuls. This means that there will be no sensation of acceleration either, space itself will simply fold up in front of you and stretch out after you. This way you also don't have to worry about colliding into other matter because you make your own space where there is no other matter then your spaceship. Of course this made convenient abstraction of how to make such a specific wormhole, but that's science fiction.
Double Overdrive, you amaze me !
This is exactly the theory I had some years ago. You do realise that the sets of universes are also dimision wise sets of each other. What I mean is that the tiny universes are of 2 dimensional creatures and that the creatures who are made of our and simular universes are 4 dimensional creatures and so on. This might go on to infinity. This means that each possible stage of universal evolution is present in these sets of universes. This is the flaw unfortunately, there must also be a universe how is in it's big bang (or big crunch) fase and thus annihilating each single elementary particle that it is made of thereby also destroying al the sub universes al the way down to our universe. This means our universe can't exist ! Which it clearly does.
Besides current theory has it that photons, electron and quarks are the fundamental particles of which matter and energy exists. String theory claims they are vibrating strings so there is no real place anymore for those tiny universes. Anyway they could never be verified to exist because they by definition don't interact with our universe so on comes Occams Razor and cuts the over abundant fat away.
Double Overdrive
05-25-99, 08:53 PM
currently we haven't even saw whatt an electron looks like. How can we infer that the electron (photon or quark) is made of NOTHING... There has to be some way these are constructed. If it turns out there are other sub-particles that make up these particles, then there is no denying that at a very small level other universes can exist. Cosmology still hasn't solved how fast our universe is moving (this is differen't from expanding) Maybe our universe has the property of an expanding particle which IS CREATED (hence the BIG BANG) Maybe all universes are created in a big bang scenario, which in turn will create other sub-universes (similar to the INFLATION THEORY)
If any of you have seen the Men in Black movie you will know kinda what i'm talking about. At the end of Men in Black is show the camera zooming out until you see our whole universe, then suddenly many universes like ours start to form a particle. About a second later the camera zooms out into a pro-universe type thing, where there is an alien planet with odd forms of life.
I believe that the "grey aliens" that supposedly visit Earth, come from pro-universes (or sub-universes). If you think about it, all they have to do is shrink themselfs down to our size. That means they can instantly travel to anywhere in our universe. When they leave our universe and go back to the pro-universe, they can place themselves anywhere in their own universe instantly. This type of travel through universes could be alot more efficent then trying to learn how to overcome the speed of light limit. Personally I don't believe in worm holes that stay just in our universe. The "worm holes" would have to go to sub or pro universes to acctually "warp" to a specific location.
-Double Overdrive
Plato:
With respect to your discussion of fields and particles: have you ever wondered what is a field? And what is a particle? Or, more accurately, that thing we call a particle, which also behaves as a wave when nobody is looking. How do these Maxwell and Dirac fields, which were postulated for Newtonian space by the way, implement themselves within a relativistic space-time? What is time -- is it really a dimension, or simply a manifestation of thermodynamics? What is really a 'spin'? A 'flavor'? 'Strangeness'? We've got lots of names for the various behaviors we observe among 'particles' -- but we have no idea why these particular behaviors, and not any others, are manifested, nor why in the particular combinations we observe. How are these so-called fields (which are localist) reconcilable with 'instant action at a distance' that is observed with EPR-like experiments? What is it exactly that a wave function represents? How can something that extends over the entire universe collapse instantaneously, given a light-speed limit? And those Lorentz transforms you mentioned -- they only work when there's an ultimate speed limit, like speed of light! So they aren't even reconcilable with quantum behavior!! Too many unanswered questions -- that's why I'm totally dissatisfied with today's explanations coming from GR and QED. Too many mathematical models, but no understanding of what it is that they really model...
Your concept of wormholes is flawed. From the traveler's point of view, spacetime inside a wormhole is no different than outside -- there's still the light-speed limit, and your gravitational/inertial masses are the same. It's just that you are taking a shortcut within the fabric of spacetime itself -- like going through the center of the earth rather than around along its surface. In general with GR, universe has more than just 4 dimensions; there are additional dimensions along which spacetime bends -- it is along those dimensions that you travel differently when you go through a wormhole.
As for the propulsion you described -- that's Alcubierre's warp drive which has nothing to do with wormholes. And with this sort of drive you don't create space -- nothing can create or destroy space. You simply contract space in front of yourself and expand it behind. So if there's an object in front of you, you'll end up 'squeezing' it even more, thus concentrating its energy, and then slamming into it anyway -- so you'd really need an energy shield.
With respect to the infinite size regression hypotheses: not surprisingly, I've had similar thoughts in my own time. I think everybody who is interested in physics comes up with such a hypothesis sooner or later. Several snafoos: on the small scale, we seem to have a size limit called Planck's scale -- about 10^-33 m or something. Below this limit, everything turns into a chaotic quantum froth and no object can remain self-consistent for any time. Interesting question here: is the quantum froth real, or just a bad prediction of an incomplete theory stretched to a limit?
On the large scale, of course, we have more room to speculate; but to really find out we'd have to come up with a way to take a peek outside of our spacetime confines -- which may not be possible at all. Or maybe someday it will happen, and then who knows :)
Plato: energy can't be created or destroyed, not even in a Big Bang (or so we think). So, where does all the matter/energy go after a big crunch? Where does it come from during a Big Bang? These questions actually would lead one to hypothesizing about parallel universes, as Stanford's Andrei Linde had done for example.
Boris,
it seems this discussion stirrs up a few emotions. If I have seem to arrogant in my previous post then a apologize.
About fields. Yes I have had quite some thought about them and what they represent, I did my thesis on electroweak interactions so I think I kind of know what I'm talking about. May be some rust has come to some of my knowledge since it has been three years since I studied the subject extensively but that is just what happens if you give up one thing and start doing another.
So what is a field ? Contrary to what you said Maxwell fields and Dirac fields are theories who where amongst the first who tried to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. The Maxwell fieldtheorie for example is a much richer and correcter way to describe electromagnetism then Maxwell did in the 19th century. Still Maxwell's equations where already in Minkovsky space without him realising this. It was this discrepancy with Newtonian space that Einstein lead to his relativistic theory. It was made in the late 1920'ies together with the Dirac field.
Before we go any further on the field theories there has to be a clear understanding of time and space and their interaction with matter because like it or not but Einstein's GR is also a field theory.
Time is as much a dimension as space is, in fact the latest theories suggest that there is little or no difference between them. (See Hawking 's theories on the big bang and the concept of imaginary time) Besides thermodynimics only defines an arrow in time not time itselve. There is still time needed to make anything happen, hell without time one can't even think about it, it is not because a state with low energy is more likely than a state with high energy that their also will be a transition between them. A transition implicates time as a predesposition.
Now that we have come to terms with that (I hope) we are confronted with a timespace volume which we fill totally and everywhere with a field. A field is simply a property of timespace which it has in everyone of it's different points. Mathematically one could think of a volume in three dimensions where each point of the volume represents say a density of mass. The density can vary in each point of the volume and so does the field that fills up timespace.
This field is the thing that does the waving and this waving is quantized and these quanta are the elementary particles that we know. Suppose we take a Kalusha-Klein field Lagrangian, f we choose the field to be scalair of nature with a (meaning it has no direction in space) we get bosons with zero spin. If we choose the field to be vectorial, as is the Maxwell field, we get spin 1 bosons. This means photons are the quanta of the underlying Kalusha-Klein field equations for vectorfields. Once you go to tensorfields you get al the other spins.
These are bosons, to get fermions you must use the Dirac field. Scalair diracfields don't really exist because the lowest dimensional fields are the dirac spinors who are in fact 4 different states a spin up fermion, a spin down fermion, a spin up anti-fermion and a spin down anti-fermion.
Ok, enough about that or I'm lost in a dissertation about fieldtheory.
Action at a distance is not really the problem in EPR though, there is no real transfer of energy or matter needed to explain that and not even a transport of information that can be extracted (as you so kindly pointed out in our discussion about it a month ago (has it been that long?)). This phenomenon is part of the theory since it is explained by way of collapsing wavefunctions.
You do seem to know a lot more about wormholes than I do, could you recommend a good site on the subject if I may ask.
The way I saw wormholes (maybe wrongly) is as connected black holes. And of black hole I do know that once behind the event horizon there is no connection what so ever with our own universe so constants like lightspeed and restmass might be different there...
------------------
greetings,
Plato
Boris,
I almost forgot your last comment on creation of energy. In field theories energy can be created from the vacuum in the form of particle/anti-particle pairs. This is allowed if the pair get's annihilated right after that. They are called vacuum fluctuations. The universe can be seen as one big vacuum fluctuation, in a different way of course since it clearly has no anti-universe or not that we know of till recently. The universe kind of borrowed the energy from the vacuum but like every loan it has eventually to be paid back hence the big crunch or the entropy death in an infinite universe. Experimental evidence is tending towards the last since it seems the universe has been speeding up since the big bang rather then slowing down. ( http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_2.htm )
------------------
greetings,
Plato
Sirius B
05-27-99, 10:45 AM
Boris,
You seem to have this topic pretty well "thought" out.
When I mentioned Space travel by thought, I wasn't trying to step on your scholarly explanation of the physics involved. I was merely trying to get some feedback (from someone who obviously knows about the subject)on the ideas presented in the movie "CONTACT." Wasn't that method of travel done by "thought?" Was that just "written in the script" or is there some sound, scientific explanation for what took place?
If it could happen, it would seem to be the ideal method of travel (although I do like DOUBLE-OVERDRIVE'S pro-universe, sub-universe idea).
Double Overdrive
05-27-99, 06:18 PM
In the movie "contact" she didn't travel by thought, she traveled through multiple worm holes. Those worm holes slowed down time to almost zero, to the obsevers on Earth it seemed like she passed right through the machine. But since she was going faster than light, time slowed down to the point where one instant on Earth was equal to her 18 hour experience. This property of the movie could have seemed to show some odd form of travel (such as thought) but the machine accually opened up the worm hole she traveled through.
I believe worm holes are the only realistic method of conquering the speed of light barrier. Thought is only remembering of a certain thing, or contemplating about a certain thing that has already happened (Although we still don't know how some persons exibit ESP, which could be insight into time travel.)
Finally, "Contact" was a very well written movie (Wasn't it written by Carl Sagan?). There was no twiching of the current cosmological theories. In fact, I believe that in the end of the movie it seem more likely that she didn't travel to another planet, that is was just a hoax set up by that space guy. I believe this because the extraterrestrials wouldn't have know how to write enginnering blueprints that we could have understood (plus the space guy gave the decoders a large hint into how to solve the message they got from vega.)
-Double Overdrive
Sirius B
05-27-99, 07:22 PM
"Hey" D.O.
Thanks! That was the most "concise" and well thoughout explanation I have heard yet. I loved that movie however, I was never able to determine if she traveled or just "thought" she traveled. Thank you very much.
So, the idea of traveling by mere thought is NOT a valid one after all.
I read a book about the Dogon tribe (in Africa). Apparently, they were able to travel to another place in the cosmos (near the system of the star Sirius B)without the aid of a vehicle (THE SIRIUS MYSTERY/Rober K.G. Temple). There was also a program on (eons ago) called "IN SEARCH OF" hosted by Leonard Nemoy (did I spell his name right?)in which an explanation was given regarding this subject.
Do you recall any such program? What can you tell me about this "Dog" Star and it's apparent inhabitants (now residing in Africa).
Plato: sorry if I sounded emotional, that was not at all the intent. In fact, I rather enjoyed discussing this with you up to now, and especially now since you seem to know much more about QED than I do. Here's a few points that stand at the top of the list of things bothering me; all my other worries basically arise out of these few things.
You mentioned the necessity of time as a dimension for description of any process. I patently disagree. You see, at first it seemed like a natural idea to me, but then the more I think about it the less natural it becomes. I suggest that time is ultimately quantized as well as space; I'm suggesting there is an ultimate granularity to spacial coordinates, and a corresponding granularity to time defined by the period of a field change propagating through the smallest length of space. Now, time becomes simply an index, and you can think of the unfolding physical universe as a sequence of video frames keyed to that index. This is what I'm talking about: time is really just a manifestation of the speed of propagation of a field disturbance within the local patch of the universe. By affecting the speed of propagation of field waves (e.g. through gravitational effects perhaps), we can speed up or slow down time. But, viewed this way, we could never reverse time, nor make a discontinuous jump 'into the future'.
With respect to 'fields' -- you are basically asserting scalar/vector/tensor potentials. Again, what is behind those 'potentials'? For example, temperature in a room is a 3-D field of scalar potentials. But it actually represents agitation of air molecules at each point. In a similar vein, what does an electromagnetic field represent? That's the 'aether' I was talking about -- not in the same sense it was used by Maxwell and others, but in a more generic and fundamental sense -- as the stuff that *everything* is ultimately made of. The quantization of things at the small scale, in my opinion, testifies to an ultimate quantum 'matrix' that gives rise to all phenomena in the universe, where the matrix is itself quantized.
Dualities really get me nervous. When a particle is both a particle and a wave, when something can exist and not exist at the same time, when events in the universe are both local and global, when gravity is both a spacetime curvature and a graviton field -- I get really upset. These things tell my gut that what we've got is a hack; just a hastily stapled-together mathematical house of cards. While we still have dualities taking center stage in our physical theories, I will never be satisfied. There must be something deeper, that makes a photon appear as a particle at one time and a wave at another -- something akin to molecules that manifest themselves as a crystal at one time, and a gas at another.
Of course, as put by a famous asshole, "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Now, when we start getting into Steven Hawking and imaginary time, I'd really advise you to take anything he (and other leading physicists) says with a grain of salt. These guys are constantly on the cutting edge, so they just give you their latest interpretation -- being perfectly aware that it's incorrect. The reason they throw these ideas around in the first place is to help the community as a whole gain more insight, and work things out better so that all the pegs fit into all the holes. For example, in GR there's been at one time a lot of excited talk about time and space exchanging roles beyond the event horizon of a black hole (i.e. the particle begins to move along time, and age along space). Turns out these findings were only a result of a bad coordinate system that distorted the math. As soon as they found a more suitable coordinate system, time again became time just as space returned to being space.
About locality vs. nonlocality: nothing is reconciled, despite the field theories. Einstein himself couldn't marry the localist model of GR with globalist QED. It's plain and simple: everything GR does involves localized, causal phenomena, while QED has things happening instantaneously on a global scale (still causal, but no longer localized). GR and QED are dual in this sense, just like photons are dual, being a particle and a wave at the same time. See my opinion above concerning duality...
Also Plato, let me run this by you and see if I've got it right. As far as I understand, a wave function for a particle represents, among all other things, the position and momentum of the particle. Position and momentum are given as probabilities that drop off continuously. Now if that's so, then there's a nonzero probability that any given particle could be at any point in the universe. This means the wave functions stretch out over the entire universe. How, then, can something so enormous instantaneously collapse upon measurement? (Isn't that the phenomenon that the EPR paradox builds on?) Very very strange, when you actually think about how such functionality could be implemented -- I mean at some level along some dimension, the entire universe must be just a point!
Anyway... The wormhole stuff. Actually, I didn't get it off a web site; I took a GR class where we calculated out some of the properties of a wormhole. But basically, any 'Introduction to General Relativity'-type book usually has a chapter on "wormholes", or "Einstein-Rosen bridges". You could drop by a bookstore or a library, pick up the first GR book, use the index to find the topic and it'll probably take you all of 5 minutes to get throgh it, given your mathematical background. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
Basically, the main flaw in your idea of 'joined black holes' is that there's no singularity at the center -- no infinite spacetime compression anywhere throughout the wormhole. Sure, you still have the gravitational tidal forces, but for large enough (wide-throated) wormholes those forces should be survivable. And you can reverse course at any time inside a wormhole. The point may be moot, since wormholes naturally collapse, and to hold them open you'd need so-called 'exotic matter' with negative energy -- something we see not even a hint of.
What you may be confusing with wormholes is rotating black holes. Those have a ring singularity instead of a point singularity, and when one builds a Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, it seems you can enter the black hole, fly through the ring singularity and then continue on your way out to a 'parallel universe'. But within that universe, you still have a rotating black hole, so you can choose to go back and come out in yet another parallel universe. There's an infinity of such universes, as a Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole tiles a 2D plane. Of course, this is all probably sheer doodoo, since nobody knows how 'spacetime' really behaves near a singularity.
As for the energy thing: yes, you can have virtual particles all you want, but it won't help you create space as you originally wrote :) Also, I don't agree with your interpretation of the universe as a quantum fluctuation. Before spacetime appeared, there was nothing to fluctuate! The entire universe is just an expanding three-dimensional 'bubble' of spacetime; who knows what's outside that bubble -- in fact I doubt we would ever find out. And even if the bubble expands forever and we suffer a thermodynamic death, no balance would have been restored, since where you had no bubble now you have an ever-larger bubble! (Hmm, maybe one day it'll just 'pop'? :) That could be a fun ride...)
To Contact fans:
Yes, there indeed was supposed to be travel through wormholes. And it wasn't the 'space guy' (Haden). The movie was based on Carl Sagan's book 'Contact', and if you read the book, you'll realize it was supposed to have happened for real. The whole point of the 'confusion' about whether the journey happened or not was to examine the relationship between hard science and 'faith' -- something Sagan himself was keenly interested in. But anyway, 'Contact' is a great sci-fi book; I highly recommend it.
Sirius B
05-28-99, 04:22 AM
I think I will read Sagans "Contact"....
DragonMage
05-28-99, 08:48 PM
Boris and Plato,
I thank you two for the lively discussions on field theories, GR and QED. I am extremely interested in all these topics as my background is heavily skewed in the biological and biochemical sciences. So any websites, books, etc., you would reccommend would be greatly appreciated.
Do either of you have any theories of your own for faster than light travel using present day science with some logical extrapolation?
In the realm of science fiction, so much talk is done about "engineering space time." How possible is this? It seems to me that our understanding of the fundamental nature of space time, the fabric of the universe is limited.
DragonMage:
Your questions are precisely why I decided to start this thing off. (Come to think of it, the title probably was not the most appropriate choice).
Personally, I don't have any theories (yet :)), but I've got ideas concerning where the present science may be skirting the issues; I've been trying to push my ideas out there, to see if anybody can send them crashing down in flames. You're welcome to do the same!
As for books, websites, etc. I personally prefer to learn from books rather than websites. For a layman, there have been written many wonderful books that convey the main ideas without going into all the hairy math. The books below I read while still in high school; they are the ones that piqued my interest. Obviously, no math background is required.
For relativity, I highly recommend "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip S. Thorne. This, by the way, is the guy who helped Sagan with his wormhole ideas for Contact.
For inflationary theory and the Big Bang, read "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot and Keay Davidson.
I don't really have any layman's books to recommend for QED. Plato?
As for engineering spacetime: the only way we know of 'reshaping' it is through gravity -- not very helpful. I do agree with you on the point that our knowledge is definitely limited, and very probably quite incomplete.
Boris,
You said you took a GR class, may I ask what your major is ?
About quantification of time, this seems like a nice idea to me, I heard it before though and it made sense to me only at a basic level. The problem is here why do you want to do that ? Are you just taking quantummechanics and saying like : 'Ok, so energy is quantized and so is spin, so why shoudn't time and space be quantized ?' This reasoning is a bit to akward for me, I like to see some math of what the consequences are of such a thing before I go any further on that line of thought. Besides do you think it is possible to verify such a thing in experiment ? If it isn't falsifyable it's not a scientific theory as Popper would say.
Besides, quantization is not the basic thing of quatummechanics (as strange as it may sound) the wave-function is. Unfortunately the name wave-function is a bit misleading, it doesn't describe a wave like we are used to see like waves of the ocean or sound waves. There are no underlying material parts doing the waving and the wave is not waving in real space.
(Man, I must be sounding pretty dense here, next thing you know I'm saying that God works in mysterious ways... :-) )
This is the formula of a plane wave like you where talking about : \psi(x,t) = A e^{i ( x p - E t)/ \hbar}.
I jused the notation of Latex, I hope it is understandable.
You see we have a complex function, these are not real observables. This means that the wave itself is not an observable, what can be observed are the eigenfunctions of it, like energy and impluse. In a planewave energy and impluse are exactly known, this means that the probability to find a particle is zero. You won't find it ! Mind you we are talking about a two dimensional wave, only x and t are the variables and the space is an infinite plane ! How do we calculate the probability to find the particle in a certain place ? We take the wave funcion, multiply it with it's complex conjucate and this real value (in fact it's the squared amplitude of the function) is the probability function. Of course you have to normalise the amplitude over the entire volume where the wave stands so if this volume is infinite, A becomes zero (you can verify that quite easely with some calculus).
Regarding fields I think you have to make a mind jump here. I think I might be wrong on this but I have the feeling that what you call ether might be the same as what I call a field, in as that a field is something that fills the entire volume of timespace and in fact is a property of each point of timespace. It's like if you have a set of lines then each element has the properties length and orientation (to some predifined frame). Spacetime can be seen as a set of points which have the property \psi(x,y,z,t) !
Regarding dualities, in the mathematical field equations there are no dualities, there is no particle and no wave you have only the wavefunction. The problem lies in our 'common sense' view of how the universe is made up, a thing is something or it isn't, it can't be both ! The thing is, we never perceive the universe as it is, what we are doing is modeling it and try to fit the results of the model with what we can mesure in reality.
About imaginary time, I didn't really took the idea from Stephen Hawking but he used it in the same way as Wick did when he wanted to get rid of the infinities that plague all fieldtheories. You see fieldtheories might be the most powerfull tools we have to tackle the mysteries of subatomic physics, they are also predicting total nonsense in regards to the same elementary particles that they claim to describe. For example if one uses QED to calculate the mass of an electron (one presumes here that mass is an electromagnetic effect as arising from it's self-energy) one gets an infinite mass ! These are very tricky things who were bluntly disregarded in the 30 's by the very physicist who invented the fieldtheories, in the 40's it was kind of solved be a mathematicle very devious thing namely subtracting 2 infinite quantities from each other. The thing is with energy that it is not an absolute quantity, it depends on where you choose your zero point. So if one claims that the vacuum itself has an infinite amount of energy, one just subtracts that from you original calculation of the electron mass and ... boom you get the real electronmass ! That is just bull you will say because if one substracts an infinity quantity from another one can get just any number what so ever ! Well, the math might sound scewed but really it isn't. In the seventies it was shown however that if one does the calculations in a euclidian 4D spacetime (with time rotated over 90° in the complex plane) there are no infinities at all ! This proces of getting away with the infinities is called renormalisation. So that is why I kind of liked the idea of imaginary time because it seems that the singularity of the big bang is also gone if one takes this in stead of real time.
About locallity, I think you have been misinformed QED is as local as GR as is any other gauge theory like QCD and electro-weak theory. In QED photons are the mediators of the electrodynamic force and they are subject to the lightspeed of course.
The problem with GR is that if one quantizises the gravitationfield, the theorie is not renormalizable ! This is the biggest reason why quantum physics and general relativity have not been reconciled up until now. May be stringtheorie will prove to be the unifier, who knows...
About rotating black holes, is it true that spacetime itself gets wrapped around the black hole ? I heard there were some astronomical confirmations of this exotic behavior while they were studying neutron stars...
About the borrowed energy, I don't really know how inflation works but I thought the energy it needed was just borrowed gravitational energy from the vaccuum, anyway if we can borrow energy from the vaccuum it just might be possible to kind of create a wormhole and hold it open long enough to slip through it : Stars, here we come !
------------------
greetings,
Plato
Plato:
My major is actually computational neuroscience. I guess it's not very normal for me to be taking GR classes then, is it? <<>G> But, you know, this stuff is like a hobby for me -- so sometimes I go a little bit out on the limb in pursuit of it.
With regard to the imaginary time thing... Whoa man, this just about blows me away. I think I'm gonna have to shut up on this issue and pick up a serious QED book. Would you recommend one? (I'm not looking for a popular science book, I want a real in-depth, rigorous treatment.)
But for now, I still don't quite get a few of your arguments.
First of all, you cite the imaginary wavefunction and then state that it doesn't represent "real observables" directly. But, doesn't a function of the form e^(f) where f is imaginary, correspond to a trigonometric representation that directly involves real observables? I mean, given the equation you supplied, isn't it true that
\psi(x,t) = A cos{(x p - E t)/\hbar}?
Dualities. You're saying there's no particle, no wave -- just the wavefunction. Ok, thus far I see it. But then clarify something for me: how does a wavefunction end up turning into a particle or a wave upon measurement? What is that 'collapsing' stuff about? As I said, I need to read a serious text on the issue, but meanwhile maybe you could fill me in on this, if it's not too much to ask.
Also, I don't understand your treatment of locality. My main issue is that wavefunctions are global, and seem to change their properties globally and instantaneously. I don't see how that can arise out of a manifold-based, local theory.
The time/space quantization. Actually, I think it's a lot more awkward to assume that space can be sub-divided ad infinitum. For one, why would a truly continuous medium give rise to discretized quanta? It seems to me that a discrete medium will much more naturally explain quantum structure at small scales. Also, I've got the following computational argument. One can view every physical process as evolution of information -- or a computation. But, (Shannon) information is a discrete quantity that doesn't tie in well with infinities. In fact, a computation over infinities is impossible, since no Turing machine could ever represent an infinity. But, with infinitely subdivisible space you in effect end up claiming that even an infinitesimal volume of space contains infinite information. If that doesn't seem bizarre, I don't know what could. I'm looking for ultimate mechanisms behind the formulas; stating that space is non-discrete is equivalent to stating that no such mechanisms exist. Finally, look at our corpus of knowledge so far: 100% of all our empirical data represents discrete phenomena (matter, or energy). Our entire experience is discrete. So, is it more natural then to conclude that the underlying medium is continuous? I don't think so! The rules of induction would lead to the exactly opposite conclusion! Concerning falsifiability: how is continuous space any more falsifiable than discrete space? (They are both talking about behavior in the limits of scale, which will never in principle be measurable anyway. As for building models: I think a model's fitness is determined not only by its match with empirical data, but also by its intuitiveness.) So anyway, I think I just poured out the bulk of my reasons for believing that space is quantized (I may have forgotten to include a couple, but no matter.) But as soon as you assume that space is quantized, time becomes quantized automatically through the light-speed limit. So, I end up pushing a quantized spacetime, in effect... Except that I don't think time is a dimension at all.
But to answer *your* questions: :)
Rotating black holes. Yes, they indeed 'screw' with spacetime. The effect is called 'frame dragging', and basically what happens is that the surrounding spacetime gets dragged along in direction of rotation of the black hole. Intuitively speaking, it's like water going down a drain -- you get this vortex of spacetime. So all of a sudden you need to go a lot faster (as seen by a distant observer) to escape the hole's gravity.
As for astronomical evidence -- I don't think there is any yet (certainly haven't heard of any neutron star measurements confirming this). However, there was this attempt, at Stanford I believe, to measure frame dragging in Earth's vicinity due to Earth's rotation. They were going to put a satellite into polar orbit to do it. Of course, Earth's frame dragging wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as a black hole's, or even a neutron star's, but they calculated it to be measurable above noise with current technology. I don't know what the status of that research is; I haven't heard any news for quite a few months now.
About wormholes: to keep them open, you basically need antigravity. That's what the 'exotic matter' with negative energy was for. Now, we do seem to have something like antigravity manifesting itself on cosmic scale as the 'inflationary force'. Due to this force, the universe seems to be flying apart at an ever-growing pace. As to what this inflationary force is, whether it can work on a small scale, and whether it can be harnessed -- who knows?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 30, 1999).]
Hello Boris, this is beginning to devellop more and more in a private discussion, if anybody else has to say anything, please feel free to join.
Regarding quantisation :
At the beginning of this century it became clear that atoms emitted energy in discrete quanta. This was purely experimental evidence, when Bohr came with his atomic theory he wasn't really explaining way this was so, he merely took the quantisation as a postulate and made his model with that.
In the 1920's however, an other postulate was taken as a basis : the wavefunction as underlying description of the 'particle' (I have to be very carefull of the words here). You see if you have a wave that is bound in an atom, this wave can only have discrete modes in order to stay a wave ! So the quantisation arises from the wave nature of the 'particle', any other mode would be canceled out.
Regarding the probability :
Here we go back to the beginning of the nineteenth century, in 1803 Young proved in his two slit expriment that light was a wave. The intensity of light at ech point was determined by the square of the amplitude of the wave formed by superposition of the secondary waves arising from each slit. The intensity is in fact the amount of 'light' that falls on a certain point. By analogy, the wave (or state) function in quantummechanics plays the role of a probability amplitude. So the probability of finding a particle at a particluar point (x,y,z) within a volume V at a time t is proportional to \psi(x,y,z,t)^*\psi(x,y,z,t). (with A^* being the complex conjugate of A)
If you want to go a little deeper into this I highly recommend you the book of B.H. Bransden and C.J. Joachain : "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", Langman Scientific & Technical New York, 1989. This book gives the basics of classical quantum mechanics and shows how it originated.
Regarding field theory
A very good book on QED is the one from W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, "Quantum Electrodynamics" (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992). This does require some background with Lagrange and Hamilton theory and I don't know a good book for that because we just learned that from a curses that the professor wrote and this guy was notorious never to quote any book that he used (as if he invented it all himself). But I think G. Arfken, "Mathematical Methods for Physicist", Academic Press inc. San Diego 1985, will get you into that stuff far enough.
Any way if you want to know a little about renormalisation and supersymmetry M. Kaku is also good : "Quantum Field Theory, a modern introduction", Oxford university press, New York 1993.
And if you have read all those books I think you might as well change your major to theoretical physics because you will know more about it then me... :-)
Dualities,
This is as hard for you as it is for me to really understand it ! The problem is that our vocabulary isn't adequate enough to fully describe what a wave/particle does, that is way we are left with the math. This might come as a artificial thing to many of us but the thing is we can't trust our instincts, these have served us right during our evolution from small squirrel-like mammel who was hiding in the trees from dangerous dinosaurs to homo sapiens sapiens but they break down at the subatomic level. That is just the way nature works, I'm sorry.
Locallity,
You are right to say that the quantumwave is a global thing who 'collapses' suddenly when a measurment of place has been made, but you have to remember this is just an interpretation that we give to what is actually going on. If you look at Feynmann's theory of the pathintegrals things get even more bizar ! He postulates that a particle actually propagates along every possible path AT THE SAME TIME ! So a particle is doing an infinite amount of things as long as we don't look at it. When we do look at it, the paths suddenly cancel each other out and only one remains, the one you are looking at. When you are trying to visualise this stuff it just makes your head blow. So or you stay with the save mathematics and calculate until you get something that you can measure or you walk away and say you'll get back when things don't look that weird any more.
Still that is exactly what I find so beautiful about nature, it keeps on surprising me ! When we think we finally got a hold on it, it comes up with something completely new. So why do we still feel that there isn't enough mistery in nature ? Why do we want ghosts and aliens with their ufos and gods who are playing with our minds if things are already as exciting as they are ?
But that is another discussion...
About time/space quantisation,
I hope I have answered how a discrete medium like space can come up with discrete quanta, it is because a wave can only exist in multiples of his ground state.
Your argument of the Turinger machine kind of boils down to the Zeno paradox I think. He claims that if time and space can be infinitly divised that there can be no real movement because if Achilles want's to overtake a turtoise every time he crosses the half of the distance that is between them, there always is going to be a half left that needs to be crossed, this at infinitum. In mathematics however it has been shown that there are infinite series who do converge to a finite number.
So if your Turing machine want's to know something about a certain volume of space he will simply take the mean-value of the information of that volume and work with that.
Besides, in my data transmission classes I have seen that a signal of bits almost never is a clean square-wave, the computer always listens between two boundaries of voltage for the one and two others for the zero.
About time-dimensions,
you said a while back that you rather believed in the ten folded dimensions of superstrings than in the time dimension. This is rather unfortunate because one stand or falls with the other, the reason why the ten dimensions where postulated (and this you will find in M. Kaku's book) is because of the analogy wtih general relativity. In GR forces arise from distortion of space-time, well in superstring the same distortions of the 10-dimensional hyperspace are the reason that electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces operate. Now you can talk about dualities again, or forces are mediated by bosons like photons, Z-particles, gluons or gravitons, or forces arise from hyperspace distortions but this again is due to our lack of phatoming the way nature works.
About wormholes,
Suppose we are able to make one, is there a way of controlling where the other end emerges ? Because I don't really want to work on a super-luminal device that just drops me 'somewhere' at in space. Suppose that 'somewhere' is in inter galactic space with 1000000 lightyear between me and the nearest star, not what you call a gate to the stars...
------------------
greetings,
Plato
Boris,
I have a great respect for all those who are posting here. Since I am only a carpenter and an old man to boot, might I request to be excused from having to go down in flames?
"Fundamental physics to be discovered",hmmm, an interesting thought. How would we know it when we saw it? Should we ask for proof of it through what we know already?
If it is not to be found in wildest dreams then where?
Some are not so well versed in the sciences. Perhaps the reason they can see it is because they do not have that classical education and so can see it. Should it not be investigated before it is judged?, after all, it is new.
Inertia can be circumvented. It is possible.
An underlying frame of reference does exist.
Double Overdrive
Smaller and smaller particles do come to an end. I suspect 'permeation' plays a role here.
Plato
We might understand wave/particle phenomena when we create the conceptual tools that explain greater universe physics and not just 3-dimensional time/space continuum physics.
also, could you explain the thing with "Popper" about something being falsifyable,please?
A word about "thought", I'm thinking here that the "preferential will" may be a discrete function distinct from "thought", and there does seem to be some indication that will does function over distance without the elapse of time.
Now, remember, you guys, I'm just an old man in a room. I don't represent any major threat to the education of youth or the general world populace. In fact, the world mostly ignores me. So, take it easy, will ya?
Later,
Bxmkr
------------------
Bxmkr
Bxmkr:
Well, I'll answer the particular questions you posed to me, and let Plato and D.O. take care of the rest.
You definitely have a good point about the convergence of knowledge. It is epistemologically impossible to determine when and if we arrive at the ultimate theory. There will always be a possibility that even our best and most time-honored theories are incomplete. I suspect Plato will have something to say about that when he discusses Karl Popper, induction and falsifiability.
The thing about dreams, and thought in particular, is: we can't think or dream of something we haven't already experienced. Basically, all 'creative thought' is only a process of recombining in novel ways those principles that are already known. However, if the 'underlying reality' is such that we cannot yet envision it given our present knowledge and experience, then it truly does lie beyond our dreams/imaginations. This is what I meant. For example, there is absolutely no way an anscient Greek, like Aristotle for example, could foresee warped spacetime. He simply didn't have the bag of mental tools necessary to tackle such a concept.
The only way our conceptual repertoire is extended, is through observation -- not introspection. And with a widening pool of conepts to play with (as well as evolving theories), our theory-making ability continues to improve. These are some of the fundamental philosophical insights behind scientific enterprise. But hopefully it is quite clear that the process is bottom-up, and that looking ahead it is practically impossible to foresee the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of the remote future.
As for circumventing inertia and an underlying frame of reference -- I'm hoping you are right on both counts. But, only time will tell (as I hope will become clear after Plato is through).
As for 'preferential will'... Interesting postulate, but until you can make some empirical predictions based on your idea, it will remain just an idea.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
I have just found a very interesting paper in the Los Alamos preprints, it talks about a modified version of the Alcubierre warp engine with a way to make the energy needs a whole lot more realistic, and what's more, no gravity shield needed at all !
It was posted by, I'm proudly to add, a compatriot of mine of the university of Leuven : Chris Van Den Broeck.
Check it out : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9905084
Oh Yes, about Carl Popper. He was a science philosopher who died only a few years ago. Basically what is said is in order to formulate a valid scientific theory, one has to make sure it can be proven wrong. Normally one would expect that a theory has to be proven right to be valid but this would implicate that there exists a descisive way to proof a theory. Even the theory of gravity has to be proven day after day, suppose suddenly you start to float towards the stars after you made a leap into the air of surprise then Newtons and also Einsteins theory of gravity are not valid anymore.
On the other had if you are holding a theory for example that every pixi in the world has green hair, then this is not a valid theory because pixis have never been seen so you can't proof somewhere a pixi with brown hair exists.
I hope this sheds some light on your question, bxmkr. If Boris has something to add, feel free.
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 01, 1999).]
Plato:
Regarding wormholes. As far as I am aware, not only is there no way to position the mouths of a wormhole -- there is no known way of even forming one. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is only another solution to the Einstein field equations. Whether this solution actually exists anywhere in the universe is a big question (and actually, in all probability it doesn't). As to how you go about making an artificial wormhole -- your guess is as good as mine. Though I recall at some point hearing this wild proposal of enlarging a microscopic wormhole, the likes of which supposedly exist at sub-Planck scales within the quantum foam. But you'd still need material with negative mass, or negative energy, or *some* kind of antigravity, to hold the wormhole open.
The warp-drive paper. Whoooeeee, is that some heavy math or what? Not a bad demonstration, though I'd like to know, as do the authors, how one would go about actually creating the geometry in question. I mean it's pretty wild; with Alcubierre it was bad enough, but now in addition to the warp bubble, we've got another space bubble attached with a quantum-scale umbilical cord?! And it always has to come back to that negative energy issue... Yeah, I'd say we still have a looooong way to go :)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited May 31, 1999).]
Boris
thank you for your clearly delineated explanations. Your disertation on dreams and 'creative thought' are sound and certainly in keeping with my own thinking on the subjects.
I have long held that wherever information may be coming from (in dreams) whether it be from the sub-conscious or from some external source (assuming that's possible, a question I do not care to delve into here), in order for that information to be to be cognizable by the recipient/dreamer the information must be couched in recognizable terms for awareness to occur. Does this sound similar to the idea which you were expressing?
About creative thought, it would seem that you have the impression that I have just created something out of whole cloth without regard for that which presently exists and if that were the case your explanation would be pointedly correct. As a matter of fact I'm glad you brought it up because I haven't made it very clear as to what some of the background is for this particular project and I can see how someone might think it to be capricious or whimsical.
Some of the conceptual tools which I have developed are very difficult for me to write about, I do much better when I am walking around and waving my arms, but I'll try. It also helps a lot when I'm talking to someone who is interested in what I'm saying, wierd, I know, but that is just the way it is.
OK, an example, but only an example.
This example will be to demonstrate that fundamental and basic information can be looked at in a different way than the way in which it is usually and commonly viewed.
That is its only purpose, It may have no other usefulness beyond this demonstration.
take the number 1, think of it in all the various forms in which it is the central theme in any concept or idea such as; only, alone, first, win, unique,sole, primary et... now but them all in a bag and stick it somewhere in your mind, they say we only use a small portion of our brains so there should be plenty of room.
Take the number 2, think of it in all the various forms in which it is the central theme in any concept or idea such as; binary, duality,pair, second, twin, duple, etc... Put them all in a bag, stick the bag somewhere else in your mind, plenty of room, remember?
Number 3 same thing.
Number 4
5
7
8
and so on and so on as far as you care to go.
Now, there is some thing I can say about about these which is not so apparent with the ordinary way of conceptualizing integers.
Some of them are simply more sociable than others.
What does it prove? Nothing. What does it demonstrate, I'm not even sure. At one time it seemed a lovely clarification of pitch.
I did this whole thing with Pi one time that made it very clear to me that Pi is an absurdity, I could talk about it with some one and explain it, but writing it would just be so tedious, I have lot of trouble writing.
Oh yes, empirical predictions. I predict that it will be shown that: "The PREFERENTIAL WILL acts directly upon matter at the sub-atomic level."
Remember, you heard it here first.
Prediction #2
A group of people, arranged in a form, selected for variation of psyche, in the presence of a particular "field" will be able to initiate and maintain telepathic contact with another similarly configured group.
prediction #3
Another type of group, differently configured and larger, also selected for particular qualities of psyche and arranged in a distinct form, will be able, in the presence of a specific field, to initiate and receive material objects reciprocally with another similarly configured group.
Well, thanks again for your input, I appreciate the contact with a person of your caliber.
G'Nite,
------------------
Bxmkr
DragonMage
06-03-99, 01:33 PM
Bxmkr,
Sorry for the delay in talking about this very interesting topic.
Several questions,
First, how do you identify the variations in psyche necessary for the creation of the different groups?
Second, what aspect of the human brain leads you to believe that enough energy can be externalized to effect sub-atomic particles?
Third, what fields are necessary to enhance the effect? Are they fields we are familiar with now or are they yet to be discovered or developed?
Double Overdrive
06-05-99, 02:26 AM
I'm sorry I haven't replied in awhile. It is hard for me to follow what you guys are talking about. I am only 15, and still learning alot, but I still am going to try to respond.
Regarding worm holes:
Wouldn't a worm hole form when the mass (gravity) of an object becomes so great that it punches a hole through space/time? That would mean that only an object with a mass equal to the "black hole figure" could form a worm hole... This would present a real problem for traveling into it, unless there is a way to keep this hole open and eliminate the mass used to create the hole.
The only way I could think of doing this is by somehow getting rid of the mass of a black hole already in existance... I don't know at what means someone would go by to do such a seemingly impossible task (maybe with a discovery of anti-gravity?).
Well, thats about as far as my mind can go into this conversation (which seems 2-sided to me (boris & plato))
Thanks for listening,
------------------
We live, we die, WHO CARES!
-Double Overdrive
Sirius B
06-05-99, 04:40 AM
Hey "Double Overdrive"
It seems (to me) that the entire message board is an ongoing discussion between Boris and Plato (they don't seem to "address" others in their posts, only each other). I certainly don't feel like I have enough information (on some of the topics) to join in. The only thing I can do is read in "awe."
Boris/Plato,
Can one of you start a thread that uses "laymens" terms to discuss some of the changes the Earth might go through if "Betelgeuse" goes supernova? This topic has always intrest me. Just a thought :)
S.B.
Double Overdrive
06-05-99, 05:52 AM
Yeah, not all of us have a degree in astrophisics, although I do find the concept intriguing and difficult at the same time. We need to begin some serious descussions because that crazy ET forum is passing us up in posts...
I really find stuff like worm holes and multi-universes interesting... can boris or plato explain any of these easily. You don't have to if you don't want to but it would be fun to discuss.
Thanx,
------------------
We live, we die, WHO CARES!
-Double Overdrive
[This message has been edited by Double Overdrive (edited June 05, 1999).]
Dragon Mage
experimentation, coupled with reasoning.
The fact of the human minds affect on sub-atomic material is already in evidence.
they need to be developed.
------------------
Bxmkr
Sorry guys for carrying out a basically 2-sided conversation here; but the level of discussion sort of necessitates the high-faluting vocabularies. Bear with us; it may become more intuitive eventually (I'll try to be easier on heavy theory whenever I can.)
But here's the brunt of what I and Plato have been discussing: is there an ultimate 'essense', or the 'stuff' out of which absolutely everything is made. This would include the 'stuff' out of which even 'empty space' is made. Think about it: the 'empty' space is not really just a nothingness; it still has the 'three degrees of motion' (up/down, left-right, forward/backward), and if you put an object into that space, you'll watch time transpire for that object.
Then, QED proposes that various particle/antiparticle pairs, like electron/positron, pop up and disappear constantly even in the so-called 'empty' space. This gives an impression of a space teeming with energy, the so-called 'quantum vacuum'. In fact, Plato quickly went over an idea that the 'empty' space is actually filled with a near-infinite (or perhaps truly infinite) energy at every point! That's not just speculation, there's been experimental evidence to support this (e.g. the famed Casimir effect).
Finally, the various 'fields' exist throughout space -- like the electromagnetic field that gives rise to such things as light, and radio waves, and magnetic fields, and electrostatics. Then there is the gravitation -- some say it's a field, others say it's a property of spacetime; nobody truly knows. Then there are the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces that hold baryons (protons, neutrons) and atomic nuclei together; these forces are also thought to arise from 'fields' that span the entire universe.
So, you've got these so-called four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. The wonderful and amazing thing is, given the current mathematical models these four forces seem to 'unite' into one under extreme conditions such as those present during the first moments of the Big Bang. Thus, there is ultimately something very common to all these different forces; this commonality is the golden grail of the search for Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that seek to explain just how exactly the four fundamental forces merge into one under certain conditions.
Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED) is a theory that encompasses 3 out of the 4 fundamental forces -- all but gravity. General Relativity, on the other hand, explains just gravity and ignores the other 3 forces. So now you begin to see the dichotomy. And the need for reconciliation and unification between these complementary frameworks. On the quantum side, there have been attempts to formulate Quantum Gravity, String Theory, and god knows how many other alternatives to General Relativity. On the GR side, as far as I know, there hasn't been any major attempt to derive quantum properties since Einstein's own attempts failed (and he tried to his last days).
Another truly amazing thing that Einstein first showed is that matter and energy are ultimately the same thing in different guises. You can transform energy (field disturbance) into matter (what is matter then?), and matter back into energy completely. This has since been verified quite rigorously in particle accelerators.
So, let me recap where we are. The 'empty' space is actually a real, tangible entity onto itself. It is populated by the so-called 'fields' which give rise to various manifestations of energy/matter. Both energy and matter are quantized -- there indeed is such a thing as the smallest possible chunk of energy, and the smallest possible scale for matter. Both energy and matter are different forms of the same 'thing', and produce gravity on equal terms -- energy has a 'gravitational mass'! And while energy is restricted to propagating at light speed, matter has something called 'inertial mass' which prevents it from ever reaching lightspeed.
Now, I am arguing that all these phenomena -- space, time, matter, energy, gravity, fields, inertia, lightspeed -- are different manifestations of one single underlying entity. In essense, I am proclaiming that out of the Big Bang came this (for lack of a better name) proto-substance, which then evolved into the modern universe with all of its presently complex phenomena. But even now, at the core, the protosubstance remains! And if there ever will be a common, fundamental framework and frame of reference, on whose basis to analyze the universe, I am claiming that it will be precisely this, the 'underlying medium', or 'cosmic matrix' that gives rise to everything we shall ever know or be.
Plato, it seems, disagrees. Quite justifiably, he is wary of intuitive interpretations of mathematical equations. He is also comfortable working with extreme abstractions, like mathematical infinities or limits, as more than mere models but actually true representations of reality. I do not share this philosophy.
My firm conviction is that the only reason math fits the physical universe so well, is because it was modelled to do so at the outset! Starting with the simplest premises -- whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions -- it is easy to see that math has evolved exactly from the way we view and experience the world. When you put 2 apples together with 3 apples, you get exactly 5 apples -- no less, no more. See what I mean? In another universe, it could've been 13.23465... apples, and the math in that universe would be totally different! Thus I claim that the validity of math is not absolute but subjective, and construed only within the domain of our universe.
Given that, fast-forward a bit toward European Renaissance, when people begin to extrapolate things wildly. They begin to mathematically postulate that things can be infinitely subdivided, or that infinite numbers of infinitely small things could be added up. This works great, just as long as we remember that those are only mathematical constructions. You _take a limit_ when you talk about something *approaching* infinity; you never talk about something actually *being* infinite! However, this latter interpretation (mathematically unsound) is what seems to be popping up these days.
My position is that the universe is at the finest scales granular. But because it is granular only on such fine scales, from our macro viewpoint it looks smooth and continuous. To see what I mean, think about your computer screen. It actually consists of discrete pixels which you can't see from far away (I hope :)). So by observing the screen from far away, you might be fooled into thinking that it's a solid picture -- that no matter how small a chunk of it you look at, it will still show you a meaningful piece of the total picture. That assumption would be wrong (as we all know) -- since the screen is not a continuous image but made up of pixels, which are ultimately made up of red, green and blue phosphor dots, which are in turn made up of billions of atoms -- but below that scale, there is nothing to usefully represent a picture element! Same with small-scale physics. At the quantum scales, we are just beginning to get glimpses of possible granularity of the universe, but we are still staring from far away even in our most intricate experiments.
The 'granularity' hypothesis is attractive to me because of many virtues. Among them -- you don't have to talk about each volume of space containing infinite information; all you have to think is that the volume of space contains a *whole lot* of little discrete chunks of information, such that when you sum all of them up you get a finite amount. Then once you have a fundamental granularity, you can talk about the mechanisms that generate all the things that we know, from matter to energy. An analogy here would be learning of water molecules, and then using that knowledge to precisely calculate how water flows, freezes, evaporates, heats, cools, carries sound, transmits light, and so on and so forth. If only we could divine that 'fundamental molecule' of the 'protomatter', then we could simply calculate out all the phenomena that ever have, are or will occur anywhere in the universe. It would be the ultimate Grand Unified Theory!
Of course, it will not be a molecule, and calling the cosmic matrix 'protomatter' is only a deceptive analogy. These things come from every-day experience with three dimensions and related sizes. It is the matrix that defines these very dimensions, so within it, talk about dimension, length or size makes no sense! So the real solution will be esoteric and strange-looking indeed; but I am hopeful that someday it will be achieved...
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Just a few remarks on what Boris has to say.
First I must point out that QED (quantum electro dynamics) only discribes one of the four forces namely electromagnetism. The weak force is incorporated in the same formalism with the unified electro-weak force as a result. The strong force, also known as QCD (quantum chromo dynamics), has basically the same formalism as the other two that is why those three can be fairly easily unified with GUT's of 'only' five dimensions. This GUT of five dimensions however has already been ruled out because it predicts a half-life for the proton of 10^31 years, experiments with hughe waterbaths have already put a lower limit on 10^33 years so... The GUT's only encorporate the three subatomically relavent forces, gravity is about 27 orders of magnitude smaller then the weak force (the weakest of the three) so has no significent impact on the subatomic scale. That is why the GUT's don't really need gravity to tag along to explain most of the subatomic properties of matter. Of course, nobody is satisfied with this situation, that is where the supersymmetrical theories come in of which string and M theory are the best known. They try to give one theoretical framework to explain the whole of physics.
Boris,
I'm surprised on your organical view on mathematics. If what you say is true than math has a direct impact on the universe. Why is it then that people could come up we so many different geometries to describe our universe : hypersphere, hypersaddle, toroid, ... if there is only one universe where we live in. How can we contamplate N-dimensional manifolds if we only have 4 (11 ?) dimensions in our universe. How can we think about volumes with only one surface ? And surfaces with only one side ? These things simply don't exist ! How come we can imagine so many different universes, since that is what the problem is with string theory they get a hughe amount of different possible universes and up until now proving that our universe is the only one possible has not been achived.
I think that math is a tool which stands outside reality. In this century logisits have proven that there exists many different maths that are perfectly consistent and are totally apart from each other. So it is quite clear that the human mind is not bound by the universe that spawned it. This quality kind of transcents us from the crude matter that we are made from. And if you permit my philosophical comment, may be that is the purpose of concienceness : it is the universe trying to grow beyond it's own bounderies.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
DragonMage
06-08-99, 02:49 PM
Boris,
Thank you for the lucid explanation. Your granular view of the universe makes sense to me intuitively. One point of clarification I would like you to address is this: Are you saying that space itself is not an empty vacuum for the most part, but a sea unique, esoteric granules?
Plato,
I have to agree with Boris about problems with solutions which approach infinity or zero but never quite really get there. It seems to me that alot can happen as you approach something, it all depends upon your perspective.
On another note, could you briefly explain the nuances of superstring and M-theories focusing on how closed and open loops can vibrate at different frquencies to form particles? What are the loops made of?
DragonMage
06-08-99, 03:40 PM
Bxmkr,
Where can I find the evidence of the brain's effect on sub-atomic particles? I would like to read about this. Also, are we talking EM radiation or some other form of energy?
------------------
*************************
All is not what it seems,
DragonMage
Plato:
I only went over the beginnings of math; I hope it's crystal clear where it had its start. Everything that has happened since was only building on the same foundations. The various geometries, number theories, and dimensions are only recombinations of old concepts in new ways. But ultimately, it is those unitary concepts that always end up playing a role. For example, the concept of straight line. Or the concept of an angle. Or the concept of a plane. Or the concept of dimension. Or the concept of enumerability. Or the concept of continuity. Math takes its root from a whole lot of ideas, some Gestalt, some simply numerical, that are inexorably tied to the physical universe we inhabit, and our mental perception thereof. None of these concepts are absolutely necessary nor valid in every possible universe. So it is indeed my position that all and any math (as well as any thought in general) will always be confined to things we can perceive and formulate based only on our physical experience. Therefore, math does not transcend the universe, and is doomed to always exist within. And to me, it is indeed quite clear that the human mind is bound by the universe, and does not transcend the matter of which it is made.
DragonMage:
Yes and no. I am saying that what we perceive as 'space' is only a capacity of matter/energy to freely move in three dimensions. It is ultimately granular. But as to what gives rise to that granularity -- that's the big mystery.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Sirius B
06-09-99, 08:54 AM
I agree with Boris :)
Without even knowing all the specifics, I have always felt that there was more to "space" than just an empty vaccum. I am also a "fan" of the idea that "our" math is basically our creation. Somewhere out there the product of 6 and 5 may really be 29.
When more "minds" began to see what Boris has explained, we will be able to travel far beyond our universe (Effortlessly).
Boris and Sirius B,
Don't get me wrong on this but your remarks about mathematics show that you are no mathematicians at all. Nothing wrong with that but if you want to attack something's fundamentals without understanding it then you are walking on thin ice.
First of all I 'm not a true mathematician either but many of my friends are and I had a whole lot of math myself to know a little what they are talking about.
Second modern math is in no way similar to the ancient art of adding up numbers. You are thinking along the lines of evulotion of one-celluar life to humans, things simply get more complex but they share a whole lot of the same DNA and ultimatly the same electrons, protons and neutrons. This is not so in math. For example there is no problem what so ever in making a math where 5 times 6 indeed equals 29, the product just doesn't is the same as you think it should be. I don't know if it will form a group with the natural numbers but who needs natural numbers...
An other example, there are maths where if one adds 1 and 1 you get 0.
There are geometries where there are only two points who lie on a strait line and two lines in a plane no more, no less. These are all very much internally consistent and basis for a whole bunch of theorems. There is just no end to the imagination of the mind in these things.
Do you really believe that all these things have physical meaning ? Stop kidding yourself ! Mathematicians live in their own universes, very much different of ours, just talk to one, you know what I mean ;). I think that mathematicians are very much more alien to us poor physicts then the beings from outher space who are supposed to be visiting us :) .
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Plato, Sirius B:
I don't think you guys read my post. It's sole and very important point is this: no matter what mathematics does, it still has only a fixed set of concepts to combine and recombine to generate new frameworks. Inductively speaking, this is an epistemological limit on knowledge: that the only things we will ever know are those that stem from direct experience. Think of it this way: we get a 'vocabulary' of concepts from nature and our own cognitive machinery, out of which we can then generate new and exotic languages, and build complex sentences, and tell wonderful stories -- but we are still limited to the vocabulary. The expressive power of thought is ultimately limited by our direct physical experience. Here, 'thought' includes math. Not only does this mean that math is doomed to forever rehashing the same old building blocks in new ways -- it also means that there are truths containing concepts that math will never possess -- therefore, truths unattainable by math.
Among my many claims ( :)) is that thought is entirely a product of the brain. From such an assumption, it follows that thought is a computation performed by a machine. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that no machine can possibly be able to derive all possible true statements. If you don't accept my argument based on the foundations of knowledge, then consider this more mathematical formulation. Unless, that is, you believe in souls -- in which case, any further discussion on the issue will lead nowhere.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 10, 1999).]
I also agree with Boris
Thought and creativity are products of our experiences. We just apply them differently to each new situation
Guess what guys, it seems that my idea about measuring absolute motion using the cosmic background radiation was a good one after all! I was just reading some of the stuff on Mark Millis' Warp Drive When? page, and came upon the following statements:
Exploration of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR):
1) U2 flights measured velocity of Earth through the universe
2) COBE spacecraft measured CBR
(the url is: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/nasalink.htm )
In particular, note (1)!!!
Giggling hysterically, maniacally rubbing his little sweaty palms, yours truly.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Time/02112
07-31-00, 07:29 AM
Boris;
in retrospect to your earlier attempt, to postulate the validity of emperical issues surrounding the plausability of the behaviorial aspects of a wormhole...
"Your concept of wormholes is flawed. From the traveler's point of view, spacetime inside a wormhole is no different than outside -- there's still the light-speed limit, and your gravitational/inertial masses are the same. It's just that you are taking a shortcut within the fabric of spacetime itself -- like going through the center of the earth rather than around along its surface."
I would like to ask you on what basis did you contrive these ideas from? are you not making comparisons of the behaviorial traits of these wormholes, to the linear modules our three dimensional space?
After all, unless anyone here has had the opportunity to "personaly" travel through one, and whilst there, conducted scientific experiments to study the physical layers that construct it's dimensional makeup, and behavioral attributes, who's to say otherwise?
In short your comments pertaining, no matter how intelligent they seem to you, and others, (myself included)...are still in fact just speculatory until proven; just the same as any other good science would theorize.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.