Miscellaneous Rumbles

Happy Birthday F107plus5!

1

Have a great birthday, +5!

6

Happy birthday, F107plus5, many happy returns, I hope you have fantastic day!

8

Many Happy Returns! Enjoy the cake!

12

Hey rocket scientist! Another Fabulous September Birthday. Congratulations on another spin. The universe doesn't care, but we do.

Hope it's been a dandy day.

14

From our corner of Canada have a terrific birthday!

15

Thanx guys! Had a great day! Ate enough to insure a vigorous transition into the final quadrant of my personal century. Ok, overate.

Yup Tim, another spin accomplished! But some folks seem to suggest that the Universe does care after all! Something about quantum stuff not happening unless an intelligence of some type actually witnesses it. Then there's the deal about how important it is that information is not lost even at the Schwartzchild radius. I dunno, sounds almost like philosophy vs. science, but, still fun to day dre......uh, have a thought experiment about!

I'm in a new phase of thought experiments these days. That's my answer when the wife asks me if I'm dozing in my chair again!

16

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy Hawkings' notion that it's somehow smeared around on the rim of the event horizon, and is somehow carried back into "normal" spacetime via his radiation.

Some projections I've seen on the evolution of the universe from here on out take that as an assumption in order to postulate that, given enough time, even the largest black holes will evaporate ere the final cold, dark, sparse, nothing-anywhere heat-death reigns over all that used to was.

17

What I find fascinating is how Newtons ideas on entropy planted the seeds for Hawkings thoughts way back when the sons of the pilgrims were busy breaking clods and planting brand new crops thanx to the Indians here in America.

It just shows how mathematics so outpaces science and technology and just how powerful a language it really is. Shucks, we knew how to navigate the solar system before we even knew how many planets we had, fer cryin' out loud!

Yup, we were still pulling wagons with horses, just like the Romans, when, uh.......rats,

....we were still getting our milk delivered by horse drawn Sealtest delivery wagon when I was a kid!

Lorentz tells us we're moving faster thru time than we are thru space, and dang, he's right!

And now I gotta find out if virtual particles where one half gets sucked past the event horizon while the other escapes and becomes part of the evaporation are ever entangled or not and if a singularity acts like intelligence and causes the outside one to show it's spin state at some point in time? I wonder.

.....I wonder what the Math says? I really wish I understood the language.

19

Lorentz tells us we're moving faster thru time than we are thru space

And we're moving through space ridiculously fast, and in a crazy looping trajectory, and never for one SECOND have we been in the same place in space. For that matter, I reckon we could be in space that didn't even exist till just now.

But I have to re-orient myself to Lorentz transformations every time I come across them. I'm not near enough a mathemophysicist to keep my brain wrapped around them. I'm curious about your formulation above, and wonder if you can expand on the sense in which you mean it.

20

Lorentz tells us we're moving faster thru time than we are thru space

And we're moving through space ridiculously fast, and in a crazy looping trajectory, and never for one SECOND have we been in the same place in space. For that matter, I reckon we could be in space that didn't even exist till just now.

But I have to re-orient myself to Lorentz transformations every time I come across them. I'm not near enough a mathemophysicist to keep my brain wrapped around them. I'm curious about your formulation above, and wonder if you can expand on the sense in which you mean it.

– Proteus

When I went to school to be a simple mechanical engineer and slide rules were state-of-the-art, we were taught classical mathematics as understood by the ancient Greeks and Pharaoh worshiping Egyptians. EDIT: oops, and stuff maybe learned by the sons and daughters of the Pilgrims!

.....thankfully my first TI calculator wasn't reverse polish. But we did have a time-share computer for engine data reduction with punch cards and a dial-up modem, so we were pretty modern!

My first useful exposure to Lorentz Transformations came from Astronomy Magazine where the author referenced a book that discussed relative motions of stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters thru the background of the universe, as understood at the time, and kinda like an afterthought, he mentioned that according to Lorentz formulas shown in the book, we are traveling faster thru time than space. I blindly stored the concept to memory and took him at his word. Later on a few years later I ran across a light-cone on line where someone had plotted similar information showing more movement in time than space, and that reinforced the idea that according to two unknown sources, it appears we are traveling faster thru time than we are thru space.

Now it appears I have a new quest!

To make matters worse, like gravity where we have a fabulous knowledge of how it affects mass and time and we can plot stuff to micro millimetres over time and plot the forces acting on a body reliably to tens of decimal points, in the end, we haven't the foggiest idea of how gravity works! Are there quanta of the stuff? Is it a wave or a wave particle? Can we double slit it?! Which of the mathematical depictions are correct? Same problem with spacetime, of course. We have models and math saying space time is created as we go and others where spacetime is already there and we experience time depending on our velocity. Which depiction is correct? And even QED and QCD. We ain't even sure if the Standard Model is complete or will guys like CERN or the next generation give us more subatomic particles to catalog? And String Theory! How many fields and dimensions can we wrap up in a Calabi-Yau Manifold anyway!? Who knows? And do they even exist!

I'm sure you know this stuff already Tim, but I'll bet there are tons of folks out there who don't understand the sorry state of where we still are in the search for ultimate truths!

We've got as many answers looking for questions as we have questions looking for answers!

But damn; it's FUN!

22

...and Alan Watts postulated time is a construct; that what we are experiencing is rhythm viewed through the prism of memory.

So what is C in the absence of time?

(back to my cocktail...)

23

Well, I follow you through those considerations - at least to the point of having been exposed to and generally understanding the conceptual domain of the ideas. But of the math (and therefore the ability to do the physics), I am entirely innocent. So when the presenters throw up the formulas, I gaze at it like it was Greek. (A lot of the characters are, I guess.)

I get that a shorter, neater, more balanced formula may be considered more elegant, and that beauty may equal truth - in that most physicists and cosmologists seem to want to believe a few simple algorithms make things go. (I'm also aware that could just be a vain human hope that the universe simply doesn't honor atall.)

I'm also also aware that my instincts are useless when it comes to pretty anything trans-Newtonian, so I've been immersing myself in what online instruction I can almost understand in order to train my instincts for relativity, first (just 100 years behind) - and then, if possible the sub-atomic and the quantum. Though I fear they may remain forever alien and exotic intellectual territory, I also wonder how different from physicists I really am, when more than one has said "if you think you understand this stuff, it only shows you don't," kinda admitting they have no analogies or metaphors to explain it outside of the math, so shut up and calculate.

Because, in one of the most bizarre twists of knowledge ever to confound mankind, all that quantum stuff no one can consistently visualize or explain is underpinned by the most reliable and consistent math in science. Not only does it underpin whatever reality is, but our ability to get the answers and manipulate it is the source of pretty much everything technology hath wrought since Maxwell got curious about black body radiation. We're all apparently on the outside looking in. I'm just further than most.

ANYway, all that said and no matter how I try to wrap my brain around it, my as-yet-untrained instincts just aren't prepared to accept, say, the many-worlds interpretation, the holographic principle, or the related notion that we are somehow a simulation. I think those are, at best, metaphors for the mathematical truths on which the universe is built - scenarios which create a playground for the imagination to exercise itself, but which (even if they were somehow "true"), would change the nature of things and our place in it not a bit.

I get string theory through the first few principles. But when it predicts fat handfuls of dimensions wrapped around those manifolds, I just can't follow. I do follow the flatland analogy which attempts to explain how a 2-dimensional being would perceive a 3-dimensional world. But that doesn't help me at all to visualize or conceptualize in any way how any dimension beyond the 3rd would actually work - what it would be, compactified or otherwise.

The abstruse complications string theory spins out - the multiplicity of varying string theories (and even the possibility that they're all different aspects of the same one, per M theory) - just offend my Occam's Razor. Too byzantine, too baroque.

I think I'm OK with a multi-verse, though, and I like the idea that on the other side of the singularity in every black hole is another big bang blowing up a bubble universe. I'd like if that was true - that somewhere on the other side of the CMB is the primordial navel through which our universe was birthed.

And I'm still pissed at the speed of light. If it is indeed The Limit, the distances out there in the great beyond mean that even if they're out there (and, rare earth hypothesis or not, I think they probably are)...it's never going to be aliens. We're not going to visit them. They're not going to visit us.

And visiting Mars - or any other far-flung point in the solar system (which we should totally do) - can only focus our gaze back on the one reliable spaceship we have, this rocky ball of water and biosphere in its nitrogen-oxygen sheath, just far enough from its atomic furnace to thrive. At least for the few billion good years it's got left, earth is all we got.

Somehow it's sprung a consciousness which can contemplate the universe, plumb its depths, name its parts, praise it if you will. If we're not the only consciousness to have done so, or will ever do so, we might as well be. Behooves us to care for it so the we-think-therefore-we-am party can continue.

We're definitely in a sorry state in getting to the bottom of ultimate truth, but like you (and even in my befuddled innumerate state), I find the quest fun. If minds entertaining themselves aren't sufficient reason for being, I don't know what is.

24

...and Alan Watts postulated time is a construct; that what we are experiencing is rhythm viewed through the prism of memory.

So what is C in the absence of time?

(back to my cocktail...)

– Rhythmisking

Cool question!

Philosophically, if ya take a picture of a speed limit sign, the limit is still the same but the photo sees no time.

....Ok, ok, Shutter Speed. anyway.......

A photon zipping along at C is going that fast, but it sees no time of it's own since time for the traveler stops while traveling at the speed of light. So no time is required for an observer on board to travel any distance.

If time stops yer stuck at one point less than the Planck length. If another point were drawn some distance away, it would take time to locate it but without time you can only be aware of just where you are but don't have time to consider options.

Spooky action at a distance (Quantum entanglement) seems to violate reality and exceed C, and shucks, it seems it does! But what is going faster than C is information, not energy or mass.

Once upon a time it was thought that an electron performing a quantum jump was an instantaneous thing, but better measuring devices shows it takes time.

Depending on whether we're talking quantum or relativistic, things can be different at the event horizon and way down near a singularity in a black hole, but regardless, either scenario has the laws breaking down in disagreement in those wildly extreme conditions where our knowledge is limited.

25

Hey Tim, your class ring looks just like my class ring! Sounds like we took just about the same courses with the same instructors! Cool!

.....yeah, but unlike you, I played hooky during Grammar and Effective Communication classes. Oops!


Register Sign in to join the conversation