A magnetic field can spiral down, spiral up, helix, +90 arc and -90 arc a particle. The key word is arc....not bonce, reflex or repeat.

Can we do that to waves?

Field Energy: Linear component contained(until emission).....angular component active.

Wave Energy: Angular component contained(until absorption)....linear component active.

The angular component requires a rotating particle or a rotating particle field bond. A structure, a shell. Longer wavelengths need larger shell bonding fields than a single particle. When you see yellow.......you are looking at a yellow wavelength bonding field. It's like a radio repeater. Receiving(absorbing) one frequency.....transmitting(emitting) another. It's like a flicker in the bonding field. Gamma and x-ray come from particles.....light and longer come from particle bonds, atomic bonds and molecular bonds.

For any kind of efficiency.....a CB signal needs a minimum of 2.75 meter field bond. This is done with/thru conductor free charge. A current bond.

 

Definitely not a professional physicist, but for what it's worth I will say this. Physical laws are nothing more than mathematical models that generate some set of results and the accuracy of those results in turn determines the precision of that particular model. Netwtons law of gravity is not wrong, it's just less precise than general relativity. Bottom line they're both just approximations. All we can ever hope for is a more accurate model than before.

The "Theory of Everything" eludes us simply because it doesn't exist. All phenomena is emergent and thus the laws that "govern" them infinitely complex. How could you work conciousness into a physical equation for example? There's no denying that it can and does have an effect on physical processes (just try to sneak a thrown football past me, seriously). The mathematical models used in physics will always be inherently limited in scope.

 

The "Theory of Everything" eludes us simply because it doesn't exist. All phenomena is emergent and thus the laws that "govern" them infinitely complex. How could you work conciousness into a physical equation for example? There's no denying that it can and does have an effect on physical processes (just try to sneak a thrown football past me, seriously). The mathematical models used in physics will always be inherently limited in scope.

It's generally the other way around: emergent phenomena are complex, whereas the laws the govern them are simple (or simply stated). Consider the emergent pattern of a fractal, which has enormous complexity, yet is described by a trivially simple equation. This is the great hope for a "theory of everything" -- that the universe itself is an emergent phenomenon of a (relatively) simple set of laws.

As for consciousness, again the rationale is that it is an emergent phenomenon and so can be characterized by a set of rules that are simpler than the phenomenon itself. Of course, even if we find such rules, pretty much no one believes that we'd be able to use them to predict any given person's behavior. But for many phenomena, as in thermodynamics, it's enough to place bounds and use statistical metrics -- we don't need perfect power of prediction for every single particle to know the temperature of an object.

 

It's generally the other way around: emergent phenomena are complex, whereas the laws the govern them are simple (or simply stated). Consider the emergent pattern of a fractal, which has enormous complexity, yet is described by a trivially simple equation. This is the great hope for a "theory of everything" -- that the universe itself is an emergent phenomenon of a (relatively) simple set of laws.

How could there ever be any such theory if the universe is not even deterministic? Whatever set of equations you produce for any given process, it will not, cannot predict the resulting system state with 100% accuracy. We overlook this of course because over the last century or so we've turned to a new kind of physics based essentially upon probability. One accepts the inaccuracy as a given by claiming that particles are in superimposed states. A sort of probabilistic determinism, if you will.

Albert Einstein took a much more reasonable approach I think by on the one hand embracing the probability-density functions but on the other rather than resorting to the argument of superimposition he simply asserted that there will always be unknown variables and it is these that are ultimately responsible for the limitations of physical predictions.

As for consciousness, again the rationale is that it is an emergent phenomenon and so can be characterized by a set of rules that are simpler than the phenomenon itself. Of course, even if we find such rules, pretty much no one believes that we'd be able to use them to predict any given person's behavior.

Or perhaps conciousness is the true fundamental?

But for many phenomena, as in thermodynamics, it's enough to place bounds and use statistical metrics -- we don't need perfect power of prediction for every single particle to know the temperature of an object.

There's also a non-zero possibility that all of the molecules of a gas could end up in one corner of a vessel. So which side of the box shall we conduct our measurement such that the temperature is actually a meaningful value? Macroscopic results are only useful for course predictions, after all.

 

How could there ever be any such theory if the universe is not even deterministic? Whatever set of equations you produce for any given process, it will not, cannot predict the resulting system state with 100% accuracy. We overlook this of course because over the last century or so we've turned to a new kind of physics based essentially upon probability. One accepts the inaccuracy as a given by claiming that particles are in superimposed states. A sort of probabilistic determinism, if you will.

Yeah, probabilistic determinism is a better way of putting it, as quantum mechanics is indeed deterministic. Although if the MWI ontology is correct, probability is just an illusion. That said, I think it's important to point out that the superposition of states leads to uncertainty, not inaccuracy. More precisely (see what I did there? ), the possibility of mixed states means that non-commuting observables (e.g., position and momentum) are correlated, and so any measurement of one induces uncertainty in the other. But for any single measurement, or any combination of measurements involving commuting observables (e.g., position and energy), there's no theoretical limit to the accuracy we can achieve.

Albert Einstein took a much more reasonable approach I think by on the one hand embracing the probability-density functions but on the other rather than resorting to the argument of superimposition he simply asserted that there will always be unknown variables and it is these that are ultimately responsible for the limitations of physical predictions.

These are called hidden-variable theories, and there are several versions in QM. The biggest issue with them is Bell's inequalities, which proved that any hidden-variable theory must necessarily be a non-local theory. Losing locality kind of sucks, because the notion of action at a distance seems fundamentally wrong to us. Furthermore, all the previous non-local interpretations of physical theories (gravity, electro-statics) have turned out wrong.

Or perhaps conciousness is the true fundamental?

Could be. One of my best friends believes so, and he has a physics degree from MIT. I think Roger Penrose has a similar theory.

There's also a non-zero possibility that all of the molecules of a gas could end up in one corner of a vessel. So which side of the box shall we conduct our measurement such that the temperature is actually a meaningful value? Macroscopic results are only useful for course predictions, after all.

While the probability of such an event is not zero, it's small enough that it would take far more than the age of the universe to see such an event. So if you're thermometer is wildly off once in a trillion years, I wouldn't worry about it. The larger point is that we're actually pretty good at predicting human behavior, and we don't have anything even remotely close to a formula for consciousness. If such a formula were possible, it's utility wouldn't be in predicting human behavior, rather it would help us understand how we work.

 

How could there ever be any such theory if the universe is not even deterministic? Whatever set of equations you produce for any given process, it will not, cannot predict the resulting system state with 100% accuracy. We overlook this of course because over the last century or so we've turned to a new kind of physics based essentially upon probability. One accepts the inaccuracy as a given by claiming that particles are in superimposed states. A sort of probabilistic determinism, if you will.

Albert Einstein took a much more reasonable approach I think by on the one hand embracing the probability-density functions but on the other rather than resorting to the argument of superimposition he simply asserted that there will always be unknown variables and it is these that are ultimately responsible for the limitations of physical predictions.



Or perhaps conciousness is the true fundamental?



There's also a non-zero possibility that all of the molecules of a gas could end up in one corner of a vessel. So which side of the box shall we conduct our measurement such that the temperature is actually a meaningful value? Macroscopic results are only useful for course predictions, after all.

Hi,

I dont think we have to be able to calculate everything in the universe exactly in order to have a TOE. We just need to know the input variable set. If we have probabilities, then we can calculate based on them and sometimes we can use a probability based analysis for things we dont normally even need that for such as an electronic circuit and get very useful results.
I like to bring up the electronic circuit because we are all familiar with them here. We all know the formula for a resistor voltage divider, but there's also a way to do it using a MonteCarlo method that more or less hunts for the solution rather than demand an explicit formula. Another example is in geometry where we can calculate the value of pi using probability theory and geometry.

But perhaps a final argument that can be made here is that we are still in the process of learning so we dont know for sure what will come in the future. I like to say that "we havent yet even imagined what needs to be imagined in order to be able to imagine ALL that we ever can imagine". That means it is very very hard in fact impossible to predict what we will figure out in the future. From pure logical reasoning we know that not every question can be answered, so it's like a 50/50 chance that we might figure everything out after we have enough time and we are lucky so we dont get snagged by an unanswerable question as per the limit of logical reasoning.

In the mean time, i think we will come up with some more awesome stuff ;-)

 

There is only one real physical structure or entity in the cosmos. This makes physics easy and simple for everyone to understand. The handedness of that structure unifies all other structure and is the physical unity/cause of all events. This makes mathematicians nuts. Because pi is not a constant. And every detectable property has and interacts thru spacial structure and area.

STRUCTURE is the UNITY. It's the only thing in physical existence. Mathematicians do not believe in real physical structure at small scale. They believe smallness is a different cosmos/reality.

Structure is the physical cause of any property. Every property and every force has a physical structure.

This is why modern science is totally lost in the wilderness. Structure is the container of energy.

An out force and and out structure counteracted by a handed force(sideways) and a chiral structure(handed rotation).

That's basically it in a nutshell. Reality comes from physical structure. One physical structure.

The simplicity is true perfection. DFT a proton and then an electron......then DFT a low mass atom and you will see. A quantum state is just resonance.

No mystery. DFT the periodic table. This will confirm the UNITY of structure.

 

[QUOTE =
I'm going too

"OBW0549, postagem: 1269780, membro: 262756"] Havia políticos antes do Big Bang? Se não, eu quero ir para lá ... [/ QUOTE]

Moderation:
Please translate and in future use English text.
Politics are not to be discussed, even for fun.

 

Moderation:
Please translate and in future use English text.
Politics are not to be discussed, even for fun.

I think he was saying "did they have politicians before the big bang? If not, I want to go there." At least according to google translate.

 

Time first. Because you can travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore reverse everything

 

Hello again guys,

S. Hawking believed that time travel into the past would be impossible because it would cause a paradox, He set out to disprove the wormhole idea where we go back into the past stating that it would cause intense radiation feedback that would destroy the wormhole. The wormholes that exist today are very very tiny existing only on scales less than the size of an atom and supposedly are all around us.

Going forward in time is a reality however even today. That is, going into the future. Anyone can go forward in time, but how far forward becomes an issue as it is very hard to go very far into the future, and of course there's no way known today to get back.
The idea is to take advantage of the way time changes when either near very large objects or traveling very very fast. In either case time slows down for the person (and of course all technology such as watches) when traveling very fast or being located near large massive objects like the Earth.
This is not science fiction but is proved every day with satellites that need to update their clocks every day in order to provide proper GPS services. If they did not adjust their clocks, in one day a GPS location calculation would be off by something like 6 miles. That's a lot. There are some web sites that report this adjustment as something like 7 microseconds per day, but it could be much less than that and still cause the 6 mile error.
For a person to travel back in time though, what they really would do is 'delay' their aging and time experience relative to everyone elses and that would mean when they rejoin the present day people they would appear to not have aged as much, and this is actually true and solid science. The problem again however is just how far can they go. It takes a lot of mass to change the time by a significant amount and it is hard to get a real advantage without something like a black hole to work with. Speed may be the answer then because if we go at a speed of 99 percent of the speed of light our time slows down by a lot and so we would experience a very very significant time slowdown. For every day that we travel at 99 percent of the speed of light, everyone else would age by about 1 year, so a 10 day trip would take us to the year 2028.
Of course the practical problem is how to get to 99 percent of the speed of light. That would take a very special space craft design, one which we dont have just yet either. However, small time changes happen all the time they are just too small to notice. Someone standing next to a large building experiences a small time slowdown, but we never notice it because it's too small on our normal observational scales.

The final question then might be who would want to go into the future. After all, they would loose everything they have today as things change while they are away on the 'trip'. There is a group however that could benefit, and that would be people who have very bad health issues that could be cured with future medicine. If they can skip 10 years by then there may be a cure.

 

The final question then might be who would want to go into the future.

Someone who wants to make a killing on compounded interest.

 

I hope to continue to go forward into the future for at least a few more years.

 

I hope to continue to go forward into the future for at least a few more years.

Hi,

Not sure if you are joking here or not
What i meant was go forward and appear to get there before others do, as in time travel not regular ordinary time travel that we have no choice about.

 

Someone who wants to make a killing on compounded interest.

Hi,

Yeah good idea
They would have to make many other concessions though.

 

S. Hawking believed that time travel into the past would be impossible because it would cause a paradox, He set out to disprove the wormhole idea where we go back into the past stating that it would cause intense radiation feedback that would destroy the wormhole. The wormholes that exist today are very very tiny existing only on scales less than the size of an atom and supposedly are all around us.

Why did he invite time travelers to a party after it was over?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...E-TRAVELLERS-scientists-memorial-service.html

Why were time travelers invited to his funeral? From the same article:

 

He had a great sense of humor.

 

Why did he invite time travelers to a party after it was over?
View attachment 159710
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...E-TRAVELLERS-scientists-memorial-service.html

Why were time travelers invited to his funeral? From the same article:
View attachment 159711

Hi,

Wasnt that to help show how a paradox comes about and thus disprove time travel into the past?
Been awhile since i read that stuff.

 

Only up to 2038?.........who would time travel back for 20 years?

I know....a politician.

 

Only up to 2038?.........who would time travel back for 20 years?

I know....a politician.

To fix something that went wrong?