You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
CAME ACCROSS THIS BY CHANCE.TO ALL THOSE WONDERING BEEN BACK AND FORWARD.IT IS POSSIBLE.THROW ALL PHISICS OUT THE WINDOW.HAVE BEEN TO THE PAST AND FUTURE-YOUR BODY REACTS DIFFERENT YOUR PRESENT STARTING POSITION YOU MUST RETURN TO TO RESET YOURSELF.HAVE BROUGHT BACK SOME INTERESTING ITEMS YOU MUST NOT CHANGE THE PAST ONLY OBSERVE.MAJOR CHANGES DO CAUSE RIPPLES,CUBA PROVED THAT IN THE EARLY 60'S.ALSO HITLERS EARLY DEATH WOULD HAVE CHANGED RESULTS.A MACHINE EXISTS AND IS ONLY USED AS OBSERVATION.IT CAN TIRE ONE OUT,BUT I AM OFF AGAIN.
G
Guest
If you are serious please get in touch with me. I want to know if you can send me an e-mail to prevent me from doing something 2 weeks ago that has been personaly devastating to my family. I can think of no historical repurcussions from this event other than the affect it has had on my immediate family. If you can send an e-mail to me from the past to change my actions on July 24, 25, but definitely prior to the 26th of this year(2001), let me know. if you cannot then you are surely not really traveling thru time.
[email protected]
[email protected]
G
Guest
I agree with you on the multiple universe idea. It seems the most likely possibility because it does away with all the problems associated with time line paradoxes. Time travel and multiple universes may seem strange but truth is far stranger than fiction. If you want the best example of strange that I can think of then do some reading on quantum mechanics, particularly on the double slit electron diffraction experiment. Concentrate particularily on the fact that electrons fired at the double slits singly and one at a time produce the same effect as when large numbers of electrons are fired continuously. Also, take note that when direct observation of these electrons is made near the slits that the effect collapses. Not even Einstein would except quantum mechanics, "God does not play dice with the universe." -------Einstein was refering to the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. At the quantum level nothing can be known with absolute certainty. You can only know within certain probabilities. The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is the foundation of modern quantum theory. It seems that even Einstein could not except the strangeness of reality.
Any way, enough with quantum theory. As to whether anyone is trying to build a time machine I can say two things. First, no one on this post has a clue about actually building such a devise. Second, its already been done. In fact your looking at one as you read this....I will explain later. The linear accelerator at stanford university, the CERN accelerator in Europe, the large accelerator in Illinois, and the multitude of other accelerators around the world are all time machines. Study Einstiens theory of special relativity and you'll understand why. If a person could attain a very high velocity arbitrarilly close to the speed of light then this person could travel as far into the future as he/she would like. It goes like this; Say you have a spaceship that can travel close to the speeed of light. You blast off and cruise around the solar system for and hour or so, then you come back to earth. You will only have aged one hour but the rest of the universe will have aged many thousands of years. The physics that explains this is contained in special relativity, particularily, relativistic time dialation. The only problem is that now your stuck on earth thousands of years from the time you first launched your spaceship with no way of getting back. Incidently, for the people on earth you really will have been gone for thousands of years but you yourself and your spaceship will likewise really only have been gone for one hour. This may seem like a paradox but it really is not.
The computer monitor your looking at uses a small scale particle accelerator. The phosphorous on your monitors screen is illuminated when electrons hit it. These electrons are accelerated through a high electrostatic field to relativistic velocities, that is, to velocities close enough to the speed of light that relativistic time dialation becomes significant.
The alternate universe theory however does not apply to this type of time travel. Your still in the same universe in the case of the high speed spaceship. As I see it, the multiuniverse theory would only be relavent when considering instantaneous jumps through time. What I have explained is not an instantaneous jump.
[email protected]
Any way, enough with quantum theory. As to whether anyone is trying to build a time machine I can say two things. First, no one on this post has a clue about actually building such a devise. Second, its already been done. In fact your looking at one as you read this....I will explain later. The linear accelerator at stanford university, the CERN accelerator in Europe, the large accelerator in Illinois, and the multitude of other accelerators around the world are all time machines. Study Einstiens theory of special relativity and you'll understand why. If a person could attain a very high velocity arbitrarilly close to the speed of light then this person could travel as far into the future as he/she would like. It goes like this; Say you have a spaceship that can travel close to the speeed of light. You blast off and cruise around the solar system for and hour or so, then you come back to earth. You will only have aged one hour but the rest of the universe will have aged many thousands of years. The physics that explains this is contained in special relativity, particularily, relativistic time dialation. The only problem is that now your stuck on earth thousands of years from the time you first launched your spaceship with no way of getting back. Incidently, for the people on earth you really will have been gone for thousands of years but you yourself and your spaceship will likewise really only have been gone for one hour. This may seem like a paradox but it really is not.
The computer monitor your looking at uses a small scale particle accelerator. The phosphorous on your monitors screen is illuminated when electrons hit it. These electrons are accelerated through a high electrostatic field to relativistic velocities, that is, to velocities close enough to the speed of light that relativistic time dialation becomes significant.
The alternate universe theory however does not apply to this type of time travel. Your still in the same universe in the case of the high speed spaceship. As I see it, the multiuniverse theory would only be relavent when considering instantaneous jumps through time. What I have explained is not an instantaneous jump.
[email protected]
G
Guest
"At the quantum level nothing can be known with absolute certainty. "
I disagree, nothing can be truly random...given enough parameters anything can be predicted. Even rolling dice or flipping a coin is not truly random, you could theoretically create a program that took into account many factors which affected the coin toss, such as wind speed, rotation around the x, y and z axis, rpms, etc. and this would be able to predict the coin toss.
I disagree, nothing can be truly random...given enough parameters anything can be predicted. Even rolling dice or flipping a coin is not truly random, you could theoretically create a program that took into account many factors which affected the coin toss, such as wind speed, rotation around the x, y and z axis, rpms, etc. and this would be able to predict the coin toss.
G
Guest
Lt. Reginald Barkley
I would agree with you that things like dice are not random, in-so-far-as, you could calculate the outcome exactly if you knew the values of all the mechanical variables. In a labratory setting this could more than likely be accomplished.
Now, on to what you said about quantum mechanics. First of all, the statictical interpretation of Schrodingers equation is so intimately connected to the whole of quantum mechanics, that if you abandon the statistical interpretation then you are left with nothing, and quantum mechanics become useless.
The determinism of classical mechanics works extremely well on the macroscopic scale (like dice). But, the microscopic world is not determonistic and classical mechanics completely breaks down.
I will give you a simple yet powerful example of the indeterminance inherent in quantum mechanics, that is, with particles the size of electrons, protons, atoms, neutrons, etc.
There is something called "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
it says that it is impossible to know exactly both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
p = momentum
x = position
h = plank's constant
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ------> (delt P)(delta x) >= h
anyway.........
suppose you have an electon in space with some momentum and some position. Inorder to measure the position of the electron at some time T you fire a high energy photon at the electron, much like a radar system tracking the position of an aircraft. Now after the photon is fired, it hits the electron and bounces off. The scattered photon is then detected by a sensor and the position of the electron can then be calculated. But there is a problem now. The calculated position of the electron was calculated for some time T and this time T is the instant the photon struck the electron. But the instant the electon is struck both its position and momentum change. As a result it is impossible to know exactly where the electron is after the time T. We can know to within some probability where the electron is after time T, but not exactly. We can not know exactly but we can make the position known more precisely, if instead of using a high energy photon, we use a lower energy photon to detect the electron. A lower energy photon would change the position of the electron at time T to a lesser degree than would the high energy photon. If this is the case then pehaps we could use a photon with such a low energy that for all intents and purposes the electrons position will not change as a result of the collision. Again there is a problem. An electron cannot be imaged by a photon who's wavelength is larger than the size of the object it is meant to image. This means that we have to use a high energy photon because only a high energy photon will have a small enough wavelength to image the electron.
E = energy
h = plank's constant
f = frecuency
c = speed of light
energy of a photon ------> E = hf
or equivalently
energy of a photon -------> E = hc/(wavelength)
There is no passive way to detect the position of an electron, that is, there is no way of detecting an electrons position without directly interacting with it. And it is this direct interaction which creates the uncertainty and necessitates a statistical approach.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
What does all this mean. Well, it explains why the multiple universes theory is correct. If a particles space time coordinates, that is, its position at some time T, is measured as accurately as possible, with the imaging method described above, then we can make a probabilistic prediction of the position of the particle after time T. Say for example that we can predict the position of the particle after time T with a 90 percent certainty. So before we image the particle we have no way of knowing where it is. Maybe its here maybe it there. Actually it can be anywhere. We can only say with 90 percent certainty where it should be. And if we try to image the particle 90 percent of the time it will be where we predicted it will be. For the other 10 percent it could be anywhere.
So before we actually image the particle, it will have some finite probability of being anywhere at any particular instant in time. That is, the particle will exist in a state of uncertainty every place in the universe at some particular instant of time that is allowed by its statictical distribution. And it is only after we image the particle that we collapse this uncertainty and force the particle to be at a particular location.
The universe that we observe exits as it does because by the act of observing it, that is, imaging it, we collapse its state of uncertainty. That is to say, there are many universes that all exist at the same time and the universe that you happen to be in is the one for which you have collapsed the uncertainty by the act of your observing it, that is, your imaging of it.
[email protected]
I would agree with you that things like dice are not random, in-so-far-as, you could calculate the outcome exactly if you knew the values of all the mechanical variables. In a labratory setting this could more than likely be accomplished.
Now, on to what you said about quantum mechanics. First of all, the statictical interpretation of Schrodingers equation is so intimately connected to the whole of quantum mechanics, that if you abandon the statistical interpretation then you are left with nothing, and quantum mechanics become useless.
The determinism of classical mechanics works extremely well on the macroscopic scale (like dice). But, the microscopic world is not determonistic and classical mechanics completely breaks down.
I will give you a simple yet powerful example of the indeterminance inherent in quantum mechanics, that is, with particles the size of electrons, protons, atoms, neutrons, etc.
There is something called "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
it says that it is impossible to know exactly both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
p = momentum
x = position
h = plank's constant
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ------> (delt P)(delta x) >= h
anyway.........
suppose you have an electon in space with some momentum and some position. Inorder to measure the position of the electron at some time T you fire a high energy photon at the electron, much like a radar system tracking the position of an aircraft. Now after the photon is fired, it hits the electron and bounces off. The scattered photon is then detected by a sensor and the position of the electron can then be calculated. But there is a problem now. The calculated position of the electron was calculated for some time T and this time T is the instant the photon struck the electron. But the instant the electon is struck both its position and momentum change. As a result it is impossible to know exactly where the electron is after the time T. We can know to within some probability where the electron is after time T, but not exactly. We can not know exactly but we can make the position known more precisely, if instead of using a high energy photon, we use a lower energy photon to detect the electron. A lower energy photon would change the position of the electron at time T to a lesser degree than would the high energy photon. If this is the case then pehaps we could use a photon with such a low energy that for all intents and purposes the electrons position will not change as a result of the collision. Again there is a problem. An electron cannot be imaged by a photon who's wavelength is larger than the size of the object it is meant to image. This means that we have to use a high energy photon because only a high energy photon will have a small enough wavelength to image the electron.
E = energy
h = plank's constant
f = frecuency
c = speed of light
energy of a photon ------> E = hf
or equivalently
energy of a photon -------> E = hc/(wavelength)
There is no passive way to detect the position of an electron, that is, there is no way of detecting an electrons position without directly interacting with it. And it is this direct interaction which creates the uncertainty and necessitates a statistical approach.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
What does all this mean. Well, it explains why the multiple universes theory is correct. If a particles space time coordinates, that is, its position at some time T, is measured as accurately as possible, with the imaging method described above, then we can make a probabilistic prediction of the position of the particle after time T. Say for example that we can predict the position of the particle after time T with a 90 percent certainty. So before we image the particle we have no way of knowing where it is. Maybe its here maybe it there. Actually it can be anywhere. We can only say with 90 percent certainty where it should be. And if we try to image the particle 90 percent of the time it will be where we predicted it will be. For the other 10 percent it could be anywhere.
So before we actually image the particle, it will have some finite probability of being anywhere at any particular instant in time. That is, the particle will exist in a state of uncertainty every place in the universe at some particular instant of time that is allowed by its statictical distribution. And it is only after we image the particle that we collapse this uncertainty and force the particle to be at a particular location.
The universe that we observe exits as it does because by the act of observing it, that is, imaging it, we collapse its state of uncertainty. That is to say, there are many universes that all exist at the same time and the universe that you happen to be in is the one for which you have collapsed the uncertainty by the act of your observing it, that is, your imaging of it.
[email protected]
G
Guest
So basically what your saying is that we would have no way of knowing where all matter resides in the universe without the electromagnetic spectrum?
http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif
...it is much to do with in relation to one's own "QSE"
(Quantum States Of Existance)and the physical plane of existance your QSE is interacting with.<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech
...it is much to do with in relation to one's own "QSE"
(Quantum States Of Existance)and the physical plane of existance your QSE is interacting with.<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech
G
Guest
Well its kind of hard to see in the dark, right?
High frequency electromagnetic waves are not the only way to image small particles in the universe but they are the most convenient. They are convenient because they give a good mix of small wavelength and small enough momentum and energy.
However, electrons can also be used to image small objects. This is because they too have small wavelengths. The scanning tunneling microscope uses this very principle. You may be wondering why an electron would have a wavelength. This is because of the wave/particle duality of both EM waves and matter. This is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, and it is this concept that has successfully resolved the current (and correct) model of the atom, particularily atomic electron orbitals. Even the mass of your body when you are moving can be described as a wave. The reason you cannot percieve this wave like nature in large objects like your body is because the associated wavelength is so extremely small. However, describing the physics of large nonrelativistic objects like your body would be the realm of Newtons classical mechanics. You could use quantum mechanics, but since the associated wavelength is so extremely small and the masses involved are so large, as compaired to the mass of atoms or electrons, you would find that the solutions of classical mechanics and the solutions of quantum mechanics would be the same. The two theories only start to diverge from one another when you consider objects such as atoms and subatomic particles. So actually classical mechanics is just a subset of a more general theory, namely quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics is also a subset of the more general theory, namely relativety. Where quantum mechanics intersects relativety, that is, when dealing with high velocities and small objects, you need to look at relativistic quantum mechanics. There are however, problems with relativistic quantum mechanics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, the normal speed of light in a vacumm is not the ultimate speed limit. Electrons for example are routinely observed to travel faster than the speed of light when they tunnel through a potential energy barrier. Even light has been observed to travel faster than the accepted "speed of light".
High frequency electromagnetic waves are not the only way to image small particles in the universe but they are the most convenient. They are convenient because they give a good mix of small wavelength and small enough momentum and energy.
However, electrons can also be used to image small objects. This is because they too have small wavelengths. The scanning tunneling microscope uses this very principle. You may be wondering why an electron would have a wavelength. This is because of the wave/particle duality of both EM waves and matter. This is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, and it is this concept that has successfully resolved the current (and correct) model of the atom, particularily atomic electron orbitals. Even the mass of your body when you are moving can be described as a wave. The reason you cannot percieve this wave like nature in large objects like your body is because the associated wavelength is so extremely small. However, describing the physics of large nonrelativistic objects like your body would be the realm of Newtons classical mechanics. You could use quantum mechanics, but since the associated wavelength is so extremely small and the masses involved are so large, as compaired to the mass of atoms or electrons, you would find that the solutions of classical mechanics and the solutions of quantum mechanics would be the same. The two theories only start to diverge from one another when you consider objects such as atoms and subatomic particles. So actually classical mechanics is just a subset of a more general theory, namely quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics is also a subset of the more general theory, namely relativety. Where quantum mechanics intersects relativety, that is, when dealing with high velocities and small objects, you need to look at relativistic quantum mechanics. There are however, problems with relativistic quantum mechanics. In the realm of quantum mechanics, the normal speed of light in a vacumm is not the ultimate speed limit. Electrons for example are routinely observed to travel faster than the speed of light when they tunnel through a potential energy barrier. Even light has been observed to travel faster than the accepted "speed of light".
G
Guest
http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif
X is Where "E" = 2, div/"0" = -Z^o^ Z
You also must remember to correlate the calculations of point theory to the sound vibrations, resonance & frequencey coordinates in conjunction to the pulsating enrgy patterns along the earth's EMF Gridlines.
---p)'i4q4=T12
In relation to Time & Quantum mechanics, we must also remind ourselves that "Gravity" itself was just one good example pertaining to a subject thought to be well understood during the earlier part of the 20th Century based on Newtonian Physics, however one must realize that althought there was an anbundant level of enthusiasim to explore the inner-workings of our uninverse on the subatomic level, in order to learn what we were dealing with in relation to new discoveries being made, Cambridge was one of the last to agree to it, yet still heald steadfast in their antiquated beliefs in spite of proven methods to show otherwise! and to this very day we have a variety of classes being taught to our students that "omitt" the corrections to the antiquated formulas that simply were not designed to work with "Quantum Mechanics"
I strongly recommend you consider reading the following books...
"Quantum Gravity"
By: Lee Smolin
Author of "The Life of The Cosmos"
ISBN# 0-465-07835-4
"Gravitation And SpaceTime"
(second eddition)
By: Hans C. Ohanian & Remo Ruffini
ISBN# 0-393-96501-5
"Subatomic Particles"
(The Discovery Of)
By: Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate and Author of "The First Three Minutes"
ISBN# 0-7167-2121-X
"The Search For Superstrings, Symetry, and the Theory of Everything"
By: John Gribbon
ISBN# 0-316-32975-4
These books seemingly tie into one another, and I will often review them in my library & make connections from one pahragraph in one book, where it will be explained in more functional detail in another & visea-vesa, also I am often making connections to what has been adversley rejected in the earlier part of the 20th century, and still happening today
Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.
It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation).
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
Credits:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Please Note: "I am merley pointing out that many of these new cutting edge developments that "are" currently being worked on (Especially Overunity) that apply these theories of QM, are often being hampered by the same controversial processes that were involved in many heated debates decades ago, and is rather frustrating to see so much evolutionary progression within humanity on one hand, yet very little on the other in relation to dealing with organized critics that still adamantly hold steadfast to their antiquated beliefs, and perceptions in spite of realizing that it only creates another environment in which we continue getting in our own way!"
X is Where "E" = 2, div/"0" = -Z^o^ Z
You also must remember to correlate the calculations of point theory to the sound vibrations, resonance & frequencey coordinates in conjunction to the pulsating enrgy patterns along the earth's EMF Gridlines.
---p)'i4q4=T12
In relation to Time & Quantum mechanics, we must also remind ourselves that "Gravity" itself was just one good example pertaining to a subject thought to be well understood during the earlier part of the 20th Century based on Newtonian Physics, however one must realize that althought there was an anbundant level of enthusiasim to explore the inner-workings of our uninverse on the subatomic level, in order to learn what we were dealing with in relation to new discoveries being made, Cambridge was one of the last to agree to it, yet still heald steadfast in their antiquated beliefs in spite of proven methods to show otherwise! and to this very day we have a variety of classes being taught to our students that "omitt" the corrections to the antiquated formulas that simply were not designed to work with "Quantum Mechanics"
I strongly recommend you consider reading the following books...
"Quantum Gravity"
By: Lee Smolin
Author of "The Life of The Cosmos"
ISBN# 0-465-07835-4
"Gravitation And SpaceTime"
(second eddition)
By: Hans C. Ohanian & Remo Ruffini
ISBN# 0-393-96501-5
"Subatomic Particles"
(The Discovery Of)
By: Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate and Author of "The First Three Minutes"
ISBN# 0-7167-2121-X
"The Search For Superstrings, Symetry, and the Theory of Everything"
By: John Gribbon
ISBN# 0-316-32975-4
These books seemingly tie into one another, and I will often review them in my library & make connections from one pahragraph in one book, where it will be explained in more functional detail in another & visea-vesa, also I am often making connections to what has been adversley rejected in the earlier part of the 20th century, and still happening today
Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.
It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation).
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
Credits:
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Please Note: "I am merley pointing out that many of these new cutting edge developments that "are" currently being worked on (Especially Overunity) that apply these theories of QM, are often being hampered by the same controversial processes that were involved in many heated debates decades ago, and is rather frustrating to see so much evolutionary progression within humanity on one hand, yet very little on the other in relation to dealing with organized critics that still adamantly hold steadfast to their antiquated beliefs, and perceptions in spite of realizing that it only creates another environment in which we continue getting in our own way!"
G
Guest
time02112,
You seem to be overcritical of scientific skeptisism. New theories can not be automatically accepted at face value. They must be reviewed, tested, and scrutinized. If the theory survives after such examination, then we can be reasonably sure that it is correct. We cannot accept every new theory just because it seems to be correct. I can very easily for example show in a few lines of algebra that 1+1 is not equal to 2. At first glance the algebra would seem to correctly show this. Would you believe that 1 + 1 is not equal to two? Well I hope not because 1+1 is infact eqaul too 2. But if you only knew a little algebra then you probably would not be able to detect the flaw in my algebraic proof. For this reason it is absolutely neccessary to be skeptical of revolutionary new ideas and theories in physics. This is the normal and neccessary evolution of scientific knowledge. Also the books that you mention are intended for the general reading population. These books give broad nonrigorous explainations. They are entertaining to read and they are also insightfull but they cannot be used as the basis for ones belief in a particular theory, especially when your criticizing real scientists. Breaking out the paper and pencil and doing real physics is the only way to truly understand.
You seem to be overcritical of scientific skeptisism. New theories can not be automatically accepted at face value. They must be reviewed, tested, and scrutinized. If the theory survives after such examination, then we can be reasonably sure that it is correct. We cannot accept every new theory just because it seems to be correct. I can very easily for example show in a few lines of algebra that 1+1 is not equal to 2. At first glance the algebra would seem to correctly show this. Would you believe that 1 + 1 is not equal to two? Well I hope not because 1+1 is infact eqaul too 2. But if you only knew a little algebra then you probably would not be able to detect the flaw in my algebraic proof. For this reason it is absolutely neccessary to be skeptical of revolutionary new ideas and theories in physics. This is the normal and neccessary evolution of scientific knowledge. Also the books that you mention are intended for the general reading population. These books give broad nonrigorous explainations. They are entertaining to read and they are also insightfull but they cannot be used as the basis for ones belief in a particular theory, especially when your criticizing real scientists. Breaking out the paper and pencil and doing real physics is the only way to truly understand.
http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif
Overcritical?
timebender (Please)
Oh Really, who's being just a bit overated with critisisim now? (Ahem)
I gave credit where credit is meritworthoy...
To quote..."Whith all due respect"
to those who have spent countless hours in the disciplines of science & physics who cannot understand the plausibility to induce reversion of Time`Travel, let alone "Time~Travel" as in being generated artificially to accelerate the effects, I don't want to imply that their calculations are inaccurate per say, and they are just plain wrong however, it is perhaps that there are a variety of new existing quantum mechanics, as well as the math behind it to show this in theory that has been either missed, or overlooked that go well above & beyond the information that they have been applying, thus explains why others find it difficult to see how it "CAN" be done!
Just because these ideas are rejected by others, (whom I must say are perhaps in their own right correct with respect to their equations, and their formal educational backgrounds), with all due respect, it is my contention that they might be using equations that cannot adapt to show plausibility to these new concepts, yet it does not necessarily demonstrate any less plausibility for these new concepts to be demonstrable, let me explain...it is perhaps that much of the science that many others are applying here, perhaps was not adequately designed sufficiently enough to demonstrate the plausibility for such ideas, thus in order to resolve the conflict of such issues, we need to conduct more research that involves the application of Quantum mechanics, and apply the most recent data that has been gathered to pioneer new methods to demonstrate the plausibility of these new theories.
A good example of the conflict of (related) issues involving the same processes that lead to the development of pioneering frontier technologies within our own history, let's compare Enrico Fermi, as to how his theories provided solutions to demonstrate the inner workings of neutrons back in 1933 which were painfully rejected by the journal "Nature" when it was first submitted there. The question that scientists were faced with during this era was, if neutrons are not composed of protons and electrons, and if there are no other electrons in the nucleus, then how are we to understand the fact that electrons are emitted by nuclei in beta radioactivity? This answer was provided of course in 1933, after the neutron was discovered, in a new theory of beta radioactivity that was developed in Rome (by none other than) "Enrico Fermi" (1901-1954)
Touche' timebender!
now if it's math you want, well I have some here for starters you might wish to check against your own limited emperical dogma if you wish.
Perhaps this will be more convincing.
The strength of a magnetic field is proportional to the inverted square of it's radius. S=1/r^2. As you can see if you decrease the radius to zero the strength would rise to infinity. Unfortunately the limit to how far you can focus a magnetic field without splitting or breaking the field is plancks length. If focus a field down to it's swartzfield radius then the force of gravity rises to sufficient strength to accelerate a mass to the velocity of light in that the strength of the gravitational field within the swartzfield radius is strong enough to keep a mass that is traveling at the velocity of light from breaking free of the gravitational pull of the singularity. The equation to find the radius a mass must be compressed to inorder to create a black hole was ,and I could be wrong here as my history is a little fuzzy, Professor Swartzfield back in the 40's. The equation he discovered goes as follows: Sr=gm/c^2 where g, is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, and c is the velocity of light. Now keep in mind that this equation was written for energy in the form of mass like a stone, not for energy in the form of energy like a magnetic field.
However since Einstien showed is that energy and mass are interchangeable...e=mc^2, we can use the convert the "'m'..mass.." in gm/c^2 into it's energy equavalant and solve for the swartzfield radius for a magnetic field which is energy in the form of energy.
Here Goes....
e=mc^2
e/c^2=m(c^2/c^2)
e/c^2=m(1)
e/c^2=m
Sr=gm/c^2...m=e/c^2
g(e/c^2)/c^2=ge/c^4
I think I did the math wrong, if I am wrong then the correct equation is ge/c^2=Sr. I will get back to you on this.
from my partner,
---Edwin G. Schasteen.
here's more food for thought...
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/timemet.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/tt22.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/Image11.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/kerrworm.jpg
Project MATHEMATICS! produces videotape-and-workbook modules that explore basic topics in high school mathematics in ways that cannot be done at the chalkboard or in a textbook. The tapes use live action, music, special effects, and imaginative computer animation. They are distributed on a nonprofit basis.
http://www.projectmathematics.com
<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech
Overcritical?
timebender (Please)
Oh Really, who's being just a bit overated with critisisim now? (Ahem)
I gave credit where credit is meritworthoy...
To quote..."Whith all due respect"
to those who have spent countless hours in the disciplines of science & physics who cannot understand the plausibility to induce reversion of Time`Travel, let alone "Time~Travel" as in being generated artificially to accelerate the effects, I don't want to imply that their calculations are inaccurate per say, and they are just plain wrong however, it is perhaps that there are a variety of new existing quantum mechanics, as well as the math behind it to show this in theory that has been either missed, or overlooked that go well above & beyond the information that they have been applying, thus explains why others find it difficult to see how it "CAN" be done!
Just because these ideas are rejected by others, (whom I must say are perhaps in their own right correct with respect to their equations, and their formal educational backgrounds), with all due respect, it is my contention that they might be using equations that cannot adapt to show plausibility to these new concepts, yet it does not necessarily demonstrate any less plausibility for these new concepts to be demonstrable, let me explain...it is perhaps that much of the science that many others are applying here, perhaps was not adequately designed sufficiently enough to demonstrate the plausibility for such ideas, thus in order to resolve the conflict of such issues, we need to conduct more research that involves the application of Quantum mechanics, and apply the most recent data that has been gathered to pioneer new methods to demonstrate the plausibility of these new theories.
A good example of the conflict of (related) issues involving the same processes that lead to the development of pioneering frontier technologies within our own history, let's compare Enrico Fermi, as to how his theories provided solutions to demonstrate the inner workings of neutrons back in 1933 which were painfully rejected by the journal "Nature" when it was first submitted there. The question that scientists were faced with during this era was, if neutrons are not composed of protons and electrons, and if there are no other electrons in the nucleus, then how are we to understand the fact that electrons are emitted by nuclei in beta radioactivity? This answer was provided of course in 1933, after the neutron was discovered, in a new theory of beta radioactivity that was developed in Rome (by none other than) "Enrico Fermi" (1901-1954)
Touche' timebender!
now if it's math you want, well I have some here for starters you might wish to check against your own limited emperical dogma if you wish.
Perhaps this will be more convincing.
The strength of a magnetic field is proportional to the inverted square of it's radius. S=1/r^2. As you can see if you decrease the radius to zero the strength would rise to infinity. Unfortunately the limit to how far you can focus a magnetic field without splitting or breaking the field is plancks length. If focus a field down to it's swartzfield radius then the force of gravity rises to sufficient strength to accelerate a mass to the velocity of light in that the strength of the gravitational field within the swartzfield radius is strong enough to keep a mass that is traveling at the velocity of light from breaking free of the gravitational pull of the singularity. The equation to find the radius a mass must be compressed to inorder to create a black hole was ,and I could be wrong here as my history is a little fuzzy, Professor Swartzfield back in the 40's. The equation he discovered goes as follows: Sr=gm/c^2 where g, is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, and c is the velocity of light. Now keep in mind that this equation was written for energy in the form of mass like a stone, not for energy in the form of energy like a magnetic field.
However since Einstien showed is that energy and mass are interchangeable...e=mc^2, we can use the convert the "'m'..mass.." in gm/c^2 into it's energy equavalant and solve for the swartzfield radius for a magnetic field which is energy in the form of energy.
Here Goes....
e=mc^2
e/c^2=m(c^2/c^2)
e/c^2=m(1)
e/c^2=m
Sr=gm/c^2...m=e/c^2
g(e/c^2)/c^2=ge/c^4
I think I did the math wrong, if I am wrong then the correct equation is ge/c^2=Sr. I will get back to you on this.
from my partner,
---Edwin G. Schasteen.
here's more food for thought...
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/timemet.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/tt22.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/Image11.gif
http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/kerrworm.jpg
Project MATHEMATICS! produces videotape-and-workbook modules that explore basic topics in high school mathematics in ways that cannot be done at the chalkboard or in a textbook. The tapes use live action, music, special effects, and imaginative computer animation. They are distributed on a nonprofit basis.
http://www.projectmathematics.com
<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech
G
Guest
I believe that both Time02112 and Timebender have brought up good points. I would have to agree that time02112 is right on account that it is necesary to think out of the box and to come up with revolutionary ideas(otherwise we will get nowhere), at the same time I would agree that these new ideas need to be scrutinized to ensure that the information is correct and the results properly interpreted. Time02112 is such a man that agrees with this as well, and it is for this reason that myself and Time02112 are getting the proper representation from the scientific community to do tests under clean laboratory environments in order to prove the principle behind the mathematics and vice-versa. After these preliminary results are obtained further exploration will result and after rigorous tests via the proper scientific procedures the conclusive results will be published using the same formal precedures that other theories and scientific proposals endure.
Best Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
Best Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
Time02112,
For the record, I am not against revolutionary ideas in physics. All the great theoretical discoveries in physics, during their time, where revolutionary. And the strength of these theories lies in the fact that they where supported by experiment and predicted experimental results that would later be shown correct.
I am all for speculative theoretical research. I just believe that you cannot automatically replace proven existing theory with something that seems correct but has not been put through the wringer, so too speak. Surely you must agree with me on this??
Proof by experiment is the ultimate arbitrater in the determination of the validity of any particular theory. However, in the case of theories for which experiments can not be immediately performed, we must look to mathematical proof. From this mathematical proof we would accept the theory conditionally until experiments prove, the validity or invalidity of the theory.
There is however a problem. Physics is a body of conceptual ideas that are expressed by mathematics. Physics does not exist as either purely conceptual or purely mathematical. A mathematical expression in physics must be given specific conceptual meaning or definition before it can be usefull. Now, this thing about compressing a magnetic field to produce a black hole and arguing that we can use Einstiens E=mc^2 to convert between mass and energy so as to be able to apply the swartzfield equation is speculative at best. First off, there is debate regarding what E=mc^2 really means. The consensus seems to be that the equation represents the complete conversion of matter to radiation such as in matter-antimatter annihilation, this can be shown by experiment. But there is nothing that justifies the assumption that energy has mass. The equation seems to indicate this mathematically, but there is no conceptual or experimental reasonning behind the assumption. You must be able to define the precise meaning of E=mc^2 before you can use it. It is more or less only a one way equation that describes the conversion of matter into energy but not energy into matter or mass. I would be inclined to ignore the problem of your interpretation of E=mc^2 if the rest of your argument was convincing. And it does seem convincing, however I must admit that I have never seen this Swartzfield equation before, so I will for now assume it to be correct. However, perhaps you should consider compressing an oscillating electromagnetic wave to the swartzfield radius instead of simply a magnetic field. When you spoke of a magnetic field, I assume you mean a static magnetic field such as from a permanent magnit. Electromagnetic waves carry momentum and for this reason the energy to mass argument would be more convincing for an electromagnetic field than it would for a static magnetic field which does not carry momentum.
Then you go on to explain how the gravitational field of the swartzfield singularity would rise to such a value that a mass would be accelerated to the speed of light and prevented from escaping. Why would the mass be accelerated to the speed of light, isn't this a violation of special relativity.
Finally, anyone can write down a set of fancy looking mathematical expressions without explaining what they mean or how one is to uses them. The mathematical expressions you provided in your last post are matrices containing partial differential equations. So what. What do the partial differential equations represent and what am I to do with the matrix and why is it even represented as a matrix. Please explain such details before you throw around such complex expressions. As I said above, physics does not exist as purely mathematical or purely conceptual. You must conceptually explain the mathematics or else its just that, mathematics, and not physics.
--timebender--
For the record, I am not against revolutionary ideas in physics. All the great theoretical discoveries in physics, during their time, where revolutionary. And the strength of these theories lies in the fact that they where supported by experiment and predicted experimental results that would later be shown correct.
I am all for speculative theoretical research. I just believe that you cannot automatically replace proven existing theory with something that seems correct but has not been put through the wringer, so too speak. Surely you must agree with me on this??
Proof by experiment is the ultimate arbitrater in the determination of the validity of any particular theory. However, in the case of theories for which experiments can not be immediately performed, we must look to mathematical proof. From this mathematical proof we would accept the theory conditionally until experiments prove, the validity or invalidity of the theory.
There is however a problem. Physics is a body of conceptual ideas that are expressed by mathematics. Physics does not exist as either purely conceptual or purely mathematical. A mathematical expression in physics must be given specific conceptual meaning or definition before it can be usefull. Now, this thing about compressing a magnetic field to produce a black hole and arguing that we can use Einstiens E=mc^2 to convert between mass and energy so as to be able to apply the swartzfield equation is speculative at best. First off, there is debate regarding what E=mc^2 really means. The consensus seems to be that the equation represents the complete conversion of matter to radiation such as in matter-antimatter annihilation, this can be shown by experiment. But there is nothing that justifies the assumption that energy has mass. The equation seems to indicate this mathematically, but there is no conceptual or experimental reasonning behind the assumption. You must be able to define the precise meaning of E=mc^2 before you can use it. It is more or less only a one way equation that describes the conversion of matter into energy but not energy into matter or mass. I would be inclined to ignore the problem of your interpretation of E=mc^2 if the rest of your argument was convincing. And it does seem convincing, however I must admit that I have never seen this Swartzfield equation before, so I will for now assume it to be correct. However, perhaps you should consider compressing an oscillating electromagnetic wave to the swartzfield radius instead of simply a magnetic field. When you spoke of a magnetic field, I assume you mean a static magnetic field such as from a permanent magnit. Electromagnetic waves carry momentum and for this reason the energy to mass argument would be more convincing for an electromagnetic field than it would for a static magnetic field which does not carry momentum.
Then you go on to explain how the gravitational field of the swartzfield singularity would rise to such a value that a mass would be accelerated to the speed of light and prevented from escaping. Why would the mass be accelerated to the speed of light, isn't this a violation of special relativity.
Finally, anyone can write down a set of fancy looking mathematical expressions without explaining what they mean or how one is to uses them. The mathematical expressions you provided in your last post are matrices containing partial differential equations. So what. What do the partial differential equations represent and what am I to do with the matrix and why is it even represented as a matrix. Please explain such details before you throw around such complex expressions. As I said above, physics does not exist as purely mathematical or purely conceptual. You must conceptually explain the mathematics or else its just that, mathematics, and not physics.
--timebender--
G
Guest
Dear Timebender,
Thankyou for the information and suggestions. The device is utilizing an electro-magnetic field not a static magnetic field. However, I must admit that I had not considered the difference between a magnetic field having lesser momentum, and an electro-magnetic field having a greter momentum. I believe that all photons and particals have momentum. I believe that the mimimal limit for momentum for a photon is 1/2h(pi) where h is the plancks constant and pi is 3.14...., but let me look up the equation again. I am still studying physics and just read this part out of a physics book on relativity.
I must state that we are in complete agreement on our beliefs, I most certainly agree with your ideologies. I must add that the only difference between our points of view is the difference between the information that I have concerning physics and the information that you have concerning the subjects that are currently being discussed. I hope to learn more from you and the others on this forum while we continue to discuss information via this forum.
Have a good day, and thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
Thankyou for the information and suggestions. The device is utilizing an electro-magnetic field not a static magnetic field. However, I must admit that I had not considered the difference between a magnetic field having lesser momentum, and an electro-magnetic field having a greter momentum. I believe that all photons and particals have momentum. I believe that the mimimal limit for momentum for a photon is 1/2h(pi) where h is the plancks constant and pi is 3.14...., but let me look up the equation again. I am still studying physics and just read this part out of a physics book on relativity.
I must state that we are in complete agreement on our beliefs, I most certainly agree with your ideologies. I must add that the only difference between our points of view is the difference between the information that I have concerning physics and the information that you have concerning the subjects that are currently being discussed. I hope to learn more from you and the others on this forum while we continue to discuss information via this forum.
Have a good day, and thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
rgrunt,
The equation, E=mc^2, is only correct for masses at rest. As such, you can not apply it to such things as photons. Also, there is a more general form of E=mc^2. It is the following :
E=(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2)^(1/2), this is the general form of the famous E=mc^2 equation. In this equation p is the momentum of the particle. If you want to assume that energy in the form of an electromagnetic wave has mass then you must use this more general equation. The momentum of a photon can be found from the following equation : p = fh/c
f = frequency
h = plank's constant
c = speed of light
also, the energy of a photon can be found from the following equation : E=hf
so, with the above three equations you can solve for the mass of a photon.
Note, also, that a photon and an electromagnetic wave are the same thing.However, a photon is particle like, and an electromagnetic wave is wave like. At low frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as a wave, at high frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as photons.
The energy and momentum equations I gave above assume that the frequency is high enough so that it is accurate to assume photons. However it may not be clear when to assume photons or waves. I bring this up because the energy calculations for classical electromagnetic waves may not agree with equations I have provided.
Also, the equations above do not apply to static magnetic fields.
Additionally, the assumption that photons have mass violates the special theory of relativity. Perhaps the mass variable in the previously mentioned equations represents something fundamentally different than the mass that we associate with ordinary matter. Or maybe special relativity is inaccurate for the present case. There are so many maybe's, what if's, and could be's, this can be very frustrating.....
In your last post you said something about there being a difference between what I know about physics and what you know about physics, and you worded this in such a way, as to imply that you knew something no one else knew. If this is the case, what is this special body of knowledge you pocess? Also, are you actually trying to build a device that would create a black hole? And finally, what is your relation to Time02112.
------timebender----
The equation, E=mc^2, is only correct for masses at rest. As such, you can not apply it to such things as photons. Also, there is a more general form of E=mc^2. It is the following :
E=(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2)^(1/2), this is the general form of the famous E=mc^2 equation. In this equation p is the momentum of the particle. If you want to assume that energy in the form of an electromagnetic wave has mass then you must use this more general equation. The momentum of a photon can be found from the following equation : p = fh/c
f = frequency
h = plank's constant
c = speed of light
also, the energy of a photon can be found from the following equation : E=hf
so, with the above three equations you can solve for the mass of a photon.
Note, also, that a photon and an electromagnetic wave are the same thing.However, a photon is particle like, and an electromagnetic wave is wave like. At low frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as a wave, at high frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as photons.
The energy and momentum equations I gave above assume that the frequency is high enough so that it is accurate to assume photons. However it may not be clear when to assume photons or waves. I bring this up because the energy calculations for classical electromagnetic waves may not agree with equations I have provided.
Also, the equations above do not apply to static magnetic fields.
Additionally, the assumption that photons have mass violates the special theory of relativity. Perhaps the mass variable in the previously mentioned equations represents something fundamentally different than the mass that we associate with ordinary matter. Or maybe special relativity is inaccurate for the present case. There are so many maybe's, what if's, and could be's, this can be very frustrating.....
In your last post you said something about there being a difference between what I know about physics and what you know about physics, and you worded this in such a way, as to imply that you knew something no one else knew. If this is the case, what is this special body of knowledge you pocess? Also, are you actually trying to build a device that would create a black hole? And finally, what is your relation to Time02112.
------timebender----
G
Guest
Dear Timebender,
Thankyou for the reply and for the equations. They were the equations that I was searching for in my last post. Right now I am on a timer so I can answer all the questions you asked in this post. I will answer them though in my next post.
Time02112 is my business partner. He is the founder of Tap-Ten Research Foundation International. We are currently working on projects. Also we are in the process of forming an international JSC with Faraday Labs in Russia to test and develop some of the ideas we have discussed in the forum here. Specifically pertaining to the focusing of magnetic fields to a smaller region with the intend of extracting greater quantities of electrical energy per given unit time.
Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
Thankyou for the reply and for the equations. They were the equations that I was searching for in my last post. Right now I am on a timer so I can answer all the questions you asked in this post. I will answer them though in my next post.
Time02112 is my business partner. He is the founder of Tap-Ten Research Foundation International. We are currently working on projects. Also we are in the process of forming an international JSC with Faraday Labs in Russia to test and develop some of the ideas we have discussed in the forum here. Specifically pertaining to the focusing of magnetic fields to a smaller region with the intend of extracting greater quantities of electrical energy per given unit time.
Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
Sorry for the poor grammar in my last post. I was in a hurry because my timer was was running out. Anyhow, I merely wanted to add that the magnetic focusing device is very simple and did not require a great deal of math to think up. However to calculate the affects of the field focusin will require the necesary math, and since I have not been educated beyond algebra, have made arrangements with Faraday Labs via JSC to test the principle and document the results using the proper mathematical descriptions.
Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
G
Guest
Timebender,
I have a little more time now so I will address the other questions that you posed in you last e-mail. Concerning access to extra information pertaining to the topics we are discussing, the only difference between the information that others posses and my own are that much of my own information comes from my own theoretical model and mathematics which I had developed for them. I still have a long way to go on what I have labeled "point theory" but there is a lot of measurable laboratories experiments and extablished mathematical theorums to back up what I currently have in it's basic form.
For instance the S=1/e^2 is backed up by the inverse square law and also by measurments taken of electron interactions at high energies versus electron interactions at low energies. Also, the device which I had previously contracted out to a research and development firm called "Davison & Associates" conducted the research into the concepts viability utilizing thier facilities and staff of engineers and physicists. They completed the research phase and the device is currently in phase 1 development stage. The research and development firm sent me a full copy of the results of thier research which includes the proper mathematics. This is the same device that we are purueing contractual arrangements with Faraday Labs to formulate an international JSC (Joint Stock Corporation) which will be registered in America. The first project is the EMFC which deals which is the development of electromagnetic field focusing technologies. This first joint project will be a two year venture. The first year is the development of the device and the second is the patenting and mass marketing of the device.
Best Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen
I have a little more time now so I will address the other questions that you posed in you last e-mail. Concerning access to extra information pertaining to the topics we are discussing, the only difference between the information that others posses and my own are that much of my own information comes from my own theoretical model and mathematics which I had developed for them. I still have a long way to go on what I have labeled "point theory" but there is a lot of measurable laboratories experiments and extablished mathematical theorums to back up what I currently have in it's basic form.
For instance the S=1/e^2 is backed up by the inverse square law and also by measurments taken of electron interactions at high energies versus electron interactions at low energies. Also, the device which I had previously contracted out to a research and development firm called "Davison & Associates" conducted the research into the concepts viability utilizing thier facilities and staff of engineers and physicists. They completed the research phase and the device is currently in phase 1 development stage. The research and development firm sent me a full copy of the results of thier research which includes the proper mathematics. This is the same device that we are purueing contractual arrangements with Faraday Labs to formulate an international JSC (Joint Stock Corporation) which will be registered in America. The first project is the EMFC which deals which is the development of electromagnetic field focusing technologies. This first joint project will be a two year venture. The first year is the development of the device and the second is the patenting and mass marketing of the device.
Best Regards,
---Edwin G. Schasteen