hoola

what is space? space devoid of normal matter and energy is a sea of virtual particles, as shown by the casimir effect...the deeper questions are what are virtual particles made of, why are they there and how do they relate to normal matter and energy ?

5worlds.... Each moment in time of any point in space would depend on a nearly infinite original data stream input from a (so far endless) equation describing each point in space dating back and perhaps prior to the BB....with further complexity added due to the history of the interactions between points, altering each local equation expression vastly, plus the interference harmonics from the original equation signal all factored in. This incalcuabilty is defacto randomness on the local scale, although not a true randomness in the theoretical.

If the operating physical universe is based upon equations, that is why I ask the question. This would seem to rule out the possiblites of a broken egg re-assembling, or going back in time. The equation would have to be "read" backwards in every possible way that would give the "3", which is an analogue for the "now" of reality, in any given region of space.

Isn't there a law that refers to the question of equations and how they are read, as far as forwards and then in reverse? In the simple 1+1+1=3, the ones can only add up to three, no debate. In the reverse order, three can be one plus one plus one, or a near infinite variations of numbers that add up to 3. This seems to have something to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and why reality can only function forward in time. Thanks....

In my way of thinking, there are an (approaching) infinite number of (theoretical) universes in the domain of mathematics ... I say this universe exists to the extent that what is visible is what is compatible in physical descriptive multiples, after having come through the logic filter singly, near the same point in time in universal history. This is a high dual bar to pass and would necessarily limit the number of universes that can be as complete as it is error-low, like the one we're in. That is, one that allows sentience by being essentially relatively stable and of low error percentage. Since Godel writes of blind spots in math, that points to errors within the underlying logic of math at the time that this universe was created. I see a finite number of complex universes with perhaps each one altered from differing "blind spots". As mathematics continued to evolve, new blind spots occurred, and earlier ones are fixed with an error correction code, such at the one in string theory S. Gates talks about...which is perhaps busily working away keeping our particular reality on an even keel...I see that as new mathematics are generated, new errors occur and old errors fixed, a future universe may be expressed with compatible subsets of these newer math structures working with the same basic tools as used to build ours. This is to infer that the "fine tuning" of any particular universe is largely dependent (at the time it was in gestation) upon the particular errors extant in math's state of development. So even if there could be an infinity, this seems to lean against any closely repeating universes. To get really "speculative" may I submit that when a logic correction program ends, some error(s) have been fixed in an existing universe, and thus it's underlying logic gains power. This new logic state will pave the way for new maths, with requisite differing subsets, new errors, new universe...from this I see a stepped, or quantized variation of math's development when viewed classically, but with a more continuous flow within math of "hidden variables". These variables are of discrete steps however, so all universes are quantized phenomena.

the over-riding truth of why any universe exists seems the question that defines overall reality...and a secondary truth pertains to the particular properties our universe has that allows sentience to develop within it...

very interesting, thank you strange...this sounds like the "evaporative" effect mechanism that shrinks them down, is that correct?

strange, in response to entry #5 wherin you state that the energy of the black hole creates the particles, the particles appear everywhere, right? It is only at a gravity well of sufficient strength that separates them , ...ps, I don't know why this got underlined...not deliberate...darn, still underlined...anyway doesn't the casimir effect show that they are everywhere, and in higher numbers wherin baryonic matter density is lower?

the resultant constituents would be the mathematical description of these supposed "fundamental" particles...although this is veering into speculation and in the incorrect forum. They would accelerate all the way from outside the horizon, to the singularity itself, and become the center itself, since it has no dimensions with which to maintain any distinct entities...again, speculation..but what I meant by "ripped apart" was individual elements of the pair being "ripped apart" by the tidal forces into separate particles, (then reduced into a non material description of the high mass singularity.) You were thinking past where I wanted to go in this forum...

wouldn't these particles be ripped apart in a similar fashion as the ones appearing at the horizon as they plummet into the singularity? Wouldn't these separated particles gain mass as they accelerate further past the horizon, at least in the case of small BHs?

I would seem the BH loses mass independent of whether the escaping particle is matter or anti-matter. Since the ratio should be equal with additive and subtractive particle elements escaping, isn't the real loss to the BH the work done to separate them, and not the fact that one escapes? Given the scenario that upon separation, and one falls in immediately, then the other one gets deflected somehow, and it goes into the hole also, would there be some loss to BH mass, as the particles have been separated, but will not recombine to it's original partner within the hole, or would the energy loss to separate them be gained back in equal measure since both eventually are inside the hole? My question regarding the parameters of the "vacuum" within the hole has not been addressed...namely, can virtual particle pairs appear within the hole, as they do at the horizon and beyond?

Thank you scorcerer, the cp symmetry I presume to be applicable to the overall ratio of matter/antimatter of the total universe, and I am specifically addressing virtual particles, which I presume are precisely half matter, half anti-matter. As far as the particles borrowing energy at the black hole, the particles appear everywhere, and not at only at horizons. My second question involved the supposed vacuum within the black hole, between the horizon and the singularity. Is that a normal vacuum with virtual particles, or one truly devoid of these items? If the vacuum is to be called a "super" vacuum, that is without the normal space vacuum particles, that calls into mind the sharnhorst effect, which posits that C is slightly higher if the virtual particles were somehow removed from normal space. Could a slightly higher C within the hole affect overall system behavior?

I have read accounts of the separation of virtual particles at the event horizon with the anti-matter particle falling into the hole, and the matter particle escaping, forming the radiation and allowing a net loss to the BH. Why does the reverse not happen as frequently with the anti-matter escaping into space and the matter particle falling into the BH, with the effect of increasing black hole mass? I had presumed the energy loss to the black hole was the "work done" to separate the particles, and the infalling number of anti-matter and matter particles would average out numerically in a cancellation effect. Plus, I read that region bounded by the inside the event horizon and the singularity is a vacuum. Does this mean that this area is "cleansed" of the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles as a sort of forbidden region?

thank you mordred.

I was watching Suskind (string theory and M theory, lesson one) describing a Feynman diagram of the collision of two pi mesons into a Rowe meson, then a quick decay back into two pi mesons. Then he described a single pi meson changing into a Rowe meson with another quick return to the single pi meson. He went on further to explain the math describing the second reaction was not a lower-equivalent of the first to the degree one would have expected. If this is a correct interpretation of the lesson, does that indicate the 2 pi mesons of the first experiment merge and become a single "double" Rowe meson? How does this square with the uncertainly principle against two particles in the same space?

my apologies, I drifted off my original subject of quantum interaction with sentience. I am puzzled with the concept of "non-sentient" observation, presumably along the lines of the interior of a box "observing" the cat, or the apparatus observing the 2 slit experiment. What is the definition of that term, and does it apply to those examples?

isn't the propagation of light actioned by the rate of change of the EMF from magnetic into electrical, and back again? If so, is C a frequency dependent constant?

so, the speed barrier is the energy required to accelerate to C, not coasting at C, and theoretically could if that were to somehow be arranged.

What is the interaction of the object's structure to the environment (regardless of how the object came to high speeds) as regards to the light speed barrier? The object is coasting at near light speed, and any accelerative force has been removed...

can you be more specific in the mechanism of what seems to be a conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy in the case of high velocity? Is this a correct assessment of the problem?

so the charge would appear on the magnet itself or in an external field? If the charge appears externally, wouldn't that react with the magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic field, and become essentially an oscillator, and transmit EMF?

my second question involves the precise mechanism of the energy increase with speed, not the fact that it happens. Physical proximity is considered "observation"? In the two slit experiment, if the apparatus is considered to "observe" the proceedings, why would a wave pattern ever emerge?

sentience seems rather in the minority of overall function of the universe. One might argue for a more overall awareness, but that is different. A flower is aware of the light, a bee is more aware with increased input/output variety. Neither are sentient. Awareness is too limited to make an overall observation, including the self. Non-sentient observation....funny idea... classical observation doesn't have to reduce the temp of the object. Point an infrared detector at it, and that will not (?) affect the drop in temp it would lose to the enviornment. One might argue that the physical presence of the detector will bounce back some of the IR energy that would have passed by, so is actually slowing the drop...which is admittedly, change, but that could be factored out with some measurement of reflected IR amounts.....To measure weight, we have to stop it...isn't that what you meant? To measure mass, speed has to be changed, so could be increased, right? question...couldn't the mass of an object of known size be measured without changing speed? If the object approaches light speed, could changes of physical shape be correlated to mass increase by an observer following closely, or does that frame of reference null any change? I presume so. second question....could the increase in mass as an object approaches light speed be due to the intersection of the object with the virtual particle pairs occuring so quickly, the particles are separated, with the matter particle energy being absorbed into the moving object before it has time to re-combine with it's anti-particle? If particles can be separated by gravity, as in hawking radiation, couldn't the object's velocity interfere with normal particle behavior also?

If the sentient observation of quantum physical reality can influence physical outcomes, that seems to indicate that both the observer and the observed are contained within a closed system of finite mathematical (near) first principles. This infers that any observation is illusory, resulting from an observer's position held within the expressing principles, essentially a component within those principles. I say nearly first principles, as math possibly came from prior states.

How would the electric field be manifest within space with no proximate conductor to appear upon?