JohnSSM

When was the electro weak phase? I do believe that is what I was referring to...do they recognize any other phases? Yknow what's more puzzling to me? What's with all the squared and sqaure root values?

What are you referring to with "energy scale"? IS that gravitational energy?

Its not that they need a purpose...but how many effects do not have a cause? To me, it seems most effects have causes...and so why not look for the cause of the universal effects? The puddle wouldnt be a puddle if not for gravity...so there is a power behind puddling and now we seek the power behind that power...but puddle's dont wake up...maybe your magical sky fairy can awake them... I dont believe in a magical sky fairy...and my version of god is not the same to me...if it is to you, please consider relativity and that it can be one thing for me and another thing for you... Why dont we all get on rocket ships heading different directions at really fast speeds and argue who's clock is keeping "real time"...im just describing my clock...it could be something to someone and nothing to someone else... You might make fun of me and my magically fast running clock...who's being foolish in that act?

Didnt man find the answer to what fire really is by asking "how does fire come to be? what is fire? what is the purpose of fire? what purposes create fire?" then they investigated, made theories, tested them and found out...isn't that how science does work? I think we will find that gravity is the result of fields and particles...are you saying you cant have fields and particles without gravity? And we may know what fields and particles are but we still have no idea why they are there... Wanting to know the origins of stonehenge or easter island is just as much science as wanting to know the origins of magnetism or god...or the universe...science can help lead to those answers of origins...like..."the origin of species".... Yes...Man may have imagined god totally incorrectly...I am not inspired by fear or lack of control...i am inspired by seeing and realizing that nothing has no purpose....and to me, that includes the universe as a whole...behind purpose lays knowledge....and we may never get to know...but realizing there are purposes beyond our understanding, which are created and guided by forces with knowledge that would totally overwhelm our own, is a good realization to have....it sure has brought some positive changes to my life...and how does science judge what is right or wrong? when you get it right, it works...not that it didnt work before, you just didnt understand why..."and understanding why" is what enriches science to me... Dont let all the people who got it wrong out of fear, make you believe that these isnt an answer not born of fear... And i really dont know the answer to this question...but lets just say we DID find that PI repeats after 350,000 decimal places....what would that really alter in our measurements? IS it still worth knowing a complete answer to PI even if it wouldnt have any real effect on our experiments and such?

Can you give me an example of how the nuclear strong force came to be? How do you explain why particles radiate at all? It didnt have to be this way...the universe could be a place with no order at all...but it does have order and it has rules than cannot be broken...how can you explain the presence of those rules and that order? Evidence....its pretty thin "our little apparent relative consciousness is probably the effect of energy and interactions...it creates chemistry, biology, and that began brains and learning...these things which makes who were are, with an apparent consciousness had to evolve...and they undoubtedly sprung from from the natural universe in some way...Dont we have a consciousness simply from energy being used in different forms to communicate and sustain? What are all the processes of the universe? They all seem like methods of communicating relative perspective from one "mass" to another." I could see that a universe is chaos, where energy had no ability to gather into matter, has no ability to create different fields, has no ability to create attraction or repulsion...and i would not suppose the presence of a god...and I was an atheist most of my life and only became convinced of the real possibilty of a god by studying QM... We all have a consciousness apparently...that consciousness is created by energy, interactions and storage systems...why would the universe be seen to not have a consciousness when it is a similar system?

There is no need to call the universe god unless it is a source of higher power and information...and if it is our source, then it would be a god in my mind... What is your simply explanation for the rules of the universe? why would it have any?

Are you saying that matter and energy will finally be destroyed? That breaks the conservation laws...

I looked over some other threads that come close to making my point and asking my questions and I did look over the sticky "Define God".. "If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes" was used in that thread...as well as... "f you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other" So what of the option that God is the universe, and does not ever intervene in natural physical processes? Those natural physical processes are god, just as everything else that we observe, because the entire universe is god...When we prove something, we find the truth of god...This god does not reside outside of the natural universe, this god is the natural universe. But i don't see any reason to insist that this god would have to intervene or interrupt god's own entity or self (universe)... So we would be referring to a god who IS rules than govern matter and energy...and also, the matter and energy...That's a seemingly high power...a consiousness of this God may not exist in any fashion we can consider...to be free of the effects of relativity...to be that thing which we are relatively experiencing from a dot inside it...it is the whole...there is nothing to hide any true perspective from a non relative perspective... I saw another guy get clobbered for making this type of claim...but im not claiming any ressurection or past lives other than the info we get from our ancestors genes... My point is much simpler and doesnt claim anything which science does not claim...the way I see it, as our science proves and disproves things, we are finding god and the truth in which god is constructed...a small truth of God...just because we cant make up our minds or get the science right does not mean anything has changed...to me, it sounds as if it has always been the same, but evolving from the intentions and doctrines of strictly following it's own rules...the universe interacts with itself...nothing outside it interacts with it...i do agree... Of course, I dont have proof of anything...i see rules which have not yet become intuitive to anyone's sense of how nature might be operating...because we don't really understand every last bit of what is going on...intuition failed a long time ago and math became that which we used to seek the truth...it seems we are close to knowing everything we need to know about the physical universe and its interactions, fields and particles, but who knows how close? You cant really say till you get there and look back in hindsight...so...we claim to know what we know as we discover and prove it with math, which is all we can do...but that does not mean an entire answer is not waiting to be found...To me, that means god is there and has always been there as far back we can figure "there" is...If all we can detect is moments around the big bang, than that's all the further back I can claim god existed... The nasty bit is trying to imply any type of consciousness...I just think...our little apparent relative consciousness is probably the effect of energy and interactions...it creates chemistry, biology, and that began brains and learning...these things which makes who were are, with an apparent consciousness had to evolve...and they undoubtedly sprung from from the natural universe in some way...Dont we have a consciousness simply from energy being used in different forms to communicate and sustain? What are all the processes of the universe? They all seem like methods of communicating relative perspective from one "mass" to another...and rules guide that process...entirely? they must... Proof is something than can help the understanding of a certain truth...but just one bit of proof cannot prove anything...proof is a huge concept that can exclaim to the world that we have now have found a real perspective that is apparent to everyone who understands quantum mechanics and the proof we have is real and true...but we still dont have proof of all things...what I see has no proof at all...but believing that the interconnected web of energy, that is the universe, could not possibly render some type of awareness, based on that web of energy and its own communal awareness as energy, that radiates and absorbs into constant clicks of communication throughout that energy...well...it almost sounds like you dont believe your own brain and biology could have created your awareness...i mean...just a little...there is a metaphor there...I dont know if its worth anything as proof to anyone but me...but seeking to disprove my own ideas are hard...because I dont really claim much other than the structure and function of the universe seems analogous to that of the brain...and the brain can learn and store energy and feel emotions and create awareness through the sensations its recieves.... eh....god...but i had to write it because i have been thinking it...I wanted to see how it might stand up here...

From looking at that timeline, it seems to infer that the forces and fields were created in the very first line as gravity takes effect...

Another can of worms...wow... So it seems that this fine structure constant relates mostly to the attractive force of EM and operations of QED. But what of the other forces? Would this FIne Structure Constant also effect the weak and strong nuclear forces? How about gravity? My question about the evolution of the forces meant to imply questions like "Were all four forces theorized to be present at the moment of bigbang? 1 hour after the big bang?" and so on... I seem to recall something about a point in time where the weak force and EM are actually developed as one force, and then split as the universe becomes more complex...it may all be bad memory recall...afterall, it is totally hazey... The wiki link talks about what may happen to this FSC when we enter the "dark matter influenced" phase of universal development...and it just makes me wonder, in a broader sense, if the conditions of the universe itself are what create and define the forces that rule it...Im asking if there has been any "evolution" in the way that the forces exist, interact with energy/matter, or interact with each other at all during the entire course of the universe? Have the same forces that exist now always existed in this same state?

Thats how I see it... Can I ask an off topic question really fast? Ill try... Ive looked for but cannot find any info about "the evolution of the rules of the universe" at any point, were they any different? did any of the forces change from farthest past up until now? I found some info about different forces being "switched on" at certain points, but didnt understand why...

I get it...good answer... Ya, I understood why it cant be used for communication from that video...before, i thought it could be... Bell's theorem came up in a discussion i was having and I didnt really know much about it...this guy used Bell's theorem to prove that the universe is in chaos and not fully dictated by rules...im still not sure if it does that or not... I think ive narrowed down the question to be...Does Bell's theorem either prove or disprove quantum entanglement? Does is either prove or disprove randomness?

What are other examples of non-locality? ghosts? ha...but seriously... I suppose I enjoy harping on things without answers...but if non-locality is real, doesnt some or any form of communication become implied? The ole "how" question...

Ya...wow...that is exactly what I needed... Question: Without the idea of entanglement (faster than light communication) or the EPR (local hidden variables), what else is there? The answer in the video was not clear and it seemed to imply "why worry about this spin issue?"...If measuring one can automatically effect the other, what are the options besides entanglement (nonlocal hidden variables)? Its EPR (disproved) or entanglement, or what other option? Something else that caught my attention...He said that spin wasnt really spin, but angular momentum...Wouldnt angular momentum require movement, if not spin?

Hi Folks...its nice to be back... Ive got some confusion and am looking for links or perspectives to help clear it all up. If Bell's theorem is proving that there is no such thing as unknown local variables, does this imply or prove that quantum entanglement (non local variables) is at work in some systems? Or does it prove that truly random actions are coming from "nowhere"...an effect without a cause? Ive read a lot about Bell's theorem, and I think I understand it, but the bottom line is never made clear in my eyes. Does it require that some communication is breaking the speed of light? Or that some pairs of particles simply do not need local position to influence each other? In my confusion, it seems to imply that some paired particles no longer need the field of spacetime to interact...or at least one of their states, does not... The point is, I don't get it... IS there a bottom line of what Bell's theorem really states? Thanks, J

Ive done some major rethinking and on why curvature is so important in relativity...and it seems such a small jump in understanding...Its so obvious to think that every observer just represents a place in space-time, as does every other particle...it seems that space-time becomes polarized for each observer, or it's much easier to look at it that way... Its harder to explain than imagine...and such a simple concept...The appearance of a "straight" line from any certain point will be a line that travels around that point...Straight lines imply a distance between 2 points which never changes (do straight and parallel imply the same thing?) So, if one object is going to remain 3 meters away from the other object and stay in motion, the straight line it must travel is a circle with a radius of 3 meters...that would be a straight line from the perspective of the center point observer...this is why a polar coordinate system works so much better than trying to explain that curve through a function of a cartesian perspective...which is what the transformations do with much mathematical effort... But now, it seems that the object which is travelling in a "spherical straight polarized" line around one observer is no longer a straight line to any other observer... It begs this question...is there ever a "god" perspective that can truly experience all of it without defining a place in space-time to view it from? Every point in space time becomes as valid as any other, but their observational realities are always different in some sense...Will there ever be a perspective that can account for all of them? It seems not...one must plop themselves somewhere into the reality to take a look...This is where you lose the cartesian perspective, isnt it?

Ha... Em fields? Explain please. If youre talking about 2 trains moving at the exact same speed, in the same exact direction, you could actually just consider it one long train with a gap...

"the moon and sixpence" an amazing novel by Somerset Maugham about pressure and reactions...

Yep...I encountered Riemann and gave it a sweep...prolly need to sweep it again... The weak force allows nuclear decays, or creates nuclear decays? I figured because it was a weaker force, that it allowed this "weak link" in the atomic chain to be broken by the other forces when they reach extremes,.. Otherwise, it sounds like a force that directs atoms how and when to fall apart (decay, radiate) on their own? And this force is an interaction between quarks, by bosons? Are you saying the quarks are effected by gluons and w and Z bosons? and other gauge bosons? is there some nice chart somewhere that depicts such things? EMF - gauge Photon, dicates forces between charge SF - gauge gloun, holds quarks together, holds protons and neutrons together, dictated by quark-gluon interactions in QCD WF- gauge, Ws and Zs, This is the interaction between...all fermions and leptons which include quarks, electrons and other leptons...? through QFD IS this saying that electrons and quarks interact through bosons in radiation and absorption? I get it...quarks carry traits for each field? I had no idea...i had all the forces and gauge bosons grouped with their fields but did not notice any "overlapping"...particle physics must be a nightmare... Throw me another breakthrough or two...that was nice!

I read over it as well...Ives musta been an interesting fella...

Aha...aberration is a different effect with the observer in the moving object...in my own examples, the observer was looking at light FROM the moving object...aberration seems to effect the light which the observer on the moving object sees... Good call...that solves that... I dont have an answer to my original question yet, but I am reading... These red shift examples all seem to follow the same rules though...space expansion is akin to "motion away from" and both of those should be akin to whatever creates the same effect in gravity's case.... If gravitational redshift is created by photons "climbing" into and out of gravity wells, arent we just saying that gravity wells have the same spacetime characteristics as the space-time behind a quickly a moving object? That effect is akin to spacetime being stretched (the spacetime behind a moving object)...and they both create redshifts... Alas...I am still reading... IS it accurate to say that abberation causes the tranverse effect of shifting?

There are 2 graphics on this page that are troubling me... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect In diagram 1 (top of page) we see red shift as I understand it...the light goes red as the grid spreads out behind an object with motion... IN diagram 2 (right below it) we see the grid compressing behind an object with motion, but still it shifts red... Is diagram 2 mistakenly backwards with its grid effects or is THIS the transverse effect? In either case, it seems the same example of motion to the right, with reversed grid effects...

My understanding of red shift is that objects moving away from an observer take on a red shade because the photon's frequency is reduced and wavelength is increased (stretched) as it travels from the moving object towards our eye (the distance between the two grows as the photon travels at us)...And being in front, one would see a blue shift as the photon's frequency is increased (compression)...cuz the distance between the 2 objects is getting smaller as it approaches us...so expanding space would be seen with a red shift, and compressing space is seen as blue We also see redshift in objects with massive gravity as well...in comparison to the above, gravity would also then represent an increase in the wavelength of light. And imply that objects with more gravity are moving away from us in this relative comparison of the effects of motion on space-time and the effects of gravity on space-time. And it doesnt make much sense to me to think of gravity as a "separation" of objects...that would imply an acceleration away from two objects...but gravity seems to imply an acceleration of objects towards each other... How does one get RED when the force of gravity would seem to imply a shrinking of space between 2 objects...and we know we see red when 2 objects are increasing the space between them? not shrinking it... I know we do get red, but doesnt this imply that 2 objects within a common gravitational field would be seen as falling away, not together? Falling together seems to create a blue shift... SO im stumped...

Not frame dragging in particular although I was reading about frame dragging when I started in on gravitoelectromagnetism...they call it gravitomagnetism on wikipedia a couple times... In one of my early and vague descriptions of how objects effect space-time, i declared that all objects have a vector of energy that dictate the curves of space...folks were like "vector? what do you mean vector?, they have four vectors and a tensor"..."energy? what energy are you talking about?"....the energy was momentum and I assumed folks new what I was referring to...but when i claimed that each tensor can create a new vector, i was just given the runaround, so to speak... If the thread werent so hearty, I would go back to find these different discussions.... Gravitoelectromagnetism is my favorite of all subjects at this point...earlier in this thread I was attempting to draw similarities between the fields and forces of gravity and EM as well... Of all things, im back to the weak nuclear force...The reading dove into the higgs field and my understanding of bosons is shady at best.... In understanding the weak force, i always just vaguely understood it as entropy or radiation...it didnt seem like a force as much as a rule..."energy will radiate and transform states"...thats all I really got...I dont understand why is makes fusion possible...because it is weak enough to be put out of balance by other forces? The W and Z bosons are massive, so they are less likely to move fast and that's why the interaction is weak? Still confused about why it takes 2 gauge bosons for the weak interaction... "Again, the neutron is not an elementary particle but a composite of an up quark and two down quarks (udd). It is in fact one of the down quarks that interacts in beta decay, turning into an up quark to form a proton (uud). At the most fundamental level, then, the weak force changes the flavour of a single quark:" So, the weak force changes quarks, but the strong force holds them in groups to form hadrons? I thought the gluons were the force carrier between quarks...but the weak force also interacts with quarks? confused

For any folks who were confused about my vague descriptions of objects having a vector of energy (momentum) that creates the curvature of space-time in which it resides, I was talking about gravitomagnetism...ha...if I only knew that then the discussions could have been so much shorter