Conjurer

It is in the book I referenced in my first post. You are clearly unable to check a reference. If you ever want to get serious about science, it is crucial to checking the validity of scientific papers. They reference the book they got it out of, and it is then the persons job that believes it is in error to look it up in that reference. If you are unable to look up the information in the book they got it from, then you shouldn't be able to deny it. You can't just tell them, "nah, I don't believe you or it is correct". You have to be able to prove the reference wrong. That is how the scientific process works. SO, if you are really going to be a stickler about science, you shouldn't lower yourself to another standard. Copyright laws prevent me from posting the book. Science still works with those laws, because scientist know how to read books... By being unable to look it up yourself, you are not really being a scientist. You are just trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Particle_at_the_End_of_the_Universe It references where he got the information from, from him writing the book. Those are the papers I am talking about.

The core of the sun is mostly iron and inert, so I don't see the purpose of that. The core is what makes a star die out, because it cannot sustain a nuclear reaction with such heavy elements. That is why I think it is more likely that the Earth was the core of a dead star, but one thing at a time... After I thought about it a while, it would just take nuking Saturn. That could be done in a couple of years. The atmosphere is mostly noble gases, so it would start a nuclear chain reaction. The mass of it has nothing to do with rather it would be able to sustain that chain reaction. It only makes it to where it can be ignited without an external source. Low mass doesn't stop nuclear reactions from going off. The only difference from a hydrogen bomb is that it nukes hydrogen. The nuclear bomb is just a detonator for it, from smashing uranium together. Then Saturn could just become a hydrogen bomb, and it has a lot of hydrogen. It could still take it a long time for it all to detonate, like the sun.

Oh snap, I just noticed this was split 10 days after the fact, so I figured I should probably say something about it. I was under the impression that I solved the other threads questions, and you guys understood that, for some reason. I may be poorly mistaken, so I will break my point into smaller points. Is spacetime fundamental or emergent. -> Take a look at the leading theory that comes closest to answering this question. The leading theory is Quantum Foam -> Details about quantum foam theory Details about Quantum Foam Theory -> QM QM in Quantum Foam Theory-> Particle pairs are emergent from spacetime, OR spacetime is emergent from particle pairs -> answer to question broken off original thread... There are two possible answers. I favor the second answer, even though the inventor of the theory favors the first answer. I think if you stick with the rules of QM through and through, it is actually both answers. It doesn't explain the spark of the Big Bang, but if spacetime was emergent from random particle pairs, that could help explain the early rapid expansion of space. I think the spark lies in discovering a theory to explain why particles cannot be contained. If spacetime is emergent from random particle pairs, then those first random particle pairs would have been contained before spacetime emerged from them. That could define the spark and why it no longer sparks. Spacetime emerges, so they are no longer contained. Looking at it that way could make it easier to define the spark of the Big Bang; we are here after all. Somehow, it had to have happened, one way or the other.

I never actually heard of spin foam theory, that is completely new to me. I never have been able to find a good book that goes into detail into quantum loop gravity. It seems like it is starting to become the leading theory of quantum gravity. It seems like all the new theories are using it, along with random particle pairs. That is most likely where any new physics would be, in something left unproven. I could never support or deny anything about it, because I know the name of it sounds cool. lol. That is about it. I wish I was able to have some kind of real understanding of it. I wouldn't trust a wormhole made by Lorentz, but I would go with a tau wormhole all the way.

I believe a lot of work on it has been done since then, and the original idea was based on his work. I think most of the theoretical physicist have gone in hiding and try to make up different names for it to approach the topic to prevent people from really knowing what they are talking about in secret. There isn't that much information on it from the wiki. Basically, it is just a woo woo description of random particle pairs being caused by ripples in spacetime itself. That was what the idea evolved into. It is a shame there is no equations on the page. Michio Kaku's version of it must have been disproven somehow, so it was taken down off everything. The wiki on quantum fluctuations says, "Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs.[4] Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are not directly observable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation I checked the reference on this, because it also claims to not be directly observable https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ After checking the reference, I find that it does not actually make the last part of the claim, and it refers to the Casimir Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect "The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence of macroscopic material interfaces, such as conducting metals and dielectrics, alters the vacuum expectation value of the energy of the second-quantized electromagnetic field." The photon is the force carrier or quanta of the electromagnetic field, so the wiki is in error on that part.

I was trying to look up his paper on it just now, but it doesn't seem to be coming up on the website. He must have taken down off it or it was removed, but there was other work based on his work on there. I was actually surprised to see a paper on Holographic Foam Cosmology, and the paper actually claims to support what I said. Although, I only said it from it being speculation on there actually being a possible solution to the problem. It is good to refine speculation to fit within the confines of what is or can be mathematically proven. After all, theoretical physics is just that, speculation. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.01836.pdf I really don't think they gave him enough credit for making the theory, but most people don't even agree with the basic premises of the theory. It makes it impossible to discuss. 5 Conclusion We have sketched a scenario in which both the late and the early cosmic accelerations have a common origin and can be traced to spacetime foam. The case for dark energy in the current/recent (“late”) universe was proposed before [6, 15], while the case for cosmic inflation in the early Univerese is the main focus of this Letter. One attractive feature of our present proposal is that the scheme is very economical, involving no arbitrary or fine-tuned parameters. It is also natural in that inflation was inevitable as turbulence set off by the Planckian dynamics was inevitable in the early Universe. The scheme also provides a rationale for why inflation lasted only briefly (say, ∼ 10−33 sec.) as the turbulent phase was quickly terminated due to the nonlocal (extended) property of the quanta of spacetime foam. Of course it is important to check if this scenario is supported by more quantitative arguments and calculations. In passing we should also mention that it will be of great interest to see if our scenario for inflation discussed above can mitigate or at least amelioriate some of the criticism [28] against the inflation paradigm.

"Quantum fluctuations endow spacetime with a foamy texture." https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01836 It has actual turned into a habit for physicist to refer to random particle pairs as quantum fluctuations, it may have gained more popularity than the original name for it. This is the first line of an abstract of a paper on it.

I believe the idea of changing the arrow in quantum foam theory came from one of the people that peer reviewed his original publication, and it was a part of the book he wrote about it. It was a really long time ago, so I don't remember. The suggestion was made to him about it when it was originally published. I just made a note to self that one day it may come in handy for the future, if I ever wanted to pursue such an endeavor. It was a really good book. Like I said, It would take some digging around to even figure out who wrote it. I don't know how I would find out who the people were that did that. I figured that now, since I spilt the beans about it. You could have access to an actual mathematical construct that is capable of describing some crackpots rantings about particles coming from spacetime or vice versa. Your welcome. Sean Carroll actually wrote in his book that he was not the least bit familiar with Quantum Foam theory, so it is not surprising that you are not either, even having a Ph.D. in the subject. I don't think it would be possible for Fermilab to easily cite themselves on this matter. They would most likely want to avoid most of the backwash from claiming it. I think they actually call them pseudo-particles, but they are not those. That is the way you seem to treat them in your comments. I think it is actually ridiculous that I would even have to be the one to explain this to you to let you know about it. The name is "random particle pairs". I have even read in a book once that it is an unusual name to give them. You just proved to me that you have not read a single one on the topic. That would be the only way this issue is resolved. Everyone of them at the public library explains all this in a section that is over this topic. It takes learning how to use a glossary or table of contents.

I believe the reason for it is because Sean Carroll doesn't agree with Michio Kaku's theory about quantum foam. In the quantum foam theory, particle pairs are emergent from spacetime itself. He is trying to develop a contending theory that is purely quantum mechanical where it is not an emergent property from spacetime itself. If I had a pick of which of the two theories to use based on a hunch, I would go with Michio Kaku's theory on quantum foam instead. I think it is more likely that is an emergent property from spacetime itself. Ideally, spacetime would be emergent from particles from the perspective of the Big Bang having to cause inflation of spacetime, but I don't think it is that big of a stretch to flip the two from coming from one or the other. Michio Kaku's theories break down at the instance of the Big Bang, so he most likely wouldn't be able to say for sure which one comes from which or if they even do at all. The answer to this thread is basically if you believe Quantum Foam theory is accurate or not, but I don't think he even really considered what was truly fundamental in developing his theory. Most theories in quantum mechanics don't, and that notion could be easily exchanged for the other. There could exist a quantum foam theory where spacetime is an emergent property to random particle pairs, which could cause inflation. If I remember correctly, he intentionally left it that way, because he wasn't absolutely sure of it or not. Quantum Foam theory can be modified to show that by changing the direction of an arrow, just like most things in modern physics work forward or backwards.

I don't care, because I am not the one making the claim. I think it is a giant waste of time to even research the possibility of it. He relates it to electronics in the book with a disclaimer that he doesn't know much about electronics. The way he described it seems to fit well with that example. Like most other examples in theoretical physics, they cannot be taken to be an exact representation. One of the leading problems in electronics is being able to translate something like an electron in theoretical physics to be translated into electrical theory. Solving that problem, could help solving this problem if it was represented in that fashion. I agree, that in itself is an amazing claim, and since he is in charge of research in theoretical physics, that could hinder the actual theory that could fit the description from ever being discovered by substantiating that it has to fit his predetermined set of requirements.

I don't have time to do a book report. I don't think page numbers are actually required to site a reference, even in a scientific journal or publishing a theory. They assume that the people reading it would have a significant enough background to know the facts about it. The fact that you don't, shouldn't be my problem. It would require some research on your part. You need to be qualified on a subject in order to do a peer review. It has been almost about 5 years now, and you still haven't sited a reference for this. I 100% absolutely know without a single doubt that every single best seller written up to the mid 90's doesn't agree with you on this. Even if you did point out a page, I still would not agree with you, because that would mean that only 99.99% of the literature doesn't agree with you, including the actual people that worked there and wrote about. That was the official statement Fermilab put out. You're still living a pipe dream. You still haven't bothered to look it up. It was detected by the particle accelerator in Fermilab. It only detects photons that come from particle interactions. Those photons are absorbed by the electronics antenna, which in turn changes the voltage level. That change in voltage level is then translated through other electronics to create a reading. Particle accelerators are unable to detect phantom particles that do not emit light. They were discovered experimentally and lack a theory, not the other way around. This is part of your dillusional fantasy created by, "No, No, No, science... blah blah blah... always obeys conservation of energy." Try splashing some water on your face and slapping yourself... AND SNAP OUT OF IT!!! It is highly unusual, because it eventually leads to defining and proving something mathematically... I don't really care. Tell Sean Carrol. He probably is a busy man, so you probably shouldn't waste his time about it. I am just regurgitating information about it. I haven't read his newest book, but in my first post I said this is what he went a great depth into about in part of it. It couldn't be any more clear that it was something new that he was making up, so that is why he wrote about it in his book to explain it, "The Particle at the Edge of the Universe". It even talks a bit about these great discussions we have...

He is the head of research at Caltech. It seems the only work he has actually done on this is defining it under this new term, and he was needing to try to determine if it could be a valid term. Then he believes that an underlying theory to describe it would be under this term. The more fundamental mumbo jumbo would be placing a theory to represent this new term to describe something like the electrons in the wire in the example. The electrons would be more fundamental to the wire and gives the wire the property of having 1 volt. If someone was to try to get him to look at the theory, they would probably need to define it under that term.

I believe it is a more general loose way to use the term that he adopted himself. It is a description of spacetime, since it has a constant energy level, due to random particle pairs. scaler = constant energy level It would be like saying that the 1 volt on an IC chip makes the wire or line leading up to it a scaler. The original experiments done to prove this at Fermilab didn't refer to it this way, but it essentially describes what they discovered. It is difficult to argue that it could not be considered a scaler. I don't know the math well enough to determine how or if it would even change anything. That is what he is using as a term to describe it. I don't believe such a term was ever invented for it. That is why this terminology is used for it.

It is the average of all of the energy in a region in space. If you took that average, there would be groups of random particles that exist at one moment in time. Then that area would have an energy level greater than zero. It is just another way of looking at it to get around the whole argument that random particle pairs don't actually add energy to a system. If the system actually is shown to have more energy, then that energy would have to come from somewhere, is the argument. If it comes from somewhere other than spacetime, then it would mean it is more fundamental. Basically, he is assuming that random particle pairs could be derived from quantum mechanics, instead of general relativity. It is just a hand wavy way of saying that. Quantum Mechanics doesn't deal with spacetime. Then he is assuming that it doesn't come from a body on the macro scale, like stars or planets, etc... I would like to add that I don't think it is possible, and quantum mechanics is a complete theory. You have to remember that it was mostly derived by using conservation laws. If there was something else in quantum mechanics that was making the energy, then it would have showed up as being an absence of energy somewhere else in the theory. There is no absence of energy in other places in the theory to make up for it. The only place I have heard it could come from is decoherence in the many worlds interpretation. That doesn't explain why these particles would decohere into another universe while the other ones don't. The MWI treats all the particles equally in that respect. I really don't believe that could turn into a valid theory, but that would be the only way a particle could time slip into another universe without changing the energy of the other universe. I believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and it just so happens that it was able to be accurately derived, even though this one instance violates conservation laws. They are just independent particles that don't interact with other parts of the experimental system. It is just part of the quantum weirdness that people will never understand, but have to accept, just like all the other strange things that happen with other particles. That was the way Sean Carroll was taught, from them being unable to fit it into the theory. That is supposed to be the accepted theory, i.e. quantum mechanics is finished.

Sean Carrol explains it in his book, "The Particle at the End of the Universe". That is a reference if you could not tell. I could post the date and location it was published in reference form if you would like. So, anyways, the reason why he believes spacetime is not fundamental is because it is a scaler. The reason it is a scaler is because it has a base energy level that is not zero. The reason its base energy is not zero is from random particle pairs that emerge and annihilator each other in space. No one even believes anything about the actual properties of random particle pairs here, because they break conservation laws. In other words, no one has discovered what causes them or where they come from, so they cannot derive what energy source is driving them or causing them to exist. Therefore, the reason he believes spacetime is not fundamental is because he doesn't believe the energy comes from nowhere and it is free energy that violates conservation laws. There has to be something else behind creating them in spacetime, and it is linked to a more fundamental property of spacetime. I believe the universe came from pure nothingness and he should just get over it along with everyone else. Energy would eventually have to come from somewhere for us to exist to even troll each other about it.

For all I know it may still be classified information, or it would require declassification from the US government. I actually cannot affirm or deny the fact that cockroaches would survive nuclear fallout. It would be a huge waste of time and resources for the purposes of going on about it in a public forum. It has been long enough they would probably release those records to you if you flew there and asked them yourself. Then again, it really wouldn't do you much good unless you are a producer of some kooky science program or something to make it worth your time, money, and effort either.

I wasn't aware this was an attempt to actually finish science, or this would even be contributed to such a project. That is what I heard about from the nuclear test from the Manhattan Project. I am from that area. If you don't want to believe that, you are more than welcome too. I see no sense in trying to push the topic to prove it. I was just shooting the shit. The second paragraph explains the extra mass problem. My reference was Star Trek, so I see no sense in attempting to prove that either. It's perfectly fine with me if you don't like Star Trek.

In astronomical terms, 80 isn't a very big number. You could count it on your fingers and toe's only using them 4 times. It would most likely be easier just to ignite one of those planets, but I believe Saturn would be a better candidate from it containing mostly hydrogen. Then we could have a dual star system. It could be like in the newer version of the Star Trek movie, where they drop something into the star to blow it up, like dark matter containment. They could rig something like the LHC to launch a microscopic black hole at it to increase the mass and ignite it.

It would be more like a glass half full of cockroaches. They are the only recorded survivors of direct nuclear detonations. They can survive underground at ground zero. They are already immune to most forms of pest control. No one could ever have a glass, being pessimistic about it, being half empty of cockroach's.

We would more likely to be taken over by cockroaches, since they are most adapted to extreme environments, including thermonuclear radiation. They are already taking over to be one of the largest total masses of biological entities on the planet.

Saturn is close to the mass of being able to ignite into a star. I would just take moving Saturn into the sun to prolong it's life, or for everyone to really go out with flair! It would beat sitting around for millions of years, just letting it just happen...

I think I found the answer on an old university web page. https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/complexexp.html It appears that Euler's Equation actually defines raising something to a complex power. Then to raise a^(b + ic) = a^b(cos(c ln(a)) + i sin(c ln(a))). It turns out that the natural log of 1 is zero, so then the imaginary sin portion reduces to zero for all powers of 1. Then the cos of zero reduces to 1. Then raising 1 to any power just always gets multiplied by 1 when it is raised to a complex power. Then 1 to any power of b is still just one. I guess it checks out that one to any power is still just one, even if that power is imaginary. Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any holes in the Euler formula {e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin(x)}, even though it was derived from manipulating different series. That often seems to be a case. I actually simplified it to sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1 last night by taking the natural log of both sides of the equation to get rid of e and then squaring both sides to get rid of the imaginary part. The square root ends up just simplifying to that trig identity. For positive numbers other than one, you can raise them to imaginary powers and get negative numbers. It is a shocking result.

I couldn't help but wonder if anyone knows how raising e to the imaginary pi power could result in a negative number. In this case, -1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity Different values of pi can result in different numbers, like 2pi would give a positive one. Then it seems that raising e by a multiple of imaginary pi powers can result in a positive or negative answer. For example, you wouldn't ever be able to raise 1 to an imaginary pi power to ever get a negative answer. You would always just get a positive one. How is e so much more special than 1 to where it's imaginary pi powers can be negative. Then you can raise 2 to an imaginary power of pi and get a negative complex number. Is there some rule of raising things to imaginary powers that I do not know about that allows the answer to become negative?

Sir Roger Penrose has been doing some work on developing a mathematical model for how the brain actually works. He suggest that consciousness itself may exist in a state of superposition which is actually in the realm of quantum uncertainty that theoretical physics does not clearly define. Our physical brains may actually just be interpreting quantum weirdness when it comes into contact with energy to give us the illusion that we are self aware. It has really got me thinking that if that is true, then there is a part of our minds that we cannot normally access that can obtain information with a spooky action at a distance throughout space and time. Our brains do filter out a lot of useless information during our dreams, and maybe people develop schizophrenia from their brains not filtering out this kind of information. It would open the door for a scientific basis for any hooky idea about the mind having any type of extrasensory perception. If you follow along those lines, it could mean that the person may have actually experienced their schizophrenic episode in another dimension or universe or possible future or past. Their brain just failed to filter out that information during a traumatic experience of their doppelganger. Our dreams, for a healthy person, may actually just be an ancient relic of a previous state of the universe where spatial and temporal tensors put too much stress on their eigenstates, that their brain just filtered out.

hum