Mike Smith Cosmos

Fair comment. But as we are probing now into deep space, time, the very dense ,the very large, and the very small, I'm not sure we can be convinced to assume the laws of physics are the same every where. I would think " the jury is still out on that one " Can we ? or am I being unneccessaraly cautious ?

Well, you guys reel in your catch, from the wriggling, jumping quantum fishes. I will try to throw in the odd men/women of the giant quantum story and what they added to the subject.

Part 2. Einstein Einstein had been reasoning and researching the nature of atoms, and how they moved about. If anyone has ever done the smoke cell experiment , they will have seen how smoke particles are juggled around by bombarding air molecules ( atoms). Einstein made his break through with looking at pollen grains on water where the same buffeting occurs, in this case by water molecules. He became famous for this and his work trying to understand how light worked . ( He knew of Planks work with light) ( Chunks, Planks constant Very small, Frequency, Energy E=h x F) Einstein played around with metals and the phot- electric effect . If you shine light of a certain frequency , getting up above red to Violet suddenly electrons are released by the light and a current ( individual or many electrons can flow. ) In chunks.Quanta ( quantum). A lot of Thinking , reasoning and experimenting with light being emitted when energy is supplied , he showed that the light came out in chunks, Quanta ( quantum). These became Known as Light Packets or PHOTONS By graphs of Energy plotted against frequency he produced a minimum frequency and a slope of a graph. The minimum frequency was as mentioned above. up toward Violet, and the Slope of the graph was exactly Planks Constant. Bingo. Einstein became famous for this and his work on motion , and relativity. Also, Light was seen to spread out across space as individual packets , chunks Quanta/Quatum or photons which remained intact, So the individual packet was as intense on the wave front , as it was when it started its journey. The number of photons were decreased as they spread out across an increasing wave front on a spherical surface. ( like a bubble growing in size, colours go a bit thin) but if you could get at an individual packet , although the density of photons per square meter would be going down as the sphere increased in size, individual photon packet would remain the same as it started its journey. ( this is all to do with the inverse square law and the area of the surface of a sphere having a ( pi r squared )term in it. The early extended history of the light Quanta/Quantum So much for Einstein part 1 and Quantum Part 2

Are Laws of nature are our description of nature doing its job . In line with my attempted summary posted two places Back ?

Keeping nice and simple to begin with, as it spans a lot of different famous scientists over 100 years and counting.:- I will start the ball rolling by saying the word quanta probably started with :- MAX PLANK. Experimenting with the emission of light from hot metal , he solved the strange graph of emission against frequency of light ( red hot , yellow hot etc) by coming up with a formula with a fudge constant that he put in called h Planks constant . Later on in his research , and thinking he reasoned that the radiation, to do with vibrating electrons would come off in 'chunks' , he called them 'quanta.' . He even worked out a value for the energy of a quanta as being Energy = h x f , in other words the energy coming away in chunks or 'quanta' is his Plank constant multiplied by the frequency of the light radiation coming off. He did not get famous immediately , but when others including Einstein got hold of it , it made Max Plank and others famous. So there is where the idea of Quanta or Quantum got its name and a bit of a boost . Many more scientists were to add to this . Max Plank

In view of all that has been commented in the recent posts, it would seem that we are saying that :-'for what ever reasons', in the first instance All the contents of the standard model in its current and future form, respond to each other and the fields in which they find themselves, including all the photons involved, This response can be mathematically described in many ways that we call natures laws often having the name of the discoverer. We can only say that these responses are true for our initial frame of reference and are the same for other frames of references , provided we have observed and checked that all relevant responses are the same as those in our starting frame of reference. This then is not a correct assumption, as it is only true , if we have checked that it is true. That is unless we have some PROOF that the universe is totally identical throughout or else only to the regions that we have observed

I'm not sure we have to be unnecessarily complicated to be scientific all the time. Things seem to settle down to the lowest energy usage , Resonant, bottom of the hill or dip in the curve. I agree to explain something mathematically may be a nightmare at times, but the root concept may be quite simple. Convergence seems to be a very strong driver for nature. This as opposed to a sort of determinism , driven by mechanism. I know some mathematicians, maybe you are one , believe maths is at the root of all things.Although many years ago I was grounded in maths. I now believe it is similar to accountants. Absolutely vital for a good business to grow, prosper and survive , yet useless without a business idea and model to make up the body of a business. So with math, essential to quantify, describe detail, check performance etc but empty without the key concept drivers. If you are an avowed believer in the sanctity of maths, you may take offence by what I am saying. Which is not my intention or desire. I have enjoyed your arguments , and hope they continue. However I will continue to dig for underlying , principles, concepts and models when possible. If you take me out a distance on maths alone , I will feel that I am being taken out on sheet ice without a hand rail.

But what dimension , variable or quality is available to the particle in these other dimensions. Sorry you have appeared to have answered this above . Need to do a bit more thinking.

I went for a walk with the Jack Russel dog earlier today and sat on a bench thinking about the subject of the Laws of Physics and Maths. Two things came to my mind which I believe Einstein was quoted as saying during the great debates on quantum physics at the Early years of the 20th century. The big names of physics battled it out with discussion and argument. One thing he said " I do not believe God plays dice. " This was to do with the probability aspect of quantum physics. This proved wrong as Einstein agreed later. Another was " maybe God did not have a choice in how the universe could be created". Namely the rules of mathematics have a habit of demanding certain Maths Rules to be obeyed. I don't think Einstein was particularly a religious man so he must have been using these points as illustration of the difficulties even these men with their great minds had with modern Physics. All this gives me encouragement to persist in debating these point of physics as the great masters of physics did in the early 20th Century. So back to it: - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are we ---------------- ?

Ok Thats fine , so you are saying the influence on anything like the mass of the star ( or 2 x the mass) is following Newtonian F= Gm1m2/d(squared) and general relativisticly responding to the matrix of space time. So the 'law' or influence is born out of the nature of the matter and the fabric of space-time local to the two masses . Ok. Well can we be sure that the same amount of matter 'squidged' up into some form of degenerate neutron star type material , finding itself in a particularly distorted area of space time near 73 quasars, with space time doing a loop-de-loop , is going to follow the same natural influence (laws) as the same amount of matter just out half way to Proxima Centurus our nearest neighbour star. ? If that is so . --------- I concede defeat. __ I------_=O __________ ------------- ( Just for the moment ) -----------------

So are you saying that particles that are separated in normal geometric 3d space are linked via one of these other two dimensions you talk about.? I have a few observation which might be of some use : As far as I understand 1. the probability wave which is associated with each and every thing no matter how large or how small extends from - infinity to + infinity having almost zero probability at infinity rising in an oscillatory manner of amplitute to a maximum that then falls away in a similar oscillatory manner to minus infinity , be they large like a person or an earth or miniscule like a quark. The peak amplitude is where we normally are, and infinity or near infinity is where there is the minutest of possibility , none the less a finite real possibility that we could be there. The nature of the waves are such that for objects our size, and the earth the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution, that it falls off to practically zero, just off centre. So we are where we are. For an electron however the probability wave is of sufficient frequency and distribution for one or two or maybe more of its probability amplitude peaks to be somewhere else, than where you think it is. There is an area of electronics called quantum tunneling where electrons appear to escape over or through barriers which appear to imprison them . 2. When the probability is 1:1,000,000,000 or one billionth one might think. well that is as good as not going to happen. 3. There are in the universe many places , where there are billions of opportunities in fact billions upon billions. eg in the center of stars . So unlikely fusion to higher elements occurs because although it is very improbable the 1 in a billion comes around very very often. 4. The Universe is full of Billions of Billions of Stars so even though the conditions for intelligent life to survive are highly highly unlikely ( Here we are ) 5 . Pollen is produced in vaste numbers , as is human seed. So the universe is built around Probability and vast numbers !

Yes, you are probably right. The tuning fork relays, or couples its motion through the cross piece at the bottom of the two arms. Here is where the self coordinating vibration is transmitted. This by tension and compression longitudinal waves. The loose ends are where the large action is. Its probably the principle of coordinated action is where the model has something to offer to electron pair coordination. There the model might stop, and another one like the rattling kids toy may be more suitable to take up the story. I believe it was Richard Feynman who said in one of his lectures , when discussing how similar pendulums have a habit of self synchronizing when near each other said: " its like shoals of fish when they turn nearly instantly. Its Not he said some communication field, its the near neighbor coupling. Each fish has two coupling rules { 1 . i want to be close by 2. i don't want to be closer than 10cm (say) } These coupling rules cause this majical effect when you see shoals of fish turn and shimmer in fantastic formation." From my personal observations :- I have come to notice how when many coupling happens between dissimilar pairs there is usually an attractive element and a repulsive element both present .

o.k. that is a fair comment. I was just attempting to pull a few previous comments together probably ineffectively . I think I am picking up the message that 'things' follow paths according to how 'things' find themselves under influence at the time. But if that is the case, it very much would support the idea , that if conditions are different at other locations the influence is going to be different, thus the named laws different ? I f ( I am not sure if you were saying ) maths is the ultimate influence then that is a very heavy subject to argue out ( is maths at the root of everything ). Even if that were thought to be so, it begs the question , are there vaste as yet unexplored areas of maths that behave, or influence under other regions of the universe where conditions are different ? .

I really feel that in view of your research , you have something very valuable to offer here on the nature of Entropy. I am not sure i have managed to get my head around what it is you are saying. Could you possibly make a summary in simple yet accurate form .If you could be so kind. I think there is a fundamental truth lurking in here somewhere and would like to hear more. When I was doing a degree in telecommunications,we were going through a Fourier analysis of some waveform or other.The professor drew on the board a complete spectrum from negative to positive about the zero axis.( zero hertz ) The positive frequencies were a whole set of lines of various heights. He drew an opposite set of lines on the negative side, saying at the time "we only use the positive ones." ( I think it was something to do with broadband ). I was curious at the time ' how can you have negative frequency ?, it does not make sense ' I never did find out. Has this anything to do with the past in time ? and entropy , in the past . ? But past to who ? or What ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? )

You have been working close to your subject and is a big bite . Could you put the essence of your research in a laymans explanation

I am proposing that pairs of electrons, ( as in the orbitals , going up in number in stable pairs of electrons ) , that :- a natural and comfortable state for two electrons is to have opposite spins . (Up and down ) I know their movement is probably very complex, none-the-less they end up with an angular momentum in a direction and the other electron in the opposite direction. I am proposing that two electrons , however they dance about, do so like two arms of a tuning fork which only work by each vibrating in opposite direction motion. IE one arm moves left as the other moves right. Its the only way they can work. With the tuning fork it is built up tension which attracts or repels.With the electron in an orbital there is a repulsion due to electrostatic forces and a movement towards caused by repulsion caused further around the orbital. ( there is a kiddies toy where two swinging balls bounce back and forward rapidly by constantly bouncing off one another while being restrained about a central pivot.) One can generate similar effects with giro scopes and magnets . I have done a number of mechanical model experiments , which all seem to work best ( when in free system isolation ) by working symmetrically in opposites . Also by invoking resonant oscillatory harmonic motion. ( circular or partial arc ). That' s why the skaters Pair can spin together as a pair. or a single can go for a tight leaning circular speed skate around a rink.

Are you really sure we ( current body of science research) have (A) observed back to 13.7 billion years with enough observation details to say categorically " hey the laws of physics are behaving exactly as they are right now here on earth. Similarly looking down ( B) at sub atomic levels and find everything is behaving perfectly normally. B) Well second first. I thought this is what all the fuss is about. Quantum sized stuff is behaving in a very peculiarly unnatural way ( to what we are used to up here at 1 meter high. A ) Covering the First point , We are finding some peculiar things way back.(part way back 73 quasars occupying 4 billion light years across) and pre- 12 Billion Years , I think is very vague . I appreciate the spectral analysis seems to stack up when we look at individual stars . But the entire body of physical laws will take some checking out to be sure . I think if I were able to take some time warp, space warp, leap to 13.7 billion years ago relying on ALL the laws of physics being the same, I would think Twice, or 100 times before going and getting spaghettiified. However, May be you are perfectly right. I wonder if its not wishful thinking possibly . Not sure there is enough evidence yet .

Well I understand what you are saying , and don.t really have a problem with it, apart from your assumption that this "natural" environment is the same throughout the entire universe. to me that is a bit overly Assumptive. ( if that is a legitimate word ) Yes where similar conditions of matter exist ( Star Planet system, Galaxy ) Yes possibly , but what about the spaces ( inter quark, inter star, inter galaxy, inter cluster Voids , and all the heavy stuff ( blackholes, neutron stars, Quasars, dark matter, big bangs ) Can we just say . Oh well nature is the same there ! Humm. I am not sure about that.

Wow! I need to digest this.

O.k. So what the consensus of the last few comments are. That 'nature' as some form of summation of the whole shebang, ( matter, resultant fields, other yet unidentified matter and energy , Mathematical Structure) result in some form of controlling / enforcing environment within which things move and exist. Does that sound like what you are all saying. That's interesting, but it does leave me with a few loose ends like: :- What is the nature of this NATURE environment .:- . . ( this amalgum of electro-magnetic spacial force energy field like, Maths Matrix 'Soup' )? How pervasive is it ( eg everywhere, in the region of matter, in the region of energy, charge,etc ) ? Plus a few things I havn't thought of just at the moment!. . .

Does not observation ,include all the other non conscious observations that cause this collapse ? namely: The universe is going about its business in all its own ways and the ways we know about through our physics. But when one particle or another , makes demand on another particle ( say by shared orbitals or whatever ) THEN such interactions demand more, and thus cause the waveform collapse at that interaction. ? Thus wave form collapsing and re-establishing, is going on Apace all about the universe, and in that way the universe becomes the reality we perceive. Underneath where things work better at the quantum mechanical level, things go about their respective business with all the freedom (offered by the probability wave-function) allows. I other words , as requested in laymans language :- . . " It is the touching of the quantum fields is how the cosmos is being made" .

Do these other two dimensions you talk of have names ? Like location are the x,y,z, coordinates ( 3 dimensions ) and time ( 1 fourth dimension) =4 Dimensions . What are the names of these other 2 dimensions you speak of. Are these 2 of the umteenth string theory dimensions.?

. Fine, but where are the physical laws coming from? And what mediates them ?

Yes, that is fine, and can see or experience the universe moving in the main flow direction of increased entropy. However if some local areas have a flow to decreased entropy , then that is interesting in relation to energy flow, states of order, and ? possibly local time ?

There is something you can do. you can experiment with electrons. they are easily available. In wires, on balloons, comb your hair with a plastic comb and pick up tiny bits of dry paper, look at a cathode ray tube, get a spark generator, take it to just striking and light a lighter flame near it and see what happens. make a spark near a radio , set up all manner of experiments with electrons. Make observations of anything rather interesting. Then go away and think, think, think. Come up with a hypothesis. Try your hypothesis out a few times. THEN GO AND TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT. You will be a happy man ! ( with five kids and a mortgage ) I guarantee it ( I have had 4 daughters and a love of electrons )