Graviphoton

In the 1920’s, quantum mechanics worked well with molecules and atoms… this was because they had a finite number of degrees of freedom. However, whenever we worked with the electromagnetic force, all that was result was erroneous calculations, because the electromagnetic field was infinite within its own degrees of freedom; in other words, two degrees of freedom in any point in spacetime. We envision these points as being oscillators, each with its own position and momentum. It turned out that the oscillators could never be at rest because that would defy the Uncertainty Principle… Instead, the oscillators where assigned with zero-point fluctuations and even a non-zero energy! Whenever the little electron [wasn’t] being observed, the energies of all the infinite degrees of freedom would make the little bugger’s mass and charge to become infinite… This was settled eventually in the late 1940’s with a simple procedure called ‘Renormalization.’ It in simple extracted large numbers by subtracting them with other large numbers; infinities minus infinities. But the main goal was to leave a finite sum – a non-zero remainder. And energy is found to be out of observational acceptability, therefore, we have more energy than needed, than what is even contained within space and times itself!!!!!!!! This paradox might be flaw in our observations, or it might hold the truth to existence... as strange as the superfluous energy sounds... ... but there is a unique difference as well between what gives energy its substance and what gives matter its longer lived fluctuation of non-diffused matter, Mass is Given Mass and Energy has an Energy The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical particle thought to give matter the actual substance of mass. It is a massive Scalar Elementary Particle, and was predicted by Peter Higgs in 1964. It is the only particle that has caused major controversy in the Standard Model, as of YET, it has not been found. But it turns out that the LEP Collider might have found evidence for it, which is still inconclusive. It explains why bosons like the energy particle of electromagnetism, the photon, should be massless, and why weak bosons, the W and Z bosons are critical to the electromagnetic force. The Higgs Mechanism is a physical field, accompanied by its own Higgs Boson. Even the field itself provides the Higgs with mass! In empty space, it turns out that the Higgs forms a non-zero value, which is said to permeate all locations in the universe simultaneously. This is so that the field can reach every particle, despite the distance. The non-zero value, which is found to be something like 246GeV, predicted by the Vacuum Expectation Value or (VEV), is what provides all matter with mass. The Higgs is predicted to then have a mass about 1TeV, and an upper limit of 5TeV. It is thought to come from the shell decays of W and Z massless electroweak Bosons. The Vacuum Expectation Value, which has also been referred to as the Condensate Vacuum, is the expected operator value of the Vacuum, given by [math]<0>[/math]. The Casmir Effect, which is an electromagnetic fluctuation between two plates in the vacuum, is a perfect example of the expectation value given by the Operators. Its implements are pivotal for physics, as it is important in spontaneous symmetry breaking. There are many examples, including Gluon-Condensates that are responsible for Quantum Chromodynamics, which is itself a renormalization process of the electrostrong force, and may also provide hadrons with mass. In the standard model, the Higgs Field is accompanied by two charged and two neutral components. These two field components that are charged and one of the neutral are given by the Goldstone Bosons, which are Pseudo-Particles. Goldstone Bosons are massless bosons, which appear in spontaneous symmetry breaking, and are also predicted by like Condensate Fields. It appears that these particles are only massless if spontaneous breaking of symmetry is not broken. In other words, it is a very delicate process. Any slight change and they become to have mass. They are very light particles, moving at very high speeds. The idea for these particles, was first hypothesized by Jeffrey Goldstone, and he postulated that there was [one] Goldstone Boson, to every broken symmetry to their component generators. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking is found to be relevant to the energy being produced. In example, the theory shows that at high enough energies, about 15GeV, the strong force is unified with electromagnetic and weak forces. At these high energies, the coupling constant of QCD, is found to decrease to nearly zero at these energies. The phenomena is called ‘’Asymptotic Freedom.’’ It means that quarks act much like free particles in high-energy collisions inside of a Hadron. Then they are said to ‘’perturbate.’’ At low energies, the Coupling Constant becomes very high, and now perturbation is said to break down, and explains why quarks can couple into groups of two’s and three’s. The energy at low enough temperatures, find to be consequent to a phenomena of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The best example we have of this, is matter-antimatter production early on in the universe. There is about one antiparticle to every [math]10^{8}[/math] photons in the universe. Some Quantum Interpretations... One states, how can the universe even have an energy...? If no one measured the amount of energy, then there was no collapse, and therefore, no unique configuration of energy. In the Bohmian Interprtetation, the wave function collapsed, and the energy needed for existence has been predetermined. And in normal relativity based theories, everything is already predetermined, because of the nature of time. Everything which has a history, is found to to have its history and future al alined out for it... frozen in time. I actually have more to say about energy, but due to the nature of it, i will have to post it in psuedoscience...

Oh come... (and mind my language...) Buy get the **** together with actual relativity,, ... anyone who drives to work everyday is travelling through time. This thread should be put in psuedoscience

Ok... Then why are point like particles then consiered by Brian Greene as being actual micro black holes... explain that, and we might get somewhere. I have had a recent warning considering my post... here's a new warning; without evidence that he is talking sh*t, then give me some explanation why electrons beave like extremal black holes? Can you answer this? If not, my original arguement holds Plus, if white hole pair production with black hole configurational process is invalid, then explain why its a considered theory? Or explain, why it isn't? Don't use thermodynamical errors here, for our calculations have accepted to be possibly wrong.

Well, forgive me, but what mathematical proof do you have that is impervious next to result of experiement? Without this, we work on mathematical foundations, which find themselves, incorporated as a conclusion.

A scientific theory by terminology, a theory which is presented by those who work in the area of science, if not by defect as well. Why is this so hard to understand? You do realize theories like the Big Bang are in fact speculation... ... just because a theory like that is well-established, you will find in contrary consideration that it is still speculation, and you will also find it is't actually well-considered as proof. Many scientists will insideously result that big bang must be wrong, if not in theory, but conceptuality. Also wrong. Electrons, by definition are point particles which can be classified as point black holes... there is no difference between the two.

Mmm... not very sure how to address this... Without resorting to extreme speuclation on the OP's behalf

Don't worry... i haven't forgotten. I will present the math again soon, this time hopefully without error. I have, i will admit, had to seek help, for the equations where simply confusing...

No. The cosmic ray arguement has been overthrown, and accepted by the LHC scientists, but despite this idionsycrosity, my post was tackling the statement ''These people who think that the LHC is gonna destroy the Earth are clearly not using any sort of common sense whatsoever. '' And it also seems apparent, you don't understand the level of my arguement, becasue you resort to strange matter... and killer black holes... my arguement is that these killer black holes can have an external source of mass, even when produced, because of pair-production theory. For reference to these cosmic rays collisions being overthrown, i advise you to get in touch with Dr. Walter Wagner... and if you can't, i will speak to him for you, or if you give me your e-mail address, i will forward it to him.

No the theory has been stated by John G. Cramer. Black holes are also a theory. They may not even exist. And if black holes do exist, then there needs to be a time-reversed property, which would make white holes invariant with the theory.

I may have started the thread, but i am by no way the only one speculating. Even if i went to another thread, said something wuite spectacular, i would be asked to account for what i said with proof, despite whether i created the thread or not. Now honor me the smae respect please, or i will terminate response to this pareticular thread entirely. And i respect you mooey, a lot. But please, evidence can be from both sides, and should never be singled out. As more time progresses, i will gather more points to the arguement. I take science very seriously, as you will know. Let me show you how serious, but give me time please.

Actually, in my opinion, we are messing with levels of energy that existed very early on in the universe.. messing with forces like that should indeed have a level of worry. Suppose my arguement: There is a theory stating that black holes are created in pair-production with white holes. One of Hawking's arguements is that the micro black hole will indeed electroradiate away its energy, in well under a second, giving it no chance of reach the earth's core. But if the black hole is created in a pair-production, then it is logical that there be the chance the black hole could feed off the white hole long enough to reach the earth's mass... hence, the black hole would begin to consume earth. Remember, Hawking was the idiot who thought that you could enter a gravitationally-warped body, survive the tidal forces, and enter other universes, totally disobaying quantum rules... He has now retracted the statement, after years of debate. Now... think. One cannot say there is no danger. Why do micro black hole eectroradiate energy so quickly? Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula; [math]g=(GM)/d^{2}[/math] Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. In other words, with free falling objects, we can make gravity disappear totally. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole you can work out its mass against the gravitational acceleration formula, by; [math]M=gd^{2}G[/math] We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant [math](6.7×10^{-11} m^{3}/(kg sec^{2})[/math]. We find the Earth's mass [math]= 9.8 × (6.4)(10^{6})^{2} / (6.7)(10^{-11})[/math] kilograms [math]= (6.0)( 10^{24})[/math] kilograms. A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size [math](2)10^{-8kg}[/math]. The Compton Wavelength given as h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of [math]10^{16}[/math] K, which is 200 GeV, or about 25 million times hotter than the sun. Black holes this small, being so hot, are forced to give up there mass through radiation very very quicly, and evaporate completely, that is, unless the black hole is feeding from another source, in my empiracle arguement. We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V).

Am i undestanding this correctly... are you stating movement of a body is ''invariant'' with space and time - in other words, must a body move through both space at the same time as time? The use of the words inversely proportional maybe be very decieving... But here is the answer. Remove the notion of space and time, and make it one system, spacetime. Now you can only move through the one continuum. With different speeds, an object can travel through different mathematical vectors of spacetime... for instance, a particle travelling below c, is found to move through real space, or imaginary time. A photon is squeezed out of existence, because it moves at c, therefore it experiences no passing of time, or ofcourse, movement through spacetime. Its birth and death are simultaneous. And then there are tachyons, which contain an infinite amount of energy at their lowest speeds c and using as little energy as possible over c... These particles move through imaginary space, or real time. I hope this helps.

No... i am not the only one making claims... There are individuals here that are proposing even more suspect theories than i am, so it really is a matter of passing the buck i would say.

The same can be said to counter your arguement, EQUALLY PROOVE SOMETHING MORE THAN 51% OF the analysis made today by me. If you cannot, then leave such arbitrary arguements, until both of us can give an acceptable and infallible and impervious theory which cannot be labelled by any other consideration, than mere personal scinetific pathology.

Only serious by these assumptions... Spoken by Ben... ''Basically, it's a kind of neat idea that doesn't really solve any problems or anything. '' Therefore, I hold ''its a theory that predicts much, but doesn;t answer for as much?'' Is the two not the same? Oh for the love of thor, please read what is being said

No.. i dont think you understand friend... .. The most plausible theory, outweighs that of the least...] ... a small adaptation of spock So really, the burden of proof lies upon those who make the most speculative Now, be honest... which really is more suspect?

No. Don't avoid logic, which my assertion basically admits, either A is is true, or B is truer over its counterpart theory... Thererfore, the words, cool and elegent, are most appropriate, to the theory which is most plausible.

Oh i see, its a theory that predicts much, but doesn;t answer for as much?

You seem wise on this Ben. Can you please tell me what the major implications of unparticles are...? Cheers...

''The problem is not what you propose, the problem is that this specific proposition - which is unproven'' Passing the buck i think. If someone back in the early 1900's claims that AI was possible, The burden of proof would be upon them. Funnily enough, even with the development of technology today, you will find the burdan is still upon the maidens shoulders... so... ... is it more excitable, a theory of mechanical consciousness, or one that states there is a difference? The rational question, is the latter. Therefore, the proof is upon you, mooey, to proove to me there is any evidence at all, and as far as i can see, apart from abstract relationships, there is no proof to suggest it can be actually probable.

Accepted then

Some people can go through life, with very little knowledge of math... only the basic addition and subtraction, and maybe multiplication. I guess it depends on how much your life presses you to know, or have to know which maybe the case.

It has been suggested to me, that i might be draining people of attention with my threads, because i am soley working on consciousness... so i thought maybe this was right, time for a new thread. In physics, the multiverse theory is a difficult theory to accept - well, at least it is for me - the only way i could describe my contempt for it is the way Einstein rejected the path of Quantum Mechanics. The reason for this is simple. I do not believe the Universe can so easily split off into as many universe-possibilities as there are actualities, every time something comes to do anything - especially in the case of ourselves. Fair enough, the theory of Parallel Universes could answer many gaping questions - questions such as, 'why the wave function exits', and why and how our universe selected these 'dimensional conditions', of one time dimension and three spatial dimensions. What if only two universes existed? This question was called an 'Oxymoron' - it seemed to present a contradiction in terms - two universes simply couldn't exist... Though our universe might be one of an infinite amount, i am amused however in something called the 'Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory' (ECT): What if our universe has a siemese twin? This is what ECT states. Its perfectly identical, conjoined, yet separate twin is connected to our universe through a force that allows it to bounce off our own universe to such a distance away, it will finally pull back to collide with our own universe. When they do collide, it will trigger another Big Bang all over again, spilling all that potential consciousness, matter and energy through the wave function, no matter how vanishingly small their probabilities lye. This Big Bang will engulf both universes simultaneously - and that must mean the great sea of consciousness itself - creating everything all over again - but with a slight quantum difference; a decrease in the 'Cosmological Constant'. You might remember the Cosmological Constant. The Cosmological Constant was created by Albert Einstein in 1915, in an attempt to design a universe that was static. However, the discovery of the Hubble red shift, the measuring of distances between objects in space showed that the universe was in fact expanding. He thus cast the Cosmological Constant to the side, calling it his 'biggest blunder.' However, in the discovery of recent observations of an accelerating universe, astrophysicists where able to bring the Cosmological Constant back into play. The real problem with the Cosmological Constant today, is that it is around 10^20 times smaller than what should be predicted from Big Bang... However, if the Siamese twin theory is correct, then the value in the Cosmological Constant appears to be smaller because the collisions of the two universes have brought it gradually down - thus, one might imagine the Big Bang to have occurred many, many times. Right now, physicists are devising new theories on how to experimentally test this. In the writing of this book, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, and Neil Turok of the University of Cambridge believe that it might be possible to experimentally test this theory through the discovery of the so-far-unseen 'gravitational waves,' that are thought to ripple ever outwards throughout all of spacetime. However, though the big bang states that these gravitational waves are thought to pervade spacetime, the two scientists believe that they are rare, to say the least. 'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England. The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions. Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light). The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion. Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.'' ''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion. As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. . How Might We Detect Gravitational Waves? Finding their presence, whether they are frequent or rare, is going to be difficult. The 'Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory' (LIGO) in America, belonging to NASA scientists, are now searching for the waves - by the possible phenomena of Black Hole collisions. Black Holes themselves have so far been undetectable, but Relativity and Quantum Theory predicts their existences. They are exotic, perfectly spherical dark or glowing objects in space that contain so much mass that they can distort spacetime to such a degree, it practically drags it round with it at the speed of light. These distortions are so strong; they are even able to slow a photon, a particle of light right down to zero-speed. Thus, even the fastest known particle cannot escape its wrath. The collision of two Black Holes would shudder space and time - similar to the conditions of a quaking big bang, and the collision would send out ripples of gradational waves at the speed of light from the location of impact. Because of this, in order to find the illusive waves, we will have to keep our eyes to the stars.

Grey and white actually And it is a ''biological computer..'' I propose, as many have, that this biological contruct is unique with consciousness. People like to use the term ''computer'' for the brain, but they often mix the concept up with the normal hardware of a computer sytem in an office. There is actually a difference between the two... loads in fact.

There's a diffrence tho, between simulate, and actuality. I find the theory that ''consciousness is a symbolic system and it doesn't matter how the symbols and functions operating on them are actually manifested'' somewhat laughable. Afterall, does not the configuration of atoms and molecules inside my head mean something to the state of mind, and ultimately consciosuness? If it isn't, jump off a building head first, and i assure you, you will find they are much important. Now this configuration is what allows consciousness. Electrically-fried, carbon materials. Not electrically-induced wires and hardware.