Graviphoton

I my opinion Klaynos, Occams Razor is an incomplete assumption, and cannot apply to all logic.

You'd be wrong then. You telling me that all tardyons do not reduce back to photon energy? I will ask a higher power to have this put back where it belongs, because it seems you know nothing of the subject.

You qouted me saying ''Because it is simply not enough to say on-off binary processesors can excite a self-reflecting system like a human.'' Then the opening line was, the brain is not binary, emphasizing the ''not''. What am i supposed to read it as Ed? Big Nose I will define consciousness, later on today.

"There is no baby universe branching off (inside a black hole), as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe. I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes. If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state.'' Is what i said he said. If you mean, ''Now, there must be a reason why physicists haven't thought of the postulation i have brought forth, or possibly have, which might be the case, because it seems so simple. There must be a reason why this idea hasn't caught on already... a fundamental reason which reduces this entire post as wrong. I wish i knew what it was. '' Then hold on. I said it was wrong. I just need to know why scientists haven't questioned the fact that if information leaves this universe, there is always information returning. That's what i said. You learn to read.

Yourdad A bit harsh eh? Looney claim? Turns out you found the qoute, so what was so looney about it in the end? It turned out to be quite sound. Y2 When we say ''mangled,'' Hawking is referring to a multiparticle system, not a single photon. If a photon moved into a black hole, it would be spat out and return in the universe as a photon, because it is a fundamental particle.

I know the human brain is not binary. When did i ever say that? Answer me that, before i read the rest of your post... Big Nose I don't care that they are prodded at. I was referring to that fact, that i am being asked to site things i personally have speculated. You totally misunderstood what i was saying. And i have explained this before, i try to answer everyone. I can't answer everything.

Well, we know they are identical, because if we take one electron, try and measure its structure, we find it doesn't really have a structure at all. For this reason, all electrons do not have structures, and are therefore identical in this sense. Of course, as it goes, we do observe an electron, despite it having an infinitesimal non-structure. If it has a radius that can be measured directly, then we don't have the technology yet to make an accurate reading (last i heard). But no, i shouldn't imagine it would shake our theories, but in fact make them easier to contemplate, because then, scientists wouldn't be forced to resort for explanations how there is such an intrical design, such as the one-electron universe theory i told you about. Hope this helps.

Exactly. This is what i was saying. The spin of the electron, cannot be a spin, because if it where in a classical sense, it would have to spin faster than light. Oh sorry... you thought i was saying that was all to it. That the electron spinned faster than light, viola. No, its not that simple. When i was speaking to mooey, this was the first thing that came into my head. But, afterall, i should know how obsurd it was for the electron to spin faster than light, because it would then need to have no mass. But i didn't go into it with that kind of degree, because again, i was giving a really quick example, that i have no reference to.

I would say yes, depending on the state of the particle. If it is virtual, or in any wave state, then no, because then physics defines it as ethereal and non-existant. Thus Copenhagen states that when you observe the particle, whether it be a human observer or not, it can ''pop'' the particle into existence.

Did you know, as a result of Dirac co-formulating quantum mechanics and relativity together, he found that the electron could move at light speed along jagged paths through spacetime? The jagged path was in fact caused by it literally ''bouncing'' off negative electrons in the Dirac Sea? Its a beautiful theory.

Is a well-stated and well-excepted theory of quantum mechanics and Relativity. It states that every type of solid matter with rest energy is nothing but trapped forms of Luxon energy: Particles which move with a velocity equal to that of lightspeed. In 1997, scientists where able to make particles from pure light. This was the confirmation needed to give us a theoretical model stating that all matter was in fact just trapped light. Here, Isaac Newton speculates the very nature of transumatations concerning light and matter with rest energy… ‘’Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the particles of Light which enter their Composition? The changing of Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies, is very conformable to the Course of Nature, which seems delighted with Transmutations. [...] And among such various and strange transmutations, why may not Nature change Bodies into Light, and Light into Bodies?“ Isaac Newton - Optics 1704, Book Three, Part 1 Qu.30 He was certainly ahead of his time concerning physics. The Properties of Luxons It is known, that in relativity, particles which move at the proposed ultimate velocity of c, having a value of something like 186,350 miles per second, have a subatomic clock which is stretched into infinity. This means that not a second passes for a Luxon…Because they do not move through the time dimension, or space for that matter, so there is no solution to the equation… [math]t’=t_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{c}/c^{2}[/math] The mass-energy relation equation [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math] it turns out according to many scientists, was in fact the first real indirect proof of antimatter existences, and as we know, when an electron comes into contact with a positron, they annihilate in a shower of energy: Luxon energy. This is matter with rest energy being reduced back to their purest form, and later in the 1926 with Paul A. M. Dirac’s formulation of the Dirac Equation, the existence of antimatter showed that Bradyons, (particles which move with a velocity below c) can be reduced back into Luxon energy. A Luxons rest energy must always be zero. And from their point of view, they don’t move at all. Nor do they even have a lifetime. This makes Bradyonic matter a longer lived fluctuation of the zero-point energy field, which is itself a back ground reservoir of virtual electromagnetic energy. The Properties of Bradyons Bradyons, unlike Luxons, do experience a time frame. In fact, by definition, we are Bradyons. The velocity of a Bradyon is actually determined by its energy… This is why we find high-energy particles moving at arbitrarily fast speeds, some just a fraction short of ‘’c’’. In fact, c is a universal constant, which is used everyday in physics as a reference. For instance, we determine the speeds of Bradyons using the universal constant of lightspeed: [math]t’=t/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}[/math] [math]m’=m_{0}/\sqrt{1}-v^{2}/c^{2}[/math] It must have been Einstein’s realization that photons did not contain mass, which led him to his assumptions concerning the limitation of speed on a Bradyon. To reach the value of c, the speed of a photon, the Bradyon would require an infinite amount of energy. Some people like to say that the photon has mass because the photon has energy [math]E=hf[/math], where [math](h)[/math] is 'Planck’s constant' and [math](f)[/math] is the frequency of the photon. Thus, they tend to assume that because it has energy [math](E)[/math] it must have mass [math](M)[/math] because of Einstien’s mass-energy equivalence equation [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math]... They also say that the photon has momentum, and momentum is related to mass [math]p=Mv[/math] where [math](v)[/math] is velocity and [math](p)[/math] is for momentum. Yet, you cannot justify it having mass using this argument. This is actually 'relativistic mass' - which is nothing but the measure of energy which will change with velocity. It isn't actually mass, even though mass and energy are related. In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation [math]E^{2}=M^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}[/math], which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because [math]E = pc[/math] for massless radiation. The relativistic mass of a Bradyon will increase, as it moves faster and faster… this is why we believe momentum and speed is in fact invariant due to the energy it contains. The higher the energy will result in the system moving faster and faster. The relativistic mass of an object is expressed as: [math]M=\gamma m[/math] [math]M=E/c^{2}[/math] by Tolman notation… It was justified that even Luxons contained relativistic mass. On [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math] It may be of some interest for you to know, that Einstein wasn’t the first to understand the energy-mass equivalence. Poincare just a few years before Einstein’s formulization of relativity stated an equivalence in the form [math]M=E/c^{2}[/math] and before that it was also recognized by Wien (1900) was [math]m=(4/3)E/c^{2}[/math]. For many scientists, the equation of mass-energy relation was in fact the first indirect proof of antimatter relationships, where matter is reduced back into energy. It wasn’t until the formulization of the Dirac Equation, did this fact become known, and we now know that every Bradyon has an antipartner. But what is interesting is that the annihilation of all these different types of particles gave of deadly gamma energy… photons of light energy. Now, with the evidence of photons being created into matter, all the matter you see in everyday life, even the electrons, protons and neutrons making our bodies, are but fluctuations of trapped light. The very fact all these different types of matter come from one source and type of energy, stands to reason the different types of particles known must be the result of a frequency trap in the energy of the Luxens as they transmutate into these types of particles (1). The different types of trapped frequency of distortions must also be limited, due to the limitation of particles in the standard model. Today, we know something like 410 particles, both Luxon and Bradyonic. The Arguement Luxon Theory is actually a theory considered to be a theory of everything, concerning matter. It is known by calculation and vigorous mathematical analysis, that the universe actually grew quite old before the first energy appeared. It wasn’t until 32 years had passed (I’ve heard Ben claim it was much longer… I am not sure which amount of time passed is correct… But I trust my source), did light emerge from spacetime. A major argument and ultimate implication of Luxon theory, is the existence of glueballs. Glueballs are exotic particles, which are entire entities consisting of gluon particles which interact due to the Chromoelectric field. In Yorktown Heights, N.Y., Dec. 18, 1995, using one of the world's fastest computers, nonstop for two years, scientists have been able to calculate the properties of glueballs. It was considered that this be the first time a computer has verified the existence of an elusive particle, and it was also argued that several experiments have shown the properties given by the results. Gluons are also Luxons, and the very fact that these Luxons can come together, bind and create entirely new particles, is the ultimate proof that Luxons do indeed come together, and create the matter we see everyday. It is also said, that the verification of Glueballs are an ‘’overwhelming success for Luxon Theory,’’ and no scientist has been able to thwart the claims. Also part of the discovery, was that the Glueballs rest mass, was made from Luxon Inertia. Scientists are now considering the same answer for matter that consists of Luxon energy in the form of photons. (1) – but this is speculation from my own behalf. References: Scientists make matter from light, paper, University of Rochester, Tom Rickey, (716) 275-7954. Alfredo A. Barrera:IT IS THE ACCELERATION OF ENERGY WITHIN A PARTICLE THAT PRODUCES MASS AND CONSEQUENTLY GRAVITY John T. Nordberg: Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model. Ray Tomes: Towards a Theory Of Everything: Matter as a Solution to Maxwell's Equations Fernando Cleto Nunes Pereira:The Unit of Phisics Other Reading: Spiritual Universe: Fred Alan Wolf 2004 Bob Toben, Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti :Space-time and beyond, 1975

*nods head*

Well, that would inexorably require a mathematical knowledge i do not have.... YET. Sure i can do a lot of physics, but just because i cannot show you his reasoning, surely doesn't make it invalid? But i feel this isn't fair... For one, i don't think Hawking takes it as a summery. I think its a mathematical fact. Secondly, i have seen many people round here talk about subjects they cannot prove mathematically...

I know. He is certainly no favorite of mine. But he is a leading proponent in his field of research. And that is enough, surely. Hawking has not discredited himself. He has just shown he can make many errors, as we all can. Its just that sometimes his errors are more recognized, because he is such a big speaker, again in his field of research.

I agree with the post you make. I will site references to that which is considered stone proof. But, my experience of my time here, it seems to me that people press for more. If by reference, we talk peer-reviewed articles, this JUST ISN'T REALISTIC, as i have already explained. Many physicists, in whatever field they study, often say things, and is normally accepted by science and the general public. Take for instance, when i said in another post, Hawking retracted his arguement concerning black hole travel. This did not recieve nor require a peer-reviewed article. So, i am to suffer for that? It is within my experience that you can get away with citing a physicist, and expect it to be taken for granted, whether it be right or wrong. If it is my honesty that is in question, then that is personal. And the rules states that it isn't supposed to be of a personal nature at all. But all the evidence points to the contrary in my case... Our friend Caps said... ''We're only asking for references because we don't think you're right.'' He may not have been speaking about himself, but speaking for the forum in general. Neverthless, i think i have personally earned a bit of general respect, that when i say Hawking retracted a statement, it should be at least considered truth. Why would i claim something so outragous, if it wasn't true? This is why my time being here is exhausting me. Because i am having to cite everything i say with some kind of evidence to back it up, and not every one of these are so outragous they deserve to be so thoroughly investigated.

I'll repeat what was said, with an addition. Yeh, its only an analogy. The fabric which the ball is supposed to be sitting on, in fact makes up the dimensional qualities of the ball itself. So, the 3D sun, is 3D, because the fabric it exists in is also 3D, added one time dimension.

Leonard... that was his name... You kind find many references to this on google Nature of Black Holes and Quasars, The22 Oct 2006 ... Is Stephen Hawking right? Is Professor Leonard Susskind correct? ... The matter or information pouring into Black Holes truly leaves our ... http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/n/nature_of_black_holes_and_quasars_the%20.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages Black Holes: Paradox in ActionLet's say we want to make our favorite politician into a black hole. ... The English physicist Stephen Hawking has suggested that many black holes may have ... http://www.qsl.net/w5www/blackhole.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS on Black Holes by Matt McIrvinFrom thermodynamic arguments Stephen Hawking realized that a black hole should have ... into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I ... antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/bh_pub_faq.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Bottom line, is that Hawking made the propostion that things could move into black holes. He has now retracted that statement. I also recall reading about his bet before he lost it, in his book a brief history of time. Don't know the page, because i can't find the book... ... just look in the back of the books appendix for Leonard Susskind.

The Multiverse Subatomic matter behaves very differently to larger masses. One example of this estranged behavior is called the 'double slit experiment' introduced by physicist Thomas Young in 1805. This experiment consists of a machine that shoots a beam of photons, electrons or even atoms towards film screen - but before the particles reach the screen and leaves tiny marks, it needs to pass through either an upper slit, or a lower slit that are closely separated. Each slit can be closed, or both can be left opened by the choice of the observer. Now, when the beam of particles hit the screen, you would suppose the particles had to pass through either the upper slit or the lower slit, yes? However, the strange thing is, is that if you close down one of slits, more particles reach the screen than if you left both slits open! How can this be? You would imagine more particles reaching the screen if both slits were opened - but this is not the case. One strange answer came about. The particle wasn't a pointlike particle at all. It acted as though it were a wave! If one uses the wave description, the problem seemed to go away. We know how waves act in the sea, and this also means that the particle will take these attributes on board. A wave could reach both slits at the same time - and just like a wave coming into contact with two openings, the wave can split into two smaller waves, one, as i am sure you can guess, in each slit. If the two waves travel different paths, they can be made to interfere with themselves after passing the slits; in doing so, less waves reach the screen. If one slit is only open, the wave will travel through the slit, and, just like a wave hitting the shore, it will hit many places simultaneously on the screen - thus hitting more places with one slit open, than having both slits open. However, the particle wasn't only just a wave - after all, when it hit the screen, it left a tiny 'pointlike' mark. Somehow when the wave hit the screen, it hit many places on the screen as dots. Thus, a new description had to made for a particle that traveled through space as a wave, and finishes its journey as a single object - this description has been come to be called the 'wave-particle duality.' The particle therego was in fact a wave and a particle simultaneously. Why did the particle act as a wave? Well, at first, physicists thought that the wave was a product of the human mind - it wasn't real, and it was just a means for us to keep track of experiments. The wave became to be called the 'quantum wave function.' This was a wave of possibilities. The wave probability enables us to calculate the possibility for a particle and its path, location, spin, orbital reference, ect. The wave spreads out over space, and resembles likelihoods, not actualities... or does it? In 1957 physicist Hugh Everett the third, came up with a rather bizarre conclusion concerning the wave function. His idea was that if the experiment says that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, then both particles, the one traveling past the upper slit, and the particle traveling through the lower slit, must both exist. Question is though, how and where does this extra ghostly particle exist? The answer was parallel universes. Somehow, an identical particle existed in a parallel world; the wave represented the amount of particles it was composed of, thus one particle passed the upper slit and a particle passed the lower slit, and each 'branch', or universe, it was represented as a wave, having quite a real effect in each universe. However, why should the particle be a wave and then suddenly become a particle again? It turns out that our universe, according to Everett, is constantly splitting and merging every time some measurement is performed or when something comes into contact with something else. Each time the universe split, it would represent the wave function splitting into as many possibilities as there where outcomes, and the merging would represent the universe becoming superimposed all over again. Thus, in the double slit experiment, when the particle moves through both the slits simultaneously, this represents the universe splitting, creating as many universes as the possibility allows - in this case, two universes - and the merging represents the pointlike dot when it hits the screen. However, it turns out that the experiment represents only two universes - yet, it turns out that our universe is in fact one in an infinite amount of parallel universes, all 'superpositioned' upon each other, like layers on a cake. It is amazing, i think at least, that something so science-fiction like parallel universes can be taken rather seriously by top physicists today. The theme is almost unimaginable... just think about it - an infinity of universes - an infinity of earths for that matter, with an infinite amount of me's, and an infinite amount of you's - worlds were i exist, and worlds were you do not - worlds were you exist and i do not. Worlds that neither of us exist... worlds that are barren of life, and worlds with life more weird and wonderful than we could ever imagine. Worlds of paradise, and hell worlds galore! And each universe is unique, as there maybe several outcomes to a certain event, but only one individual outcome is allowed in any single universe. Thus, whenever i flip a coin and observe what side it has landed on, i become apart of the splitting of the universe, and my body is projected into two me's - one in this universe looking and observing a heads, let's say, and another me in the 'newly born' universe observing a tails. However, this easy-creation of universes disturbs some scientists. The idea is, if you flip a coin in 100 tosses, you create something equivalent to [math]1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376[/math] universe-possibilities real (1); that is a little over [math]10^{30}[/math]. If every 6 billion-odd souls on earth simply stopped to flip a coin a hundred times, you could imagine the amount of universes that would split off from our own.* * In fact, the parallel universe theory has undergone some variations over the years. Some scientists believe that not only is our universe prone to split, but all the parallel universes might in fact also split. Matter in each of these universes permitted to contain matter, are in equal proportion, which is around [math]N=10^{80}[/math] particles in each universe. However, this is where we tend to get a little confused - even though a particle, according to parallel universe theory, exists in two worlds as a wave in the double slit experiment, there is only one particle ever present whenever the universes merge! There will always be a single particle present, provided no one comes along and decided to observe the little particle, or a large electrical force pulls it out of its superpositioning - or simply, whenever anything comes into contact with something else; even in a tragedy. Take me for instance. Imagine i decided to cross the road, and i never looked both ways. A car hits me and i die... 'Sianara?' Well, yes and no. I do indeed die, but i die as the unfortunate outcome of this world - in a parallel universe i am living quite happily. When the car hit me, the universes flew apart, each providing a certain outcome unique among the rest. Neither would it do us any good to say that time passes at the same rate in each of these universes - that wouldn't be accurate at all. It would be like the differential time zones on planet earth - i will be asleep in one universe, whilst i am totally awake here and now. Some universes might be so similar to ours, the only quantum difference is that you might be wearing a red tie, instead of a blue tie... A universe with these differential time traits are called 'self-contained' time. Now, not every physicist agrees with parallel universe theory - take for granted some of the best minds in the quantum mainstream, like Stephen Hawkings entertain the 'many world hypothesis,' instead of the 'collapse of the wave function.' The wave function permeates all of spacetime. Created by Erwin Schrödinger, the mathematical function would predict the infinite amount of possible locations or paths an atom can have; for instance, in the double slit experiment, the wave represents two paths - thus the paths are represented by the wave function. The collapse of the wave function is the sudden reduction in the value of probability. The idea, is that the world suddenly reduced to a single calculation - the wave is said to collapse - the usual way to describe the collapse, is to imagine a balloon being deflated. I believe in the collapse - i simply cannot believe that the universe is constantly splitting and merging. Although, the collapse itself has been attacked by some physicists over the years. The most famous attack was by Albert Einstein - as you may know - he was highly critical of the conditions brought about by the simple act of observation - and it wasn't an isolated case... as he carried his displeasure for Quantum Physics right to his death. He also brought to our attentions, that quantum physics failed as a complete theory - it failed to explain how an observer comes to know something. I think this question can only be answered by accepting that the human observer is somehow apart of that knowledge - instead of believing that the observer is separate of that information. One way to imagine this, is that knowledge or information (as both are the same thing) starts and ends with the individual who measures a system. The system itself, or the universe around it cannot make sense of information - there is simply no intelligence present to make any resolution - it can only act to this information by a collapse and the system will 'quantum jump' into a new state - thus the information only becomes meaningful when intelligence is involved. In this sense, knowledge that is true knowledge begins and ends with us; the rest is up to God. Once we have this knowledge inside our neural networks, we turn it into experience, which then processes as memory, and this is how we come to know something. What is a quantum leap? It is a discontinuous change from one state into a new state - others, as that 'cornie' 1980's show. If we are indeed to take Hawkings seriously by viewing the universe as an atom, does that mean the universe will quantum leap in the future? Coming back to this question, two main things can happen, depending on what kind of energy state our universe is in. There are two known states called 'Ground State,' and 'Excited State.' A ground state atom arranges its inhabitants; the electron, the proton and the neutron ect., to a certain frequency, so that they can have the smallest energy possible. If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes... However, i would like to add, that Hawkings is not so sure any more if singularities really exist. Thus, if our universe is in a ground state, it wouldn't have come from a singular region. Instead, it will have had at its center an opening in the fabric of space and time; this is a worm hole, threaded with a substance called 'exotic matter'. This wormhole might loop in on our own universe, and anything that can travel through it, might turn up in a different region of space, at a totally different time of history - theoretically, i could jump into the wormhole a few minutes after big bang, and end up coming out of the wormhole, 40-odd billion years later when the universe decides to contract. Or, if theory is correct as we have seen, it might link this universe up with other universes. A ground state atom will not spill out energy - this means that it is a very stable particle. If our universe is in its ground state, it will not be able to quantum leap in the future. If the atom is in an excited state, then it will eventually spill out its energy and will inexorably quantum leap. If it was a universe i am speaking about here, it will spill out its energy, quite possibly into a branch that is in its ground state, and will quantum leap. In fact, according to Copenhagen, the universe must quantum leap, every time an observation is executed.

Yes. Each electron, as far as we can mathematically tell, have identical properties. We don't even know if the electron has a structure we can talk about. Its radius is infinitesimal next to being able to be measured. All attempts to measure its radius have failed, so we make educated guesses.

Right. But psychophysics is a mainstream unto itself. Its just that so many don't know about certain subjects conerning this area of physics. But ok. I will source reference to area's which... ''are not'' maintream.

Cool. Thanks for that clear-up.

Then my placement here will be shortlived. The rigour this site desires, is far from reality in most cases. You cannot sorce everything you say. That's an impossibility. I do try to source when i can, or when asked. I can't do anymore than that i am affraid.

Well, actually, the diea there is a parallel incoming system, is not mere speculation. I refer you to the book ''Parallel Universes, 1985, Fred Alan Wolf'' There is an infinite amount of universes, so there MUST BE in an infinite amount of universes, where there is definately an incoming antiparallel source.

I can post random thoughts in speculations. Something which i keep to. I haven't posted speculation outside that framework. And i only expect, or ask in a subtle way, that people keep an open mind. No more, no less.

Or perhaps i am just wrong. The information contained within this universe, if leaving, and entering another universe, i showed that it was consistent with the theory that there needs to be an incoming information as well. As an explanation, i introduced tachyons... simply because they can move through black holes without any problems... but the incoming tachyon must be antiparallel. Does this mean the information is in fact anti-information? And if so a new question... can anti-information be suffice to ''fill the void.''???? Here's the bizarre part. I hate parallel universe theory.