1veedo

I saw an article for scientific american about music one time, though I cant find it. The mozart effect is sort of related though. I cant find any good info on it though. Google gives some crackpot home pages that try to say heavy metal is bad for you and they flame the ‘younger’ population for ‘being effected by it’ etc. Hopefully somebody here knows some things about the OP though because I'm rather interested myself.

As far as encryption goes, the uncertainty principle works on your side. The key to the encryption required to crack data is always either standard, in which case you use google to hack it, or it is included someware in the file, in which case you apply software to search for it. So, as it is, anything and everything no matter how ‘secure’ it is can be cracked. In a quantum encrypted message any attempt to read the data would only give part the data and some more data that is corrupt. Plus, the receiver of the data would know right away what 'pure' info was obtained.

I think most astronomers believe that something is intelligent if it can build a radio telescope.

For the most part it doesnt matter if a string is open or closed. Though when dealing with cosmology, gravity, or complex energy exchanges this factor does need to be recognized. Also, strings technically arent strings. The original models had 1D objects but it now seems that string theory contains all kinds of unique dimensional membranes (branes for short) all the way to even 8D branes in some theories. The good thing abotu string theory is its ability to tackle ideas such as pre-big bang and black holes because it loses infinities in a singularity (plank) and makes unified field theory work. One thing to remember is that there is absolutely no data for string theory. I consider it a hypothesis because, although it holds a lot of theoretical evidence, quantum field theory holds some data as well and so far no empirical test has been done to favor either one. However, in the long run I’m optimistic that string theory will take the prize. http://superstringtheory.com/ That's a good site for beginners. I recommend looking at their book's section.

I have a million and one things I'd like to say in responce to the above but this is not the correct forum to discuss this. So, I'll only adress your universe from nothing pertaining only to 'parallel universes.' Everything in a thread has to, in some way, pertain to the OP. ----- Lets say you can represent nothing as a symmetrical state, somewate like where a + b = 0. [One can imagine the idea that a positron and an electron, whereth meeting do not exist because their interaction on the universe is completely cancelled out. This is sometimes an argument for quantum wirdness because these particles can tunnel or borrow from its canceling force.] It’s been shown that the creation of a multiuniverse ex nihilio is a potential consequence of the potential existence of certain types of quantum fields in a dimension-less, get this: static(!) state without time. What we’ve found is that symmetrical states are inherently unstable when the net interaction is 0 (ie, a*b = 0). This nihil can be spontaneously broken in order to reduce it to the lower-energy, asymmetric, but more stable state, resulting in a chain of universes each experiencing asimilar inflationary periods corisponding to the multidimensional farmwork of the aftermath that is calculated purely on probability because of the inherent nature of nothing. Instead of having [a] sets of we have [a] haves of that correspond to cancel out the combined, usually positive force of the other (ab)/2 creating a well defined state of [a] number of universes that are intrinsically connected to each other to sum to nothing [where only the net of (ab)/2 is equal to b + the other [a] set of = 0]. So what happens is each symmetrical state corresponds to a opposite state in a higher dimensional construct that all work together to produce a net existence of 0 under the conditions of the initial dimintionless (which is a sub set of every set) nothingness. This is only allowed because the second state (multi universe) is exactly the same as the very fist state (nothing). The equations look very similar to those describing quantum interactions of elementary particles. The thing to remember is the paradox above where something = nothing. 1proton + 1positron = 0. (Spin and charge). One can then posit that such an interaction results in a release of energy (their gravity; ie, 2positrons) produce negative energy that can explain the existence of dark energy (left over energy from 0 state fluctuations). However, these two particles still exist because their combined interaction is still apparent and they still act freely and can ‘break the bond’. In the above multi universe model, however, everything = nothing. We are just small enough to feel the effects of individual reactions that sum nonexistence. Edit to add: So really we're actually part of nothing, and everything with God noware in site! Unless we represent God with an antiGod, in which case their interactions wouldnt effect us because they cancell out to produce absolutelly nothing; jsut like us. So one can say that to God, we dont exist!

I thought background radiation (which is blackbody isnt it) was measured using raidio recievers. How do you measure the background radiation? Is it degenerate?

I know! "For the love of Jebus, Dictionary.com is not a technical resource." Use webster.com

I was being sarcastic. This thread needs moved to Modern/Theoretical Physics.

I was being sarcastic. This thread needs moved to Modern/Theoretical Physics.

I've got a question: Why is this thread in the A&C forum?

I've got a question: Why is this thread in the A&C forum?

A quantum fluctuation IS the appearance of equal but opposite particles out of vacuum. http://www.sumeria.net/free/zpe1.html

A quantum fluctuation IS the appearance of equal but opposite particles out of vacuum. http://www.sumeria.net/free/zpe1.html

Space is dynamic. Instead of it being a big playing field, it becomes a filed that plays with everything else. And aether is kindof the opposite. In aether space was a 'background' or median.

Space is dynamic. Instead of it being a big playing field, it becomes a filed that plays with everything else. And aether is kindof the opposite. In aether space was a 'background' or median.

I've said this before: If you have to argue then argue about what is right, and not who is right. If one has a problem with a person, PM them or a mod, or something. I'd rather this stuff stays out of actual threads where there is some intellectual thought going on.

I've said this before: If you have to argue then argue about what is right, and not who is right. If one has a problem with a person, PM them or a mod, or something. I'd rather this stuff stays out of actual threads where there is some intellectual thought going on.

Even in quantum theory the gravity from a black hole could affect another location in space-time if it were bent.

Even in quantum theory the gravity from a black hole could affect another location in space-time if it were bent.

I think its more along the lines of ‘God does not play dice.’ I don see anything wrong with the universe being deterministic, however, this determination would be largely *undefined*. One thing to remember is that our universe probably ‘came from nothing’ and that statement alone offers a very strong argument for quantum views because quantum theories have proposed several valid models for "our universe from nothing" and I highly doubt MOND addresses anything before the big bang. One major point of quantum theory is that any observer has to be physically part of the system he is observing. If one’s interaction with the system were not accounted for then measuring it would be inaccurate. However, even though quantum mechanics doesnt "recognizes" this, it does fits quite well into the theory (uncertainty principle is one). Quantum mechanics is very subjective.

I think its more along the lines of ‘God does not play dice.’ I don see anything wrong with the universe being deterministic, however, this determination would be largely *undefined*. One thing to remember is that our universe probably ‘came from nothing’ and that statement alone offers a very strong argument for quantum views because quantum theories have proposed several valid models for "our universe from nothing" and I highly doubt MOND addresses anything before the big bang. One major point of quantum theory is that any observer has to be physically part of the system he is observing. If one’s interaction with the system were not accounted for then measuring it would be inaccurate. However, even though quantum mechanics doesnt "recognizes" this, it does fits quite well into the theory (uncertainty principle is one). Quantum mechanics is very subjective.

Dont argue about who is right; instead, argue about what is right. That's not what I call constructive criticism.

Dont argue about who is right; instead, argue about what is right. That's not what I call constructive criticism.

Aha: [Relativistic] Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). I dotn know much about the theory but here’re some links: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0204/0204521.pdf

Aha: [Relativistic] Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). I dotn know much about the theory but here’re some links: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0204/0204521.pdf