Kygron

In the real world a full self-reference is impossible (I can give my name but not my quantum state), if this were somehow incorporated into mathematics, would Godel's Incompleteness proof fail? It's based solely on self-reference, right? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf you aren't able to answer, do you know of somewhere or someone else I can ask?

I think it's important to remember perspective, especially with relativity. From the perspective of an outside observer, anything entering a black hole becomes part of it, end of discussion. There's really no inside or outside, just a value of mass. From the perspective of someone falling into a black hole, you don't even notice the horizon. Eventually you'll get stretched out, but before that there's no reason why anything that exists in normal space can't exist in "falling space", including other black holes.

Yes, yes, but I had assumed the acceleration decreased until it reached the current value, and now that paper I mentioned suggested that it decelerated for awhile and then re-accelerated to the current state. This latter explanation would not be so good for the model I presented in this thread. This discussion has mentioned first through fourth derivatives of the size of the universe (WRT time), and I believe we've all (including myself) been confused at which one we're talking about at any place in the discussion. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Hmm.... My model suggests that gravitational field strength was much greater during the inflationary period, but I seem to recall that inflation was suggested as a means of overcoming the gravity of the early universe. Looks like I may have to read the pre-90's section of that article after all.

Ugh! That was the first Wiki article I've seen where the dates are either pre-90's or the text is still in a "raw data" form: where ever it wasn't useless it was meaningless. No offense to you of course, that just means I've hit the boundary of current research/personal ability. A good thing for my ego and a bad thing for my attempted contribution to science.

At least with this post I understand what you're trying to ask for. Let me simplify this tremendously. Assume a black hole and an asteroid, the BH is fixed in position and the rest of the universe is empty. You're asking how the asteroid can enter the BH's influence and then leave again. The answer is that it never does! Gravity has no range, so the entire universe is under the influence of that black hole. Anywhere the asteroid is it will be obeying Kepler's laws. If it gets to earth, that will be because earth is on the orbit, not because it escaped from the orbit. Back to light, as swansont said light CAN accelerate, as long as it's not in the direction of motion. Light only has a fixed SPEED, not VELOCITY. I don't think Kepler's laws would apply to light, for this vary reason, so a simple "orbit" would appear far more like a parabola or hyperbola then an ellipse. Is that what you were trying to ask, or am I still misunderstanding you?

I searched a bit for info on the expansion rate. Best I've found was this paper that suggests in its introduction that the universe has had phases of deceleration. For my model this would mean that there have been times when the gravitational field strength becomes 0 (not negative, it's the absolute value of the acceleration rate). This would be easily visible in starlight so it kinda messes things up for me. Anyone know anything about possible deceleration? Or if there's been times of widespread supernova activity? Or if I'm lucky the rate at which gravity returns (second derivative of acceleration?) is gradual enough to let things continue just where they left off.

It is my hope, in fact, that a simple transform can convert the current models to this new one, it would save alot of work (or not transform them, but incorporate this) The difference is that I'm linking the gravitational force to the expansion rate of the real universe, the new model just demonstrates how to do the linking. I've heard people suggest that certain universal constants may have been different in the early universe. However, how do you decide what they might have been? Were they greater, lesser? Can you even measure them? I'm giving a way that you CAN measure one of them, the gravitational constant, because you can measure the expansion rate of the universe. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do the mathematics personally, but I have attempted to set this up so that they CAN be done and a definite "this works" or "this doesn't work" is achieved. (Some bad luck would get me: "this interferes with the calculation of the expansion rate.", or "we'd have to completely reprogram the computers to accept a variable G") I'm hoping someone will be able to suggest some problems I'm running into, or suggest someone to present this idea to who would be interested in doing some of the mathematics. If only I had some grad students at my beck and call....

If anyone can, please do! I don't have the mathematical physics background for it. I don't doubt that it is, or at least similar, I only wish to suggest an alternate viewpoint that has actual repercussions for current models. In that case I guess I should have picked a better title, oh well. No, it can be flat or anything else, the analogy is for illustration of concept. But isn't this the same problem we face with the current model? Sorry for the bad start, the main idea I was trying to convey is: An accelerating universe is the cause of Gravity and other "unexplained" phenomena. I'd love to see the effect this has on models of universal development, as I'm suggesting that G varies in space and time. (edit: but can still be calculated from non-gravitational data) Thanks for the thoughts, please continue!

Ok, I just thought of this this morning and I've got to try out the idea on some people. Here's WHY the masses are equal: The Setup (skip it if you know alot of physics): Sorry, my mind works with analogies, I'll use standard ones, first, we have the sheet of rubber that has balls of different masses placed in it. The masses bend the rubber (warp the fabric of space-time) and display gravitational effects. It's a bad analogy because it relies on your knowledge of "real" gravity to power the motion, but hold that thought for a minute and I'll remove "real" gravity before I finish up. Next, we extent that sheet of rubber until it models the whole universe as a balloon. This is the analogy that answers the question of "where's the center of the universe? There is none!" However, to continue to have that "real" gravity to power the model, we must have a massive object at the center of the balloon. Still with me? Now we move to Einstein's elevator where he bends light but doesn't know if he's on a planet or accelerating through space. We learn that gravitational force can be replaced by acceleration. Back to the model balloon, I get to fulfill my promise to remove the mass at the center. We exchange it for an acceleration, by inflating the balloon at an ever-increasing pace. The inertial masses on the surface resist the acceleration, causing dimples in the balloon, which produce a gravitational affect on the other masses. And wouldn't you know it... We live in a universe experiencing accelerated expansion!!! The Conclusion: The universe around us is expanding at an accelerating rate. The inertial masses resist this acceleration, warping space-time to produce gravity as they do. Gravitational strength is therefore produced by inertial mass and universal expansion. I'm using this model to explain other phenomena to myself (like dark matter), but I'll start simple and ask for your feedback. I certainly surprised myself this morning saying "but that would require the universe to be accelerating... wait, it IS!"

Well for the first part about having mechanisms for developing variation, I can say I was surprised... that it would even be questioned. Of course nature keeps us varied. Because... because... ok, I'm struggling with descriptions, it's just too common-sense for me. As for aging, would you mind sharing an example of why it's beneficial? I can think of one or two, but they're probly not significant enough.

Well, I must say, Smolin has given me more respect for string theory than I had previously. Not as it relates to physics, as I would come to the same conclusions with the info presented, but as a concept that's so powerfull that it's begun it's conquest of earth. You'd think it would take a charismatic flesh-and-blood human to become emperor of the world, but perhaps an abstract mathamatical concept will be the first to achieve that goal.

Yes, this is the way I thought it was. The book seemed to make a bigger deal about it in my mind. You say "there is no problem" and I would agree, assuming the rest of what you said is true and complete. So why then does Smolin rank it as the second biggest problem in physics, after unification of theorys??

I just read in Lee Smolin's new book about the problem with the observer in Quantum physics. He called it one one the 5 biggest problems, that you need an observer for it to work out right. Is this really a problem????? I had always assumed it was the way you explain a non-problematic but unique situation to a non-physisist. Would the whole theory really break down if we all "shut our eyes"?????

Reading the book now. I'll have more to say later, but for now one thing I'm happy with: For me personally it was the first time I heard a discription of guage theory and spontaneous symmetry breaking described in clear, modern, layman's terms. I believe it'll do wonders for my understanding of current physics.

Believe it or not, this is just what Martin meant when he said: And also what I alluded to in the OP, though I stopped short. Lucky you, there're physists working on your idea at this very moment!

nah, if mankind ever gets bored discovering, he'll switch to creating, and every new creation adds a dozen new possible discoveries to the universe.

In his rare arogant post: Rocket Man: I'll have to read it, but Einstien said GR had all the properties (but one) of the aether, so Einstein says I'm right fredrik: I'll take the philosophical role, we can let the physisists take the formalization role Martin: Yes, we have described precisely the same form. I'm glad that there are physisists formalizing "my" philosophy YT: That was my "old" theory, but you needed extra dimentions to get it to loop right and needed to string together so many of those circles that I figured I'd call it "string theory" and claim that those string people were working on "my" theory. Alot of good they did with it... hopefully Daniele Oriti's people will handle my current one better

I posted those two examples I promised earlier. What are particles made out of? Self-binding Photons (edit: is there a way to edit my earlier post to update it with these links?)

This is one of two examples I promised in this thread about how to make theories that advance physics. My goal here is not really to suggest this hypothesis (though it would be nice it it worked) but to show where I looked for it and how I developed it. As a layman, I'm not able to read the vast majority of the physics research, so this may have been suggested and rejected already, but I've not heard of it in common conversations, so it's either too boring/useless or it's just plain never been suggested. A look at the fundamentals of physics What better way than to look at the interaction of space (gravitation) and energy (Photons). Since energy creates gravitation, we're looking at a Self-Interacting Photon. Let's take this to extremes first. Say you're got a photon with 100 solar masses of energy. That photon is likely to (apon interaction with anything) spontaneaously collapse into a black hole, binding itself for eternity. Now say you've got a photon with nearly zero energy. It'll have a huge wavelength and be totaly unbound. This suggests a middle-of-the-road formation: a single photon with just enough energy to be bound in one wavelength around it's own center of gravity the same way a single electron wave is bound around a proton. The mathematics of stability will be far more complex, as this is a self-interacting model, but should be solvable. So how stable is it?? What size? What energy? If it is stable, it suggests a nice way to avoid singularities in black holes. The photons must orbit outside the event horizon, but inside the "light sphere" of a black hole. The horizon in the stable form is then likely to be a single point in space, and not enterable. Any matter entering a black hole would be converted to photons and orbit in this most stable configuration, thus the event horizon never forms, you go from neutron star to photon star (um... dark photon star?). There's plenty for discussion here. I'm personally extremely curious how stable this is, any why. Also the effects could be huge depending on how it all works out. Perhaps I've discovered the electron, or perhaps I've proven the singularity, if this was the last hope of abolishing it.

This is one of two examples I promised in this thread about how to make theories that advance physics. My goal here is not really to suggest this hypothesis (though it would be nice it it worked) but to show where I looked for it and how I developed it. As a layman, I'm not able to read the vast majority of the physics research, so this may have been suggested and rejected already, but I've not heard of it in common conversations, so it's either too boring/useless or it's just plain never been suggested. An un-abstraction of the standard model (it's long but really straight forward, feel free to speed-read) I've suggested looking for un-abstractions when looking for new theorys. An abstraction is like saying "this is a rock", when scientists know that it's really a collection of atoms and mostly empty space. Still, it works so well to call it a rock that people didn't know about atoms until modern times. Part of an un-abstraction then is when you say "this rock is really a collection of little pieces all stuck together". The other part is when you discover that those pieces are fundementally different from the rock itself. You have more than just "little rocks", but an entirely different system of physics to work with, one that can produce "magic" if your mindset remains that of the reality of the rock. A problem with this un-abstraction is that the physics can be so different that it may be difficult to figure out which properties belong to which abstraction level. A rock's shape and texture are it's own properties, it's mass is entirely a property of its atoms, and its solidity is actually a weak form of the solidity enherited from the atoms. An advantage to looking for an un-abstraction is that you start from scratch and eventually build a complete physics system, so working on the project can be very rewarding, and measurable progress can be made along the way. This is assuming, of course that an un-abstraction exists and that your progress is in the right direction. OK, on to the real suggestion. I've modeled this on the analogy to a tornado. Tornados are made entirely of air, or what the less scientifically minded might claim, "empty space". Air molecules are, however, moving very rapidly, and, with the right coordination, can throw cars into trees and get the local news to take pictures that look nothing like air. In physics our "empty space" is filled with virtual particles. These are constantly interacting with other particles, and even mediate the forces between them. That means that there are lots (and lots and lots) of then entering and exiting other particles all the time. So lets make our hypothesis that ordinaty matter is (and ordinary forces are) the coordinated behavior of virtual particles in the area. (Realize that I say "virtual particles" the same way I said "pieces of rock". Any attempt to formalize this should look for the actual "atoms" of this "rock". For simplicity in discussion let's continue to use the phrase "virtual particles" for now.) So what are some properties? Mass is inherited, angular momentum is inherited but somehow quantized. Position is abstracted, simply add virtual particles to the left and remove them from the right to make it move left. Charge is entirely abstracted, with the EM field behaving like a megaparticle: further coordination of the virtual particles. You'll note that black hole evaporation reminds us that virtual particles are entering and exiting black holes at all times. That leaves no ordinary matter immume. Well, that's the concept, feel free to discuss specifics. On last thing, QM probabilities become the probability that the highly complex, but non-probabilistic system will spontaneously coordinate at a certain time/place. Someone go tell Einstein that "God does not play dice"!

Here's my layman's version of physics development: Around the time of Newton, there really was no physics, so all that was nessesary for grand improvement was to record directly, completly observable phenomina. You write some equations, and voila!, prediction of everything. Between Newton and Einstein, people came to realise that if you build a more powerfull telescope, you have more available to observe, and therefore, more equations and better prediction. They began to put together complete models and to use them to discover more complete models. Einstien comes along, and is not afraid to question the models. He is able to take one major fundemental inconsistancy an build a new model out of it. If he was wrong about the speed of light, it would have been a simple matter to prove it, because he altered the fundamentals. With that success, he was able to complete general relativity, forcing the math to fit with a model he knew to be accurate. Now the string theorists, what have they done? Unfortunatly none of the above bold text. They took some existing mathamatical models, extended them to the realm of physics, and followed them along whatever logic route they hoped would show something testable. If they had succeeded, I would have said they found a more usefull perspective. Unfurtunatly, to determine if they're right, you'd need to discover a major fundemental inconsistancy with the current model. That, in my opinion, can be done just as easily by working with observables, as working with possible predictions of the model. Just as easily mind you, which means there's nothing wrong with string, it just happens that there's more to gain from the observations, like a major fundemental inconsistancy that happens to disprove string along with the standard model. So what can be done? String gained some momentum when it was discovered that many different perspectives could be combined into one, unfortunatly this was not usefull as all of them began as one originally. If there were other perspectives that also merge into string, then it may be worth persuing again, but from what I can see all the perspectives stand on their own, each waiting for that one perfect observation. Are there other possibilities? More powerfull observation works, but we're doing that (cosmic background radiation helped out). Testing fundamentals works (black hole research has come a long way), we should do more of that. There's one more I would like to suggest, and that's new abstraction levels. If stars are made out of atoms, and atoms are made out to particles, what are particles made out of? (NOT "strings" because that's a perspective, 1 particle = 1 string) I have a couple examples to show what I mean, but I'm out of time, so I'll leave them for later.

Excellent visuals. I doubt most people realize how complex a cell really is. Kinda blows away the "jello mold" concept of the cell. Too bad the naration is designed only for biology students. Pratically incomprehensible to us regular people. I think the visual simplicity deserves a middleschool-level audio track as well. that's where they'll find a larger audience of potencial biologists, instead of trying to re-invigorate the ones they've got. Anyway, a great video and worth the attempt to understand the audio. Thanks for the link!!

Does that mean that the universe is using this method to recycle its energy? Surely broken energy conservation laws would change the course of power generation technologies and... uh... ALL OF CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS!

My experience would suggest that there is no face that saved you... the mental processes involved in attempting to create a face of great importance end up activating too much of your brain and you wake up. Next time, don't think about who it is, ignore the person. Later in your dream you'll get a quick glance and by then your mind will have chosen a face to put there. That's right.... the best time to analyse a dream is when you're awake!

I wanted to reply to this older post briefly: I like the above definition. Like you said, there's only a "change of balance". If one environment appears often enough, whether through natural means or "damage" of any kind, some organism will adapt to it. You end up with forms of damage that are nessesary for certain life forms, but that doesn't make it any less damaging to the original inhabitants. If you're trying to find the point that change becomes damage, there isn't one. Instead, all change is damage. It's the damage that varies in scale and time frame. Don't ask IF damage was done, but how much and to what ends.