time travel and wormholes

[CPL.Luke]

also the OP mentioned the kerr solution, which is general relativiies solution to a rotatiting black hole, the solution actually demonstrates that a rotating black hole actually has a toroidal event horizon, along with a ring like singularity. Also if I recall correctly there was another solution to a specific type of black hole which demonstrated two event horizons

[JackMuChabas]

Given the variable of time and it's constancy to the speed of light we can determine the values of a quantuum for in as much the quantuum is a recollect value given the super unknown values of the periatal vanquish. The periatal vanquish squishes on a super bend in a given sub conjugated relapse motion. This relapse is a product of maximized love and defrunciated and pandered love bomb in the idion of superstring theory. Sonarrance is a given value and high placate given the love connection and it's sub mastered states.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm I have a feeling that jackmuchabas just used babelfish.

 

jackmuchabas what language you speak?

 

if babelfish doesn't like that

 

jackmuchabas what language do you speak?

[iNow]

jackmuchabas what language you speak?

 

Reading the posts they've made during the past hour, I'd suggest it's:

 

Vocabularial Obfuscation of the Intentional and Self-righteous variety, complete with superiority complex.

[someguy]

i think he's just ****ing with us talking physics geek jibberish. he probably thinks he's hillarious. i think only like asian languages would mess up translation so badly but his grammar is too good.

 

 

i've often considered myself that light must be the most basic energy. why did you start thinking this? and how do you explain that light becomes matter at some point? how do you go from light to mass? or if we and everything is, in the end, made of light then you would pretty much need to say that the first steps of the big bang would need for the big bang to be consisting of only light, no? and if that is the case then why would it hold together?

[JackMuChabas]

That made perfect sense to me. I speak English fluently and no Portugeuse is my first language not counting the superunknown dissected bimodel interference love bomb. Yes I speak in riddles.

[BenTheMan]

What Ben will also try to conceal, is that I'm in line with Einstein in many many respects. That's why the model I offer is called RELATIVITY+. But perhaps he's changing tack and lining things up to tell you that Einstein was a crackpot too.

 

I won't try to conceal it---Einstein stopped doing physics after he wrote down general relativity. He didn't even KNOW about the weak force because he more or less ignored what other people were doing. We now know that describing things geometrically doesn't work all that well (at least, in the way that Einstein tried to do things).

 

So yes. Many formerly great scientists become slaves to their egos. The things that make them great sometimes bite them in their asses. I find it extremely odd that there is this Einstein worship cult---people who cite Einstein just because he was Einstein. I'm sure that he would feel the same way.

 

Guys, listen up: he's a paid String Theorist who goes round forums rubbishing the competition and being abusive. Since String Theory makes no predictions it is not actually a theory. Moreover it no longer involves strings. And BenTheMan is just a dishonest pseudoscientist quack.

 

So the fact that I am actually paid to do science somehow makes me less of an authority on the subject? The fact that I have spent a significant amount of time working to understand physics at a fundamental level means that I have no place to comment here?

 

Let me ask you Farsight---do you have your housekeepers do your dental work?

 

And since when are your bullshit essays ("Do you think you understand time? You don't. I do. It's easy if you tihnk like me...") are competition to string theory?

 

Oh well. Have at it. I've said all that I can say to those who may not know any better.

[Farsight]

More seriously, I really doubt you understand the subtleties here. Get yourself a good text, and read about gauge theory - no, I don't understand it, if you must know (but you will, right? as you are cleverer than the rest of us). There you will learn about gauge invariance, and how it relates to Lorentz invariance.

 

Maybe you’re right, Xeres. I have read about gauge theory, but I struggle to explain it in plain English, and that’s the acid test of understanding. I don’t have the formal education, and I find myself pausing on some aspect of the presentation, such as “particle” and “spacetime”. Do I understand it? Maybe the gist. I could tell you that the electromagnetic field exhibits gauge invariance because we can measure what we call an electric field, and after applying a continuous transformation to our point of measure, we then measure what we call a magnetic field. But we recognise that the two things are one and the same, and consider the theory of electromagnetism to be a gauge theory.

 

Do I understand the subtleties of it? Probably not. But I do understand some other subtleties, I do have insights. The toy model I’ve developed is geometrical. It explains electromagnetism and other things in terms of fundamental geometry. I don’t know where that leaves gauge theory. The important thing to note is that people who do have the formal education and are at home with the mathematical terminology cannot actually explain in plain English why this geometrical model is wrong. Especially since they're too arrogant to actually read it.

[CPL.Luke]

without math there is no way to show that the model is wrong, for instance say that I have a box, with some device pumping air into it, and one device consuming the air, will there be ir in the box when I finally open it?

 

the problem is that i could argue that the air is pumped in faster than it is consumed, or that it is being consumed faster than it burns, but in the end I can't prove that this is true one way or the other.

 

however if I have math I can explicitly show what state the box is in. While being a blatant strawman I hope this illuminates you as to the difficulties of arguing a theory without math.

[Farsight]

I've often considered myself that light must be the most basic energy. why did you start thinking this? and how do you explain that light becomes matter at some point? how do you go from light to mass?

 

I started thinking this about when I was trying to describe a basic concept in plain English, writing MASS EXPLAINED. You look at pair production and see a photon being chopped/converted into an electron and a positron. Then you look at annihilation and see the electron and positron combining to give photons. What seems pretty logical, that the electron is a particular configuration of a photon.

 

or if we and everything is, in the end, made of light then you would pretty much need to say that the first steps of the big bang would need for the big bang to be consisting of only light, no? and if that is the case then why would it hold together?

 

LOL, let there be light does have a nice ring to it. But this is a tricky one. I couldn't say it's the very first step, and I'm not clear what you mean by hold together. I've maybe got an understanding of why the universe adds up to nothing and why we see the increasing expansion. But I can't explain how you start from absolutely nothing and create a universe. People talk about a Quantum Fluctuation but IMHO it doesn't really tell us anything.

 

without math there is no way to show that the model is wrong, for instance say that I have a box, with some device pumping air into it, and one device consuming the air, will there be ir in the box when I finally open it?

 

the problem is that i could argue that the air is pumped in faster than it is consumed, or that it is being consumed faster than it burns, but in the end I can't prove that this is true one way or the other.

 

however if I have math I can explicitly show what state the box is in. While being a blatant strawman I hope this illuminates you as to the difficulties of arguing a theory without math.

 

Fair enough, Luke. I'll have to find somebody to work with on this.

[BenTheMan]

I started thinking this about when I was trying to describe a basic concept in plain English, writing MASS EXPLAINED. You look at pair production and see a photon being chopped/converted into an electron and a positron. Then you look at annihilation and see the electron and positron combining to give photons. What seems pretty logical, that the electron is a particular configuration of a photon.

 

Ah yes. This is much easier to say than to prove.

 

What about quarks. Quarks can anihilate into photons. You would say that quarks are made of photons. But what about QCD interactions which give quarks to gluons? Are quarks made of gluons? (No.) How can quarks be made of photons AND gluons? Well, could gluons be made of photons? Absolutely not. Gluons carry color charge, and photons are color neutral. If photons were NOT color neutral, QCD would be spontaneously broken and there would be no neuclei, and (sadly, for some I guess) no Farsight.

 

What about electroweak processes where electrons go to W and Z bosons? How can electrons be made of both W and Z bosons AND photons? And how do you give mass to the photons? We know quite well that the photons we observe are massless (the experimental limit is something like 10^-38 times the electron mass). What about processes like

 

[math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/math]

 

and

 

[math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma[/math]

 

and

 

[math]\pi^0\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma[/math]

 

where [math]\gamma[/math] is a photon? How can neutral pions be made of two OR three OR four photons?

 

So, yes, Farsight. I am a professional physicist. I have wasted my life learning how to distinguish bullshit (relativity -) from real physics. I have wasted my life learning about gauge invariance, Lorentz symmetries and the standard model. I spend my time trashing the ``competition'' because I am somehow deep down scared that you have stumbled onto the right answer and posted it on the internet. In the words of the late, great, Kurt Vonnegut, ``So it goes''.

[Farsight]

Blah blah blah. I haven't nailed the Standard Model, so Ben says don't listen and don't discuss. On a discussion forum. Duh. He does go round trashing the competition, here's where he's trying to trash LQG, but Martin picked him up:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27674

 

I do feel some accord with LQG. For example, see the end of paragraph 1 on page 105 of Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. Also see this paper Quantum Spacetime: what do we know? by Carlo Rovelli at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903045. Here's a paragraph from page 13:

 

"In quantum gravity, I see no reason to expect a fundamental notion of time to play any role. But the nostalgia for time is hard to resist. For technical as well as for emotional reasons. Many approaches to quantum gravity go out of their way to reinsert in the theory what GR is teaching us we should abandon: a preferred time. The time “along which” things happen is a notion which makes sense only for describing a limited regime of reality. This notion is meaningless already in the (gauge invariant) general relativistic classical dynamics of the gravitational field. At the fundamental level, we should, simply, forget time".

[someguy]

anything with mass cannot be a piece of something without it. the opposite is more plausible but still incomplete.

 

I started thinking this about when I was trying to describe a basic concept in plain English, writing MASS EXPLAINED. You look at pair production and see a photon being chopped/converted into an electron and a positron. Then you look at annihilation and see the electron and positron combining to give photons. What seems pretty logical, that the electron is a particular configuration of a photon.

 

 

 

LOL, let there be light does have a nice ring to it. But this is a tricky one. I couldn't say it's the very first step, and I'm not clear what you mean by hold together. I've maybe got an understanding of why the universe adds up to nothing and why we see the increasing expansion. But I can't explain how you start from absolutely nothing and create a universe. People talk about a Quantum Fluctuation but IMHO it doesn't really tell us anything.

 

 

well the big bang started as maximum density energy. you can only achieve that with mass or gravity. the entire mass of the universe. if all matter is made of light, then light needed to come first. because in order to reach maximum density you would need to separate all the universe into its most basic element. it would be more concentrated energy than matter. if you propose that light is this most basic element of which matter and mass is made of, i think you would need to explain how mass can be produced by light, and also how the big bang managed to compress itself to maximum density if it was composed purely of massless light, the most elemental energy by your hypothesis, if i understand correctly.

 

i cannot explain how the universe could just pop into existence either. personally i believe this is not possible. I think that either the universe will one day recompress, which the scientific community seems to have discovered cannot be possible, or perhaps the universe is the 3d version of what a line is to a circle and the universe could expand continuously and still comeback to itself. in both of these cases you need not answer where the universe came from. it just is there and goes in and out of cycles. starting time and ending time.

[Farsight]

well the big bang started as maximum density energy. you can only achieve that with mass or gravity. the entire mass of the universe. if all matter is made of light, then light needed to come first. because in order to reach maximum density you would need to separate all the universe into its most basic element. it would be more concentrated energy than matter. if you propose that light is this most basic element of which matter and mass is made of, i think you would need to explain how mass can be produced by light

 

Just read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

In pair production a gamma photon, which is light, is converted into an electron and a positron. They're matter, OK we call the positron antimatter. But they've both got mass.

 

and also how the big bang managed to compress itself to maximum density if it was composed purely of massless light, the most elemental energy by your hypothesis, if i understand correctly.

I'm not fond of the word density, because that's a term usually associated with matter, which you can create using light. IMHO it's better to think in terms of pressure. But as to how this pressure was created, I don't know.

 

i cannot explain how the universe could just pop into existence either. personally i believe this is not possible. either the universe will one day recompress, which the scientific community seems to have discovered cannot be possible, or perhaps the universe is the 3d version of what a line is to a circle and the universe could expand and still comeback to itself. in both of these cases you need not answer where the universe came from. it just is there and goes in and out of cycles. starting time and ending time.

 

I don't know where you got that from, someguy. It isn't right. The universe is what you call "flat". It doesn't curve round on itself. The trouble is that when I explain things, people who can't get annoyed and give me a hard time. And we are getting a little off topic so I'll leave it there.

[someguy]

Just read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

In pair production a gamma photon, which is light, is converted into an electron and a positron. They're matter, OK we call the positron antimatter. But they've both got mass.

 

I'm not fond of the word density, because that's a term usually associated with matter, which you can create using light. IMHO it's better to think in terms of pressure. But as to how this pressure was created, I don't know.

 

 

 

I don't know where you got that from, someguy. It isn't right. The universe is what you call "flat". It doesn't curve round on itself. The trouble is that when I explain things, people who can't get annoyed and give me a hard time. And we are getting a little off topic so I'll leave it there.

 

the earth was once flat.

 

I cannot measure or see the universe's shape. nor can you. i am certain it is not flat. flat would be 2 dimensions. three if you count time. if the universe began as a big bang i think it would need to have been perfectly spherical. once it explodes it would need to go in all directions.

 

i feel that saying the universe emerged out of nothing is too impossible to be true, therefore there must be some other solution, so i look for some plausible ones. time began at the big bang. how do you suppose something could come into motion while existing in a timeless environment? well.. time is dependent on motion of things. if the big bang consisted of completely motionless energy (so i think it couldn't really spin either, thus must be spherical) then there was no time at the beggining of the universe. but if nothing is moving at the big bang, how could you cause it to all of a sudden start moving? well.. the only answer i could come up with is that the universe is kind of like throwing a ball up in the air. for a split second the ball is stationary. so then if the universe crunches or something similar and returns to a big bang state then you could have a "split second" where the universe is completely still and then bounces into explosion again. this way time can start, stop, and you don't need to look for where the universe came from.

 

you still have not explained how light created mass. you should know, particularly if you have written a document such as mass explained. if you understand mass and how it is produced then you must also know how light produces it. if you do not, then there is a flaw in at least one of your hypotheses.

 

your pair production thing does not seem to me at all conclusive as to showing me that particles are made of light. in the way you seem to be saying. all the universe is energy, all the universe is made of energy. so you can just as easily say that light is made of tomatoes, certain parts of the tomatoes anyways. it's just the process would end up be more complicated to show than just pair production. therefore that light behaves this way does not show that light is quite as fundamental as i think you are saying it is. it could be any energy. it does not make it fundamental. when you get that small though there are much fewer types of energy things could be. certainly light is one of them. you don't need to know about pair production to know that. everybody who has studied the subject knows about pair production and how it works, and what happens. you are saying something much deeper than that. and for me, right now you are missing certain vital pieces that would be needed to convince me. none of which i should be able to find in wikipedia.

 

I'm not saying necessarily that you are wrong about light being so fundamental, i just think you haven't proven it yet.

[Farsight]

Note that "flat" means it doesn't mean flat like a pancake. Read this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

 

And do read that pair production link and understand that you really can create matter out of light. I'm sorry, but talking further on mass is getting too far off topic.

[someguy]

why do you care so much about going off topic? i understand that all matter is made of energy and light is energy so i already knew that you can make anything out of light and anything can make light. the universe is all the same substance. you have alot more work to do before you make the claims you made i think. my questions should have been easy for you to answer.

 

A high-flying balloon that soared over Antarctica has answered one of cosmology's greatest questions by revealing that the fabric of the Universe is "flat".

 

the fabric of the universe not the universe itself.

 

 

At that time, and for a short while after, space was curved because it was confined in a small region. However, the Universe's expansion has been so great that space has now been stretched to the point that it is essentially flat.

[Farsight]

It's impolite, and I like to think of myself as a responsible poster.

[iNow]

To Farsight's point, some off topic discussions are required when providing detail on the discussion at hand. However, they should be brought back into the scope of the thread quickly. If these diversions from the primary topic cascade into further and further tangents, the appropriate choice is to open a new thread for these separate discussions.

 

 

Posting Etiquette or Netiquette. It's like Kleenex versus tissue paper.

[BenTheMan]

and I like to think of myself as a responsible poster.

 

What a joke.

 

Farsight---

 

IF you would actually read that thread, you would see that I presented an argument invented by someone else as a point for discussion. In several places in that thread, I admitted that I didn't understand other approaches to Quantum Gravity. And from what Martin says, at least, Lee Smolin is pretty far disconnected from the field of Quantum Gravity.

 

As for Lee Smolin's quote, it is clear (to me at least) that he is not advocating the abandonment of the Lorentz symmetry in the low energy effective field theory. He is simply saying that the Lorentz symmetry is not fundamental in Quanum Gravity. I'm not sure that this is entirely unexpected---Quantum Gravity, in general, does not respect ANY symmetries (just look at Hawking Radiation, if you don't believe me). Either way, I disagree with him, as most physicsts probably do.

 

Blah blah blah. I haven't nailed the Standard Model, so Ben says don't listen and don't discuss.

 

Well discuss then I showed you how your theory fails, and it is up to you to show me how it doesn't. If you can't do that, then you lose. This is how science is done, whether you like it or not.

 

anything with mass cannot be a piece of something without it. the opposite is more plausible but still incomplete.

 

someguy---this is almost correct. Mass at a quantum level comes from a coupling to the higgs field. Photons are massless, so they don't couple to the higgs field. Electrons have mass, so they couple to the higs field. Farsight would have to explain why electrons have mass and photons don't, vis a vis the higgs mechanism.

[someguy]

I don't think this would be a suitable explanation, but, i was once thinking that light may be the most fundamental energy, or rather was somehow instrumental in creating mass. I haven't completely thought it through, and i can't figure exactly why going faster would increase mass according to this way of thinking but just for kicks here it is anyways.

 

apparently using light it is possible to "stir" space-time. perhaps this is stirring the higgs field also, i'm not really familiar with the higgs field. but, if you could make a whirlpool of space-time using light, and then spin the whirlpool in the other direction, (using light again) you might end up with a spherish chunk of space-time you could keep doing this in multiple directions. then you may end up with a particle typed thing. it would have mass because essentially what you would have done is used the fabric of space-time to construct the particle and therefore you would have bent space-time and kind of stretched it, as it is the material you used to make your particle, and you could possibly end up with exactly the type of warping of space-time that gravity causes.

 

as for momentum though, this model is pretty weak, but, maybe all of space-time is capable of momentum, the same way light is capable of momentum even though it is massless, and concentrating the fabric of space-time allows for momentum to be observed in the way you would use it in relation to matter as opposed to light. if that makes any sense at all.

[BenTheMan]

This seems unlikely. I don't knwo what it means to ``stir space-time'', and I don't know if anything like this is possible.

 

There is nothing special about light---it is just a particle that lives on space-time, and mediates the electromagnetic force.

[CPL.Luke]

bentheman couldn't you interpret the frame dragging of general relativity to be stirring space-time? I'm not advocating the idea from above ohwever it does make sense that the higgs field should be attached to gravity in some way, because either the equivalence principle must be innaccurate or the higgs field is responsible for giving something a gravitational "charge", as I can't think of any other mechanisms in the standard model responsible for giving a strong,weak, or electromagnetic charge to those fields, it would be odd to have this effect be present only for gravitational charge and not for any of the other fields.

[BenTheMan]

Well, the correlation between mass at a macroscopic level and mass at a quantum level is not understood at all, as far as I know. One could just as well say that gravity should be attached to the higgs field in some way:)

 

As for frame dragging, I don't think that this could be classified as ``stirring'' space-time, and it certainly can't make particles in the manner someguy was proposing. But I don't know for sure---I am not an expert in these things.

 

When someone who studies particle physics says ``mass'', and someone who studies general relativity say ``mass'', it may be that they aren't even talking about the same thing. In terms of particle physics, mass is just a dimensionful parameter in the lagrangian. The higgs mechanism says that everything in the SM couples to a particle which takes on a classical expectation value that isn't zero. The way that particles couple to that field determines what the mass parameter is in the lagrangian. And we don't understand why some particles couple to the higgs field so weakly (the electron, which has a mass of 511keV) and some couple so stronly (the top quark, which has a mass of 175,000,000 keV).

 

There are a lot of interesting open questions in physics, waiting for smart people to solve them.

[someguy]

what i meant by stir came from what i saw on discovery one time. a physicist was trying to achieve sending some kind of particle or something like that back in time. he said he was attempting to achieve this by using a device that looked just like the spring of a car suspension, though instead of metal forming the spring it was a network of lasers. he proposed that by running the lasers he would be able to stir space time, distort it, in some way as to be able to send these particles or whatever back in time. he equated it to having water in a bowl, like if you would stir the water on the outside of the bowl and a funnel would form.