some questions from non-science guy

[godofgamblers]

Ok, I am a language student so admittedly don’t know anything about physics and I explain everything with colorful metaphors, etc., but over a few too many espressos this week, I starting reading up on mathematics… seems to me that numbers are simply ideas, and math is the grammar that ties them together. So it is akin to a language to describe the relation between things, and thus a man-made construct. That drew me into looking at physics; physics is something else. It is an instrument: the opposite of dogma, it is like a chisel in the hands of a great sculptor, chipping away to reveal a deeper truth. Rodin once said he did not create, but that the form was already there in the stone: he was simply freeing it. One theory does not build upon the next but chisels it away as Einstein did to Newton.

 

So in that spirit, I have written an espresso-soaked text with five points below for your consideration/critique. Please rip them apart in the name of my intellectual progress! Correct me, write in sarcastic comments and condescending asides in colored font as you please! Science and I will be the better for it.

 

1. Certain questions have always intrigued me. For instance, I have always thought it very strange that there was a connection between gravity and acceleration. Basically, you can duplicate the effects of gravity at high speeds. Why would this be? Recently, I chanced upon an answer when I was watching a program about black holes. It reiterated that space was intrinsically curved; then I realized that gravity is merely a property of curved space, not a force in itself. Therefore, this must be the connection between gravity and curved space: when you are going slowly, you don’t feel the curve. Much like a racetrack. When you travel slowly you don’t feel it but when you go fast suddenly you feel the curves a lot more. Thus, when you travel fast, the true nature of space ----that being a curved surface----makes its presence felt. So the effect of gravity does not come from the speed itself but from the surface you are traveling on. Is this right?

 

1. I always thought physicists were united in seeing the universe as basically an explosion that created all the matter and energy in the first place. thus, the universe can be seen as a hand grenade that has gone off and we are the shrapnel. However, as the matter gets more and more scattered, the energy slowly fades in a process we call entropy. However, I understand that now a deeper understanding of the universe has led us to the view that there is no entropy: what we are looking at is actually ‘harmonization’. All matter is not losing its energy but simply harmonizing with its surroundings. And the real question is ‘why were we out of harmony in the first place?”. If this is the case, then I think the next big breakthrough will be by looking at the universe as information. Every speck of matter (and anti-matterJ) is information. All is tending toward some type of harmony. If we can describe this on a quantum level, theoretically could we not build a computer to plot the past and the future?

 

1. I was reading about the work of Julain Bodard who seems to be saying that there is no time: there is only change. The fact that we perceive these changes from a certain perspective creates the illusion of the thing we call time. This all seems to be semantics to me: a series of changes in a particular place, well, that IS time, just calling it ‘change’ instead of ‘time’ does not advance things any. It’s just semantics. But his line of thinking did make me realize something: perhaps the key to understanding things is the concept of the twins paradox. I’m not sure how he would deal with this, but when you think about it, could the twins paradox be an example of ‘strange entanglement”? in other words, quantum principles but on a classical scale? They have coalesced into an independent system and follow their own time-space path. People are always for a way to reconcile quantum mechanics with classical physics: could this be a way?

 

1. What’s all this hokey guff about spooky entanglement anyway? Could it simply be a matter of scale? Take for example two guys throwing the pigskin around. Some guy on the sidelines calculates the velocity, time in the air, strength of the thrower etc. etc. Then suddenly the action turns to a pool table: now the rules of physics haven’t changed but suddenly we are in a finite world. a world of angles, where space is not that important. The guy on the sidelines is awestruck. None of his computations apply. It seems to call into question the whole system he has developed. If I were to pick up the cue ball and throw it away like a baseball, everyone would freak, right? Because it would be a complete paradigm shift (and would probably break some glasses). But the laws of physics haven’t changed. The guy on the sidelines has to come up with some new rules to describe the motion of the billiard balls… this dialectic doesn’t seem to shock us in everyday lives, yet the fact that there are two paradigms has flummoxed physicists… but it shouldn’t …see where I’m coming from?
2. So at the quantum level, quarks have virtually no weight so why are we so surprised when they do not obey the laws of gravity? In fact, they STILL DO, but they are just so close to being massless that it seems they defy the laws that traditionally govern all interactions (much like my pool table analogy). A cork floating down the river may seem to flout the law of gravity, but it doesn’t: it is just so light that OTHER FORCES COME TO LIGHT. Buoyancy, water tension, etc.

In the same way, with the imposing force of gravity nullified by the lack of mass, other laws come into sharp focus: harmonization, an innate predilection for unity, and who knows what else….

 

So we are not in a shrapnel analogy… we are actually in a Nirvana analogy. Everything is tending toward some type of celestial harmony…? Or am I hopelessly simplifying the problem?

 

 

 

[ajb]

Just a couple of points....

 

Certain questions have always intrigued me. For instance, I have always thought it very strange that there was a connection between gravity and acceleration. Basically, you can duplicate the effects of gravity at high speeds.... So the effect of gravity does not come from the speed itself but from the surface you are traveling on. Is this right?

It is not surprising that gravity has something to do with acceleration, all forces do.

 

I have no idea what you mean by 'duplicate the effects of gravity at high speeds'.

 

And yes, the modern view of gravity is as the curvature of space-time. Particles follow special paths on space-time known as geodesics when not influenced by other forces. These paths represent the shortest possible distance between two points on that path.

 

I always thought physicists were united in seeing the universe as basically an explosion that created all the matter and energy in the first place.

This is a drastic over simplification and one that leads to a lot of confusion. What we do know for sure is that the Universe is expanding, exactly what was the 'beginning' is not at all well understood.

 

I was reading about the work of Julain Bodard who seems to be saying that there is no time: there is only change. The fact that we perceive these changes from a certain perspective creates the illusion of the thing we call time.

What is the real difference?

 

What’s all this hokey guff about spooky entanglement anyway? Could it simply be a matter of scale?

Entanglement as far as we know works at all scales. Particles can 'know about each other' even if they are non-causally connected. However you cannot exchange information in this way and so no laws of physics are broken.

 

So at the quantum level, quarks have virtually no weight so why are we so surprised when they do not obey the laws of gravity?

I don't think that anyone has said that quarks do not interact gravitationally. However, the strong, electromagnetic and weak forces will usually dominate the interactions and so we can safely ignore gravity for many calculations.

[michel123456]

Ok, I am a language student so admittedly don’t know anything about physics and I explain everything with colorful metaphors, etc., but over a few too many espressos this week, I starting reading up on mathematics… seems to me that numbers are simply ideas, and math is the grammar that ties them together. So it is akin to a language to describe the relation between things, and thus a man-made construct. That drew me into looking at physics; physics is something else. It is an instrument: the opposite of dogma, it is like a chisel in the hands of a great sculptor, chipping away to reveal a deeper truth. Rodin once said he did not create, but that the form was already there in the stone: he was simply freeing it. One theory does not build upon the next but chisels it away as Einstein did to Newton.

That was Michelangelo

 

“In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”

Michelangelo quotes (Italian sculptor, painter, architect & poet,, 1475-1564).

 

[swansont]

Math is often called the language of physics (or of science), and yes, it is a language. In physics we ensure the story in that language is non-fiction by comparing the result of experiment with the theory the math gives us.

 

As an aside, it's better to post separate question in individual threads — easier to keep discussion straight when there are multiple responses.

 

I don't know where you read about "harmonization" but it sounds like a new-age description of entropy, which is still considered to be applicable. There's a lot to read about the big bang on this site (use the search function) and out on the internet, starting with the idea that it was not an explosion in space, like a grenade, but an explosion of space.

 

There's an ongoing discussion about change and time and I'm not going to get into it here. That concept is one of philosophy (metaphysics); science doesn't concern itself with questions of what things are (or questions of why) if they can't be answered by doing an experiment to test it. It's an investigation of how things behave.

 

Entanglement is not hokey, and is one of the behaviors that sets quantum mechanics apart from classical descriptions, which makes it seem very weird — we aren't used to seeing things work that way. Again, search and you can find threads discussing it. It has nothing to do with the twins paradox.

[Endy0816]

Ok, I am a language student so admittedly don’t know anything about physics and I explain everything with colorful metaphors, etc., but over a few too many espressos this week, I starting reading up on mathematics… seems to me that numbers are simply ideas, and math is the grammar that ties them together. So it is akin to a language to describe the relation between things, and thus a man-made construct. That drew me into looking at physics; physics is something else. It is an instrument: the opposite of dogma, it is like a chisel in the hands of a great sculptor, chipping away to reveal a deeper truth. Rodin once said he did not create, but that the form was already there in the stone: he was simply freeing it. One theory does not build upon the next but chisels it away as Einstein did to Newton.

 

So in that spirit, I have written an espresso-soaked text with five points below for your consideration/critique. Please rip them apart in the name of my intellectual progress! Correct me, write in sarcastic comments and condescending asides in colored font as you please! Science and I will be the better for it.

1. I always thought physicists were united in seeing the universe as basically an explosion that created all the matter and energy in the first place. thus, the universe can be seen as a hand grenade that has gone off and we are the shrapnel. However, as the matter gets more and more scattered, the energy slowly fades in a process we call entropy. However, I understand that now a deeper understanding of the universe has led us to the view that there is no entropy: what we are looking at is actually ‘harmonization’. All matter is not losing its energy but simply harmonizing with its surroundings. And the real question is ‘why were we out of harmony in the first place?”. If this is the case, then I think the next big breakthrough will be by looking at the universe as information. Every speck of matter (and anti-matterJ) is information. All is tending toward some type of harmony. If we can describe this on a quantum level, theoretically could we not build a computer to plot the past and the future?

In the same way, with the imposing force of gravity nullified by the lack of mass, other laws come into sharp focus: harmonization, an innate predilection for unity, and who knows what else….

 

So we are not in a shrapnel analogy… we are actually in a Nirvana analogy. Everything is tending toward some type of celestial harmony…? Or am I hopelessly simplifying the problem?

 

Well the physical state of maximum entropy is in one sense a very organized state. It is also a state without any life. Applying our purely human labels to Universe states can be problematic at best.

 

Honestly I'm personally doubtful that such notions as beginning and end are even applicable. May continually progress through different phases instead.

 

 

If we can describe this on a quantum level, theoretically could we not build a computer to plot the past and the future?

 

Not in real time or not at the same level of detail as the Universe itself.

 

"the map is not the territory" -Alfred Korzybski

[godofgamblers]

 

That was Michelangelo

 

 

Rodin said it too... perhaps he lifted from M?

 

Well the physical state of maximum entropy is in one sense a very organized state. It is also a state without any life. Applying our purely human labels to Universe states can be problematic at best.

 

Honestly I'm personally doubtful that such notions as beginning and end are even applicable. May continually progress through different phases instead.

 

 

Not in real time or not at the same level of detail as the Universe itself.

 

"the map is not the territory" -Alfred Korzybski

very apt quote! is there a theory at present time that views the universe in terms of information?

if information is never lost then even though the present is an effervescent present, the past and the future can be reconstructed...

Just a couple of points....

 

 

It is not surprising that gravity has something to do with acceleration, all forces do.

 

I have no idea what you mean by 'duplicate the effects of gravity at high speeds'.

 

And yes, the modern view of gravity is as the curvature of space-time. Particles follow special paths on space-time known as geodesics when not influenced by other forces. These paths represent the shortest possible distance between two points on that path.

 

 

This is a drastic over simplification and one that leads to a lot of confusion. What we do know for sure is that the Universe is expanding, exactly what was the 'beginning' is not at all well understood.

 

 

What is the real difference?

 

 

Entanglement as far as we know works at all scales. Particles can 'know about each other' even if they are non-causally connected. However you cannot exchange information in this way and so no laws of physics are broken.

 

 

I don't think that anyone has said that quarks do not interact gravitationally. However, the strong, electromagnetic and weak forces will usually dominate the interactions and so we can safely ignore gravity for many calculations.

thank you for your detailed reply. what i meant in my own clumsy way is that when you accelerate, it mimics gravity (G forces). this is from the curvature in space (?).

 

the hardest thing to apprehend is the notion of time. we move through space but simultaneously we are moving through time. when space is curved due to high speeds (near light) or due to heavy bodies of mass, the curvature is pronounced and the although the distance seems to be straight, it is actually curved... lengthened too you may say if you look at the orbits of the planets. But time instead of being lengthened is commensurately shortened. there seems to be a give and take between time and space.

Math is often called the language of physics (or of science), and yes, it is a language. In physics we ensure the story in that language is non-fiction by comparing the result of experiment with the theory the math gives us.

 

As an aside, it's better to post separate question in individual threads — easier to keep discussion straight when there are multiple responses.

 

I don't know where you read about "harmonization" but it sounds like a new-age description of entropy, which is still considered to be applicable. There's a lot to read about the big bang on this site (use the search function) and out on the internet, starting with the idea that it was not an explosion in space, like a grenade, but an explosion of space.

 

There's an ongoing discussion about change and time and I'm not going to get into it here. That concept is one of philosophy (metaphysics); science doesn't concern itself with questions of what things are (or questions of why) if they can't be answered by doing an experiment to test it. It's an investigation of how things behave.

 

Entanglement is not hokey, and is one of the behaviors that sets quantum mechanics apart from classical descriptions, which makes it seem very weird — we aren't used to seeing things work that way. Again, search and you can find threads discussing it. It has nothing to do with the twins paradox.

Harmonization has been proposed in the field of quantum information. it has been advanced that on a quantum level, molecules are not losing energy but simply 'harmonizing' with ones around them thus leading to the cup of coffee eventually going cold.

 

as for the twins paradox.... couldn't we say that each twin has become 'entangled' in his own timeline? entanglement may be a guiding principle in this sense, not just on the quantum level...just an idea.

[swansont]

Harmonization has been proposed in the field of quantum information. it has been advanced that on a quantum level, molecules are not losing energy but simply 'harmonizing' with ones around them thus leading to the cup of coffee eventually going cold.

 

as for the twins paradox.... couldn't we say that each twin has become 'entangled' in his own timeline? entanglement may be a guiding principle in this sense, not just on the quantum level...just an idea.

 

I've not run across the term harmonization as a replacement for entropy, and your description runs counter to accepted physics. A cup of coffee can't go cold unless the molecules lose energy. Temperature is a measure of energy.

 

As for entanglement, still no. It has a specific meaning, and the twins paradox doesn't qualify.

[nullus]

 

A cup of coffee can't go cold unless the molecules lose energy. Temperature is a measure of energy.

 

are you talking about dark energy allso?

can you write my just simple formula of negative, positive and matter energy in once???

swan come here and explain yourself !

[swansont]

are you talking about dark energy allso?

 

No. Why would I be? Nobody has brought up that topic.

[Mordred]

In terms of cosmology and thermodynamics. All forms of energy density and particles are included in the calculations. The FLRW metric includes the ideal gas law relations along with the appropriate equations of state

Here is the related articles my signature contains more

 

Training (textbook Style Articles)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Though if you can afford a textbook the best book on modelling the universe as per the individual contributors in terms of their individual energy contributions is "Introductory to Cosmology" by Barbera Ryden. She shows numerous toy models of single as well as multi component universes with the FLRW metric as well as having one of the better breakdowns of universe geometry I have ever read (close to 30,textbooks).

 

My universe geometry article is based mainly on her work.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

Page 2 is here

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

PS the link on thermodynamics of the Early universe is essentially the same as per chapter 3 as Scott Dodelsons "Modern Cosmology"

However the book by Linde is a free full length textbook enjoy its based on the SO(5) particle physics model. Now the strongest interest is the SO(10) MSM minimal standard model which is the SO(5) with the Higgs added in the SO(10) lie group

Edited December 28, 2014 by Mordred

[godofgamblers]

Very true, my friend. the temperature of the coffee decreases. But how does it happen on a quantum level? Tests have shown that a mmolecule from the hot coffee comes into contact with outside molecules and for some reason harmonizes with them, taking on all their qualities, including (the lower) temperature.

 

This is quite a comforting thought: the universe is not destined for dissolution and heat death, but is tending toward harmony.

[ajb]

Harmonize = approach thermal equilibrium ?

[swansont]

Very true, my friend. the temperature of the coffee decreases. But how does it happen on a quantum level? Tests have shown that a mmolecule from the hot coffee comes into contact with outside molecules and for some reason harmonizes with them, taking on all their qualities, including (the lower) temperature.

 

This is quite a comforting thought: the universe is not destined for dissolution and heat death, but is tending toward harmony.

 

There's nothing wrong with the classical description, and nothing is added to it by changing the name to harmonization. Not to mention that temperature is not a property of an individual molecule.

 

Do you have a citation where this terminology is used?

[godofgamblers]

I think it's thermal equilibrium but also more than that. It adopts all the characteristics of the outside molecules that it comes into contat with.

 

I'll try and find a link.

"Now, physicists are unmasking a more fundamental source for the arrow of time: Energy disperses and objects equilibrate, they say, because of the way elementary particles become intertwined when they interact a strange effect called quantum entanglement.

 

Finally, we can understand why a cup of coffee equilibrates in a room, said Tony Short, a quantum physicist at Bristol. Entanglement builds up between the state of the coffee cup and the state of the room.

 

Popescu, Short and their colleagues Noah Linden and Andreas Winter reported the discovery in the journal Physical Review E in 2009, arguing that objects reach equilibrium, or a state of uniform energy distribution, within an infinite amount of time by becoming quantum mechanically entangled with their surroundings. Similar results by Peter Reimann of the University of Bielefeld in Germany appeared several months earlier in Physical Review Letters. Short and a collaborator strengthened the argument in 2012 by showing that entanglement causes equilibration within a finite time."

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/

[swansont]

No mention of harmony in there. From the quantum information description, that the information becomes more diffuse as particles become entangled, it doesn't sound like harmony would even be a good term to use.

[godofgamblers]

Yes sorry not harmony, equilibrium.

So let's go back to the equivalence I make between entanglement and the twins paradox; perhaps it is clearer now that I have explained 'equilibrium' and its link to entanglement.

 

The twin (let's say on Jupiter) is 'entangled 'in a timeline on Jupiter. He is connected with his surroundings and they all experience their own time which is different from his twin on earth who is 'entangled' in a different continuum.

 

The coffee molecule shows this same quality, as it takes on the characteristics of its new peers when it comes into contact with them.

 

"In the new story of the arrow of time, it is the loss of information through quantum entanglement, rather than a subjective lack of human knowledge, that drives a cup of coffee into equilibrium with the surrounding room. The room eventually equilibrates with the outside environment, and the environment drifts even more slowly toward equilibrium with the rest of the universe. The giants of 19th century thermodynamics viewed this process as a gradual dispersal of energy that increases the overall entropy, or disorder, of the universe. Today, Lloyd, Popescu and others in their field see the arrow of time differently.'

 

Do you see the parallel? Is it valid?

[swansont]

Entanglement happens with quantum states. Time is not a quantum state.

[godofgamblers]

I see.

[godofgamblers]

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that these supposedly 'bizarre' quantum states are not so bizarre and that in fact we experience things in the so-called classical world of physics.

 

You don't accept the equivalence of the twins paradox with entanglement, and I incline to your superior understanding and thus only mmaintain it as an example of a type of 'equilbrium' in time that we can experience. The first twin becomes 'entangled' in the timeline he is in and thus experiences this time while the second twin is entangled in a different timeline. This is sort of quantum 'strangeness' in the classical world.

 

Another example is the slit experiment whereby a particle appears to sometimes to be a particle and sometimes to be a wave depending on who is observing it, and the observation seems to influence what one is seeing.

 

But I can give an example in classical physics just as strange as the double slit experiment. If you see an asteroid orbiting the earth, you see it making a circle in orbit. However, if you are on the asteroid, you will see it continuously hurtling directly toward the earth, but never reaching it. In the same way, a baseball thrown around the earth would feel it was going in a straight line but an observer would see a curved path.

 

The reality of what you see depends on where you are. Is the asteroid going in a straight line or in a circle? Both, depending on your point of reference.

 

The asteroid cannot logically be going in a curved line and a straight line at the same time and yet it is. The asteroid is somewhere in the curved space of the orbit like a particle in a wave....

 

Note that I am not suggesting that the asteroid example has anything to do with the wave/particle example: the point I am trying to make in my own clumsy way is that the so-called 'freaky' results of quantum physics can find equivalents in classical physics that are just as strange.

[godofgamblers]

Speaking of strangeness, I am writing to you from indonesia. Another plane has gone missing! If you wrote this in a film script no one would believe it. Reality I guess unlike fiction is not concerned with what appears plausible but what is possible. And anything is possible.