exploding at the sound of logic

[hoola]

Why inflation? If the mathematical BB contents expressed were a complete set of all derivations possible, then the matter/anti matter destruction issue is further amplified by the failures of the Imaginary Number information, such as sq.rt.- 2, and etc. This failure was resulting from the underlying logic of our classic world not supporting this family of numbers, as they are obviously illogical. The IN file calculations ended in the first 3 dimensions (classical world), yet continue in the remaining dimensions, four thru ten (quantum world), as the quantum world has it's own, to be determined "logic". The duration of the inflation would have been limited to the time it took for this lack of support by classical logic. Nothing happens instantly in classical world, so some time for this would have had to occur. This inflation interval was the first and last large-scale quantum expression in this universe. These IN driven calculations go on in the other 7 dimensions, and are responsible for the dark energy/virtual particles phenomena. The classical world has a formed flawless logic, so our standard model is fixed. The quantum world itself is still calculating as it is still in the process of determining it's own logic. These calculations will go on forever if there is no logic to be derived from extensions of the equations, the expansion will go on forever, and space should remain intact and consistent, with rare exceptions, such as at event horizons...yet another reason to like silly things...

Edited December 21, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

 

Why inflation?

 

It is hypothesized (but not generally accepted) to solve the "horizon problem".

 

 

... then the matter/anti matter destruction issue ...

 

There was no matter and antimatter during the inflationary period.

 

As for the rest of your post, all I can say is ... Huh?

[hoola]

ok then, the expression reaction happened prior to the matter/anti matter reactions...

what I am saying is that the BB was a complete math expression, including Imaginary Numbers. The numbers are extensions of logical derived mathematics, yet themselves are not logical entities....hence the brief large scale quantum expression (inflation) in the classical universe...then becoming restricted to hidden dimensions, and why they are useful in quantum calculations...

Edited December 22, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

And your evidence for this is ...

[hoola]

one piece of evidence is what i have read about the faster than C proposed inflation speed, almost a "quantum" jump in geometric space, the horizon problem issue ( if that is what you mean...)

another bit of evidence is the observations of virtual particles and dark energy having no apparent source...

and this model explains in a crude way, how this could be happening, and as john wheeler asked..."why the quantum?"

If virtual particles annialations have a left-over energy, perhaps as a sort of "quantum nuetrino" being expelled, these "quetrinos" could be the dark energy.

as each equation fails in the pursuit of a QM logic, the cessation of the data stream is a reaction that forms the quetrino... inflating space in a small way, just as the large scale failures inflated space in a large way, at the BB...

Edited December 22, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

one piece of evidence is what i have read about the faster than C proposed inflation speed,

 

Sigh. Expansion is not a speed but a scaling. Which means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance (from basic arithmetic). There are now, and always have been, points that are sufficiently far apart that they are separating at greater than the speed of light.

 

 

and this model explains in a crude way ...

 

I don't see how you have a model or how it can explain anything.

 

 

as each equation fails ...

 

What equations? And how are they "failing"?

[hoola]

"expansion is not a speed..." I am referring to the inflation period of the BB era, when the universe grew from plank size to an orange size in a quantized manner. "I don't see how this model..." It divides the classic world and quantum worlds and gives a rational basis for that division. "what equations?..... There is a realm of imaginary numbers, which has functional inter-action value (equations), and stem from a logic other than the one that rules conventional math. "And how are they failing?" They fail to be expressed in the first 3 dimensions, as our logic cannot supply a result to the question...what is the sq.rt of -2? Our mathematics can pose the question, but not the answer, hence a sort of flying pig is imagined (the equation), but how the feat is accomplished, cannot. (the failing)

"there are now, (yes).............and always have been, (no)........ points that have been separating faster than the speed of light"

Edited December 22, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

"expansion is not a speed..." I am referring to the inflation period of the BB era, when the universe grew from plank size to an orange size in a quantized manner.

 

That was, as far as I know, still a scaling process so it is meaningless to talk about it in terms of "the speed of light".

 

It divides the classic world and quantum worlds and gives a rational basis for that division.

 

How does it do that? Can you quantify this in any way?

 

There is a realm of imaginary numbers, which has functional inter-action value (equations), and stem from a logic other than the one that rules conventional math.

 

Do you mean imaginary numbers in the sense of square root of -1, or in the sense that you have made them up?

 

And how do these imaginary numbers differ from conventional math?

 

They fail to be expressed in the first 3 dimensions

 

Are any numbers dependent on 3 dimensions? They are purely conceptual and can be applied to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or N dimensions.

 

as our logic cannot supply a result to the question...what is the sq.rt of -2

 

This is a well-defined mathematical operation. (The answer is [math]i \sqrt 2[/math].)

 

It is still not clear what you are trying to propose nor how it can be used.

 

"there are now (yes), and always have been (no) points that have been separating faster than the speed of light"

 

You should read Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe by Lineweaver and Davis.

 

From the abstract:

We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Edited December 22, 2015 by Strange

[hoola]

in short, the classic/quantum divide is based upon the realm of real numbers vs. the realm of imaginary numbers...each having it's own internal, yet incompatible form of underlying logic that offers functionality and consistency (durability) of product results.

"this is a well defined mathematical operation...." this operation is not a concrete result, is it? Granted, it can influence the result as a factor within a.logical equation, but in isolation is not of itself logically based.

Edited December 22, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

in short, the classic/quantum divide is based upon the realm of real numbers vs. the realm of imaginary numbers...each having it's own internal, yet incompatible form of underlying logic that offers functionality and consistency (durability) of product results.

 

Imaginary numbers are (or can be) real numbers. There is no magic difference between them. They follow the same compatible underlying logic. (Edit: there is perhaps confusion between reals vs integers, rather than the components of complex numbers which should have less misleading names than "real" and "imaginary")

 

Did you skip the class on complex numbers at school?

 

"this is a well defined mathematical operation...." an operation is not a concrete result, is it?

 

It is just as "concrete" (whatever that means) as any other arithmetical operation on numbers.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Strange

[hoola]

ok then, give me a real number as a result of the equation : sq.rt of -2 = X give me X without the "I" in front of the answer...It cannot be done, can it? Forgive me as I have no formal training in math other than the basics, and this is my learning process. Thank you for your patience...

[Strange]

ok then, give me a real number as a result of the equation : sq.rt of -2 = X give me X without the "I" in front of the answer...It cannot be done, can it?

 

Of course not. The answer is a complex number. You seem to be ascribing some unnecessary significance to this.

[imatfaal]

 

Imaginary numbers are (or can be) real numbers. There is no magic difference between them. They follow the same compatible underlying logic. (Edit: there is perhaps confusion between reals vs integers, rather than the components of complex numbers which should have less misleading names than "real" and "imaginary")

 

Did you skip the class on complex numbers at school?

 

 

It is just as "concrete" (whatever that means) as any other arithmetical operation on numbers.

 

Strange - bit confused with your terminology; in my mind imaginary numbers do not merge with real numbers - they are orthogonal on the number plane and only converge at zero.

 

We have complex numbers which have a real component and an imaginary component; but real have no imaginary component nor vice versa. On the visual interpretation the real are the numbers on the real axis, the imaginary are those on the orthogonal axis, and the entire plane shows the complex numbers which have both components.

[Strange]

 

Strange - bit confused with your terminology; in my mind imaginary numbers do not merge with real numbers - they are orthogonal on the number plane and only converge at zero.

 

We have complex numbers which have a real component and an imaginary component; but real have no imaginary component nor vice versa. On the visual interpretation the real are the numbers on the real axis, the imaginary are those on the orthogonal axis, and the entire plane shows the complex numbers which have both components.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. I was initially interpreting 'real' to contrast with integer rather than imaginary.

[Phi for All]

Forgive me as I have no formal training in math other than the basics, and this is my learning process.

 

The process of guessing what is right, then defending your guess assertively, is a poor one. It would be so much less frustrating if you would ask questions (real ones, not questioning responses from members with incredulity) instead of making assertions that are based on ignorance of the subject.

[hoola]

pardon my over-assertiveness, I didn't think I was being so, and I will revise my responses accordingly. I am asking "real" questions, and as far as I can tell, quantum mechanics is a subject that some know quite a bit about, but nothing as to why it works. I realize the ludicrousness of what I propose, and expect to learn enough about the subject to see how silly my idea is. The idea is getting wet, but I have heard nothing yet that rules out my basic premise; that imaginary (or complex) numbers, if you will, are the functional basis for QM structure...I guess a definition of both terms is in order, as I have seen them used interchangeably...

Edited December 23, 2015 by hoola

[hoola]

An imaginary number is a complex number that can be written as a real number, multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is defined by it's property i sq.= -1. The square of an imaginary number b i is -b sq. Example 5 i = -25 (wiki)

A complex number can be expressed in the form of a + b i, where a and b are real numbers and the i is the imaginary unit that satisfies the equation i sq. = -1. In this expression, a is the real part, and b is the imaginary part of the complex number. (wiki)

complex numbers and variables can be useful in classical physics, but are not essential. All forces, positions, momenta, potentials, electric and magnetic fields are all real quantities, and the equations that describe them, Newtons laws, Maxwell's equations, etc, are all differential equations involving strictly real quantities. Quantum mechanics are different. Factors of sq.rt-1 are everywhere. The wave function is complex, as so is practically every other quantity needed to formulate quantum mechanics. Granted that classical mechanics fails at distances of a micrometer or less, why is it necessary that everything be complex? (from an online course, not my question)

I do have a question as regards to the factor (sq.rt -1 ) which seems to be a standard notation.......does the real number matter in the factor? Would the factor value remain the same whether the number is sq.rt -2, or sq.rt - 5, or any other real number you might insert?

at this point, the i factor seems a representative component of an interference pattern that develops between the formal (narrow band width) strict logic of classic mechanics, with sideband interference from a differing logic system's potential input (wide-band) signal...as a sort of weak, random AM static on a clear FM radio channel...

Edited December 23, 2015 by hoola

[hoola]

the electronic analogy to quantum/classic phenomena seems appropriate at this point, as space has been referred to as a "harmonic oscillator at every point". This implies a signal of some sort, with virtual particles as the developing "interference pattern output". This output seems variable in proximity to baryonic matter, as with the casimir test results showing restrictions of certain portions of the overall bandwidth, with measurable effects, as between the narrow gap of the plates. The spectrum energy of the unperturbed output, that would occur in empty space, seems partially transferred to a force to squeeze the plates. The limitation of unperturbed output in space of virtual particles seems set by them being anti-particles of each other. What would be the energy level of a mono-virtual particle (hawking radiation?), if one were to exist without it's antiparticle to subdue it's output and it's lifespan? There seems to be a casual analogy to the proposed magnetic monopole having once existed in the early universe as hawking radiation existing only at special places.

Edited December 23, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

complex numbers and variables can be useful in classical physics, but are not essential.

 

Not essential, but incredibly useful. As soon as you get to anything involving waves or oscillation, it becomes much, much simpler to use complex numbers to describe it. And that is why they are central in quantum theory. You could avoid them but it would make things much more complicated.

 

 

at this point, the i factor seems a representative component of an interference pattern that develops between the formal (narrow band width) strict logic of classic mechanics, with sideband interference from a differing logic system's potential input (wide-band) signal...as a sort of weak, random AM static on a clear FM radio channel...

 

I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean anything.

 

I strongly recommend some introductory courses in mathematics if you want to understand what complex numbers are and why they are ubiquitous in physics (classical and quantum), signal processing and many other areas. That would be much more productive than making up stuff based on analogies that seem to only make sense to you.

[hoola]

yes, I am pretty sure it means nothing too in a factual sense, as it is an analogy. If I may repeat .......The electronics-based reference is due to reading space described as a "harmonic oscillator as every point", and the fact that virtual particle behavior allows an analysis (casimir exp.) as to selective reducing of bandwidth energies. The "bandwidth" being yet another electronic reference. I agree I take it past where it makes any sense, by extending the analogy to classical reality being based on a differing logic underpinning than quantum reality, but at the same time, extracting those different logic systems from a common source, mathematics. My extended analogy lists FM as the classical determinant universe, and AM as the quantum indeterminant universe. Differing systems, both built on the same device, the electron.

The analogy can be extended even further to a purely physical system, a river. The flow (mathematics), causing 2 whirlpools (great attractors), spinning in different directions. The river bisects the equator, one appearing in the northern hemisphere going counter clockwise, the other in the southern hemisphere, going clockwise...as the river travels, the river snakes north and the counter clockwise whirlpool becomes stronger and more well defined. The clockwise whirlpool becomes more attenuated and chaotic. Ripples of interference occur within the water between the two whirlpools...At that moment, we happen to float by in a canoe as the clockwise whirlpool is in the process of disintegration, and feel vibrations of "complex" patterns that shouldn't be there in northern hemisphere waters, as all whirlpools normally rotate in one direction only.

Edited December 24, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

My extended analogy lists FM as the classical determinant universe, and AM as the quantum indeterminant universe. Differing systems, both built on the same device, the electron.

 

I would have thought that should be the other way round. AM came first because it is simple and intuitive. FM came later because it needed more advanced technology and mathematics.

 

But analogies are only really useful if they have a close relationship to the underlying model being described. Trying to explain the big bang in terms of the difference between apples and bananas (which is about as good as your analogies are) just isn't very helpful.

 

These images of complex numbers and rivers might make some sort of sense in your own head but it is almost impossible to see how they relate to physics and thus how they can be useful explanatory tools.

[michel123456]

At the risk of derailing the thread...

 

Sigh. Expansion is not a speed but a scaling. Which means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance (from basic arithmetic). There are now, and always have been, points that are sufficiently far apart that they are separating at greater than the speed of light.

 

Scaling.

Question: isn't scaling a kind of acceleration?

For example, if you double a segment made up of numbers like this below

 

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

that becomes by doubling the intervals

1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9

 

The horizontal "distance" between the two 1 is null

The "distance between the two 2 is -

between the two 3 is --

Ans so forth, the distance between the two 9 is many --------

Like the effect of an acceleration.

Is there a way of scaling that can avoid that?

[Strange]

Scaling.

Question: isn't scaling a kind of acceleration?

For example, if you double a segment made up of numbers like this below

 

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

that becomes by doubling the intervals

1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9

 

The horizontal "distance" between the two 1 is null

The "distance between the two 2 is -

between the two 3 is --

Ans so forth, the distance between the two 9 is many --------

Like the effect of an acceleration.

 

Exactly. But it is important to realise that when they talk of accelerating expansion, they mean that the increase in rate of separation is greater than the relationship you describe; in other words the rate of scaling is increasing.

 

Is there a way of scaling that can avoid that?

 

I don't think so...

[hoola]

yes, fm modulation and decoding are more complex, however my analogy gives them equal treatment until the end of the inflation period when the classic logic broke with quantum logic. It's not a matter of who came first, they both were expressed at the initial moment. The choice of which mod system represents which form of logic is unimportant...partly I chose the way I did as fm is a superior system, just as classical world seems a better place to live in than on the head of a pin with 5 other angels who can't quite get it together...

In the middle ages, catholic priests would pontificate as to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin..........the agreed number, according to the story I heard, was 6. The story as related to me was to ridicule the church, but I think it was the cleverest thing I ever heard about them....by their discussion, what were they really talking about but the size of a point, where a massless angel might be, anywhere in the world? I think there is a minimum size, expressed as a massless point, with enough data in the description to have some level of existence, but not enough to register a geometric size...and the reason the 5 angels "can't get it together" is that they are illogical entities stuck in their illogical universe...

Edited December 25, 2015 by hoola

[michel123456]

Exactly. But it is important to realise that when they talk of accelerating expansion, they mean that the increase in rate of separation is greater than the relationship you describe; in other words the rate of scaling is increasing.

Oh. I thought it was simply explained that the rate of separation is increasing. Where do you get your info from?

Edited December 25, 2015 by michel123456