YOU ARE MADE OF SPACE-TIME
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BP warns of long effort to cap spill ... INDEED WHY NOT WASTE MORE TIME MUCKING AROUND
Next: Feck off, oh hypocritical gold obsessive, liitle brained, foull impious alien. NT
From: hanson on 11 Jun 2010 21:59 Hairy <hari.kumar(a)indero.com> quoted someone who said: "we could at least take comfort in knowing at last that we truly are at one with the universe." and so... > Hairy hari wrote: Who said otherwise? This implies someone thinks so, airy rubbish. No one has either nor not taken "comfort" in the least, more airy rubbish. > hanson wrote: "implies someone thinks so"?... well, the poster/author(s) who said or cited: "YOU ARE MADE OF SPACE-TIME" certainly do think so, cuz they are Einstein Dingleberries. Had he said == "YOU ARE MADE OF STAR STUFF" == I'd go along... but just being star stuff that is simply not good enough for Einstein Dingleberries.... ahahahaha... > Hairy hari wrote: What alternative, if we are in the universe we are of the universe by definition. > hanson wrote: Of course you are right, Hairy hari. But give him a break. He is in all likelihood just a wilting, geriatric Flower child from the late 1960s when Einstein Dingleberryism was at its peak & it was cool back then to say: "Ohhm, I'm one with universe" Thanks for the laughs, guy.... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
From: Kevin on 12 Jun 2010 13:18 On Jun 10, 9:05 pm, use...(a)mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: > Forwarded message from A. R. K. > > Thursday, June 10, 2010 > > Quote from the article... > > "If electrons and quarks -- and thus atoms and people -- are a > consequence of the way space-time tangles up on itself, we could be > nothing more than a bundle of stubborn dreadlocks in space. Tangled > up as we are, we could at least take comfort in knowing at last that > we truly are at one with the universe." (I hope you realize that these articles are too long for newsgroup postings :) This is deterministic reasoning... You know, I may be made of sterner stuff but you're scaring the artsy fartsy croud with this stuff... I have suggested in the past that there should be a distinction between hard and soft determinism... The least effect has the greatest cause... or is it the greatest effect has the least cause... or the least cause has the greatest effect... whatever.
From: altheim on 12 Jun 2010 13:50 <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote: > @mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: > >> > To try to proove the 'fabric' at sub particle level, by looking to the >> > cosmos, is very confirming for those struggling with the understanding >> > that the term microcosm is in fact a lable for matter whether large >> > or small, and the macrocosm is a reference to the 'inner' worlds of >> > spirituality. >> >> Many modern scientists are trying, and trying hard, to arrive at what >> ancient Vedic-Hindu sages already knew a long time ago. >> >> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi >> Om Shanti >> > > Your cultural affinity and loyalty are duly noted :-) > Oh don't stop him please, I want to know what the ancient Vedic-Hindu sages already knew a long time ago. -- altheim
From: Yousuf Khan on 13 Jun 2010 00:26 On 6/11/2010 8:05 AM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote: > Forwarded message from A. R. K. > > Thursday, June 10, 2010 > > Quote from the article... > > "If electrons and quarks -- and thus atoms and people -- are a > consequence of the way space-time tangles up on itself, we could be > nothing more than a bundle of stubborn dreadlocks in space. Tangled > up as we are, we could at least take comfort in knowing at last that > we truly are at one with the universe." > > You are made of space-time This was always bound to be the case, physics was on a path leading to this conclusion for over a hundred years now. The first clues to this relationship was when matter and energy were united by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. Previously, matter was thought to be different from energy, but this equation showed that you could completely convert one into the other and vice-versa. It essentially meant that matter is not separate from energy, but it is a very highly concentrated version of energy. This energy-matter relationship is what powers a nuclear reaction, where you're basically reducing the mass of a bunch of protons and neutrons by an insignificant couple of percent and this mass gets converted into a huge amount of explosive energy. The protons and neutrons in a nuclear fission or fusion reaction are just converting something like less than 5% of their mass into energy, and that produces such a huge amount of energy. Imagine how much energy is released in a matter-antimatter reaction where 100% of the mass is converted to energy!? It also explained how massless particles like photons, can get affected by gravity. Newton's laws said gravitation affects only mass, but if mass is a version of energy, then gravitation must pull on energy as well. So if matter and energy were the same thing, then why not at a more fundamental level isn't matter and energy linked to space and time? > Smolin invited Bilson-Thompson to Waterloo to help him find out. He > also enlisted the help of Fotini Markopoulou at the institute, who > had long suspected that the braids in space might be the source of > matter and energy. Yet she was also aware that this idea sits > uneasily with loop quantum gravity. At every instant, quantum > fluctuations rumple the network of space-time links, crinkling it > into a jumble of humps and bumps. These structures are so ephemeral > that they last for around 10-44 seconds before morphing into a new > configuration. "If the network changes everywhere all the time, how > come anything survives?" asks Markopoulou. "Even at the quantum > level, I know that a photon or an electron lives for much longer that > 10-44 seconds." > > Markopoulou had already found an answer in a radical variant of loop > quantum gravity she had been developing together with David Kribs, an > expert in quantum computing at the University of Guelph in Ontario. > While traditional computers store information in bits that can take > the values 0 or 1, quantum computers use "qubits" that, in principle > at least, can be 0 and 1 at the same time, which is what makes > quantum computing such a powerful idea. Individual qubits' delicate > duality is always at risk of being lost as a result of interactions > with the outside world, but calculations have shown that collections > of qubits are far more robust than one might expect, and that the > data stored on them can survive all kinds of disturbance. > > In Markopoulou and Kribs's version of loop quantum gravity, they > considered the universe as a giant quantum computer, where each > quantum of space is replaced by a bit of quantum information. Their > calculations showed that the qubits' resilience would preserve the > quantum braids in space-time, explaining how particles could be so > long-lived amid the quantum turbulence. This essentially means we're living inside The Matrix, like in the movies. Implications of living inside a giant quantum computer are mind-boggling. > Smolin, Markopoulou and Bilson-Thompson have now confirmed that the > braiding of this quantum space-time can produce the lightest > particles in the standard model -- the electron, the "up" and "down" > quarks, the electron neutrino and their antimatter partners > > (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603022 ). > > All from nothing at all > > So far the new theory reproduces only a few of the features of the > standard model, such as the charge of the particles and their > "handedness", a quantity that describes how a particle's quantum- > mechanical spin relates to its direction of travel in space. Even so, > Smolin is thrilled with the progress. "After 20 years, it is > wonderful to finally make some connection to particle physics that > isn't put in by hand," he says. > > The correspondence between braids and particles suggests that more > properties may be waiting to be derived from the theory. The most > substantial achievement, Smolin says, would be to calculate the > masses of the elementary particles from first principles. It is a > hugely ambitious goal: predicting the masses and other fundamental > constants of nature was something string theorists set out to do more > than 20 years ago -- and have now all but given up on. > > As with string theory, devising experiments to test for the new > theory will also be difficult. This is a problem that plagues loop > quantum gravity in all its guises, because no conceivable experiment > can probe space down to 10-35 metres. The "braids" they talk about also sound suspiciously close to the strings in Superstring theory. So it sounds like Loop QG and Superstrings may have been coming together from different perspectives. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 13 Jun 2010 01:18
On 6/13/2010 12:24 AM, BURT wrote: > If space has energy then anything moving in it is going to gather that > energy. CLearly this is not happening. There is no space energy to > bump into. > > Mitch Raemsch What? Do think energy like some kind of sticky seaweed, or something? Yousuf Khan |