|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
So, i am going to present seven essays i devised over the years, and see what kind of responses they acheive. I must admit, many of them will be refuted... others probably enjoyed.
Information Carriers Spacetime is a busy highway. Just because we cannot see the ''information highway'' of spacetime, doesn't mean that information waves don't wiz past our heads faster-than-light... Yes! Faster-than-light. It was proposed that quantum waves of information needed to travel at superluminal speeds, because of the results found from the 'Aspect Experiment.' Einstein did however dismiss that information could travel faster-than-light. It was in 1935, Einstein developed a thought experiment, which was dubbed the EPR Paradox, and proclaimed the results would prove quantum theory to be obsolete. However, the technology to perform the experiment only became available 50 years later, and was performed by Alain Aspect from the University of Paris (and his colleagues). They discovered that two photons produced from a single source stayed in instantaneous contact with each other. For instance, if you measured the state of one photon, such as it's spin, with a spin up, the spin state of the other photon is instantly determined (a down spin). It was at first, physicists thought that somehow everything was predetermined (1); some scientists still believe in such a theory. However Aspect demonstrated that those correlations between such particles could only be described as being quantum entangled. Einstein himself had dismissed such an idea, calling it ''spooky.'' Well, if only he knew how quantum theory had turned out, eh? Thus, such instantaneous effects could only happen if information was moving through time and space faster-than-light. Now... This might not be so with all types of information... But as far as we know, we cannot dismiss such a postulate. Now, two types of information waves are involved in this model. According to John G. Cramers 'Transactional Interpretation' of quantum physics, an information wave comes from the past, called an 'offer wave' - this is a quantum wave that travels forward in time - and another wave comes from the future, called an 'echo wave' - this is a quantum wave that travels backwards through time. The two waves meet up in the present time, and they multiply. When they do so, the 'transaction' is complete, and viola, the ''thing'' is created! The transaction is the equivalence to a collapse in the quantum wave function. The wave function runs the show in quantum physics. It determines the probabilities of any outcome. Thus, we can say that everything in nature is built up on a wave of probabilities that, when an observer comes to measure it's system, the probabilities describing that system will suddenly collapse into a single value - the collapse is thus said to make the thing real. Some physicists believe that consciousness itself indicates the presence of a collapse in the wave function, and it is here, in the subjective world of thought and knowledge, I want to explore the human’s ability to become aware of an outcome. How do we come to know something? We tend to say that we gain information, just by analyzing a particular event, and by thus processing it in our neural networks. However, where does this information come from? Does it come from the outside? In fact, the last question is taken seriously by physicists that the very information we gain flows into our beings from the outside. But what if it doesn't? I've always had a problem accepting the idea that information comes into our beings. I'm not exactly sure why. I have always thought of the human being, as being a gigantic memory unit, storing all information in a potential mixed state. Indeed, such an idea shouldn't be difficult to understand, based on two premises: 1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer. 2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement. Now, if we take premise one seriously, thought and memory exists beyond the observer. As much as this might just be a psychological illusory of the mind, we might even consider taking such an idea seriously. For instance, the human observer exists in the present, and we can have memory about the past. However, whenever we come to remember the past, we do no such thing as jumping backwards in time and recollecting the memory being asked for. Instead, we reevaluate an experience we had, and recreate the past in the present as memory. Thus, the real question is, when we do come to experience the future (in the present), how is it that the future already exists as memory? Does thought and wishes exist beyond the observer? I think so - but perhaps not in the way I’ve been making out. You see, one might think that the mind jumps into the future, and this is how thoughts can exist beyond the observer... memories of the future. However, as we have seen, the mind is bound to the present time (2). The only other way to explain this, is if we have a complete record of future events in our beings, just as we have a record of the past; but the record of the future must be seen as a record we can potentially remember, but cannot, because experience must activate these memories (just as the experience of the past activates our memories of a past event) (3). Thus, the record of the past can be now put in terms of ''real'', and we can say that the future is a record that is ''virtual''; this is only an idiosyncratic method I am going to use, to distinguish the differences. I would like to note, that the past and future have no existence... the past makes up the present time as a record. The only difference with my interpretation is that the future also makes up a record in the present - but this record differs quite a bit from any other type of record we might suspect through subjective knowledge. It turns out, I believe, that both the past and the future is made up of conscious experience, which in turn, exists in the present time as a record of memory - one real and the other potentially real. We must be the perfect machines capable of storing these records, as one exists as memory, and the other is unfolded to us as memory. If we take the second premise seriously, then we might ask how we come to process information [almost] as instant as we come to measure something. One example, is how we come to analyze written language, and know it almost just as quickly? In fact, how can blind people touch brail, and equally know it just as fast? How do we bind optical and other sensory perceptions into the phenomena of knowing about it almost just as quick? Indeed - let us put forth another mystery concerning consciousness. How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, the 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes? The only way (I believe) consciousness can perform such tasks, is by saying that we do in fact have a record of all-information about spacetime (3)... Thus, when push comes to shove, consciousness can process the knowledge of a system, because that information is already contained within us. Indeed, such psychic phenomena such as 'Deja Vu' might be explainable, if certain sensory perceptions are abnormal, and certainty get's mixed up with the uncertain realms of knowledge. In fact, psychic predictions of the future might be explainable, if we do indeed have a record of the future in embedded in our consciousness! Is this so hard to believe? Haven't we heard from many great physicists that everything is in fact predetermined in the universe? Even Einstein once said that everything plays to a mystical pipers tune. But to believe in such an idea, means that we must abandon certain psychologies (4). If we have every piece of information that [we] will ever come to know in a lifetime, why does it unravel its knowledge’s to us in the way it does? This question is a good question. It was first posited to me by my friend Brian. The only way I can explain this, is by saying we need additional information from another 'information carrier,' after all, that is what we are. We are information carriers, which we learned from our parents, the internet, the T.V., whatever source we learn this information from. Thus, one can say that information can exist within us in a dormant state, and becomes ''excited'' whenever we have an experience - here, we must recognize that information isn't only obtained from others, but we can piece together our own analysis of a situation - and because of this, there are two ways to obtain information. After all, there must have been a way for our ancestors to obtain knowledge without anybody there to tell them about this original knowledge. Keep this thought for a moment. Another problem is solved by saying that all information we will ever come to know is stored inside of us. How does self-obtained knowledge come about? By saying we have potential information contained within us, would allow us to understand even the most alien knowledge. But this knowledge must compliment our existences; and something inside of the mind can ''pop'' the question and the answer is excited within us. Ok... Here is an analogy. Computer systems can have blank spaces ready to contain knowledge. However, for this blank system to record information, there must be someone there to press the button, so-to-say. Who presses the button for us? Is this God? In fact, I believe this. I believe God is our programmer, allowing us to know absolutely anything we will ever come to know! But for this to happen, the space inside us, needs to be [programmed] exactly to contain this information. For instance, imagine a computer program needing 100 bits to process a certain flow of information. If this information requires 200 bits to process the information, how can it operate the function asked for? As far as I know, no one has made such a postulate, as to say we have information contained within us. Such information would answer not only everyday phenomena, but also the phenomena of the unknown. I'll leave you with one last thought. We can have any information about a future event, so long as the mind can jump into this record with quite an extent, considering how unconscious the mind is. The more unconscious the mind is, the more it can excite a time and event that has not yet come to pass. In fact, if consciousness actually means we are mostly unconscious, then we may be able to have such psychic experiences while we are awake! The only problem is for us to recognize when such a phenomenon is occurring (5). Notes (1) - This is called the 'hidden variable theory,' proposed by the legendary David Bohm in 1952. (2) - That is, when the mind is aware and conscious. The mind when unconscious might display unusual properties, being able to oscillate through time - even if it is only either a few minutes into the past, or a few minutes into the future. (3) - I need to be careful here, and explain exactly what information we have. We must contain [all information] - by this, i mean information we will only ever come to know. This idea is based on the fact that i believe that everything is predetermined. Nothing can happen by pure chance. Everything we do and say must be written down, in what i call 'God's Celestial Notebook.' I made a similar premise in my book 'Superdimension.' However, i do believe, that two sets of information can overlap in individuals. This means that we can obtain information from someone else, causing us to know possibly what someone will do or say before they do it. We have all had experiences along this line. This is possible through every psyche being connected to the only mind ever present, according to Bass' argument (see part six). (4) - Such as split-second decisions. (5) - I'm not quite sure what to look out for. I've had what i can only explain as a psychic experience, however, they have [mostly] occurred during a sleep state. I suspect that day-psychic occurrences would be flashes of perceptions, perhaps the Deja Vu phenomena or even psychic phenomena between individuals, guessing what one would say before it happens. |
|
|||
|
Part One
Black Holes, Worm Holes and Other Universes Gravity has a strange effect on light. It will couple with light, and bend it around large masses. The idea arose from Einstein, and on the 9th of November in 1919, light was seen to bend around the sun during an eclipse. The times reported on the discovery, 'space would no longer be looked at as extending indefinitely in all directions. Straight lines would not exist in Einstien’s space. They would all be curved and if they traveled far enough they would return to their starting point.' Finding that our universe was not a Euclidean flat spacetime was indeed a marvel of physics. It showed that space was highly twisted and curved into time, and that gravity itself was a product of these bends in time and space through the presence of matter. It was these types of distortions that led the way for a new prediction in Einstien’s 'theory of relativity.' It predicted a black hole - a whopping gravitational body, unto which nothing can escape its grasp. The center of a black hole has perfect infinite curvature; and it is here that the distortions of space and time become so highly stressed it can actually rip a hole in the fabric of spacetime itself. This is the singularity at the center of the black hole - but it wasn't the same as the singularity of the big bang. A black hole has this strength because it is a dense concentration of mass. Actually, this mass is so dense, it actually drags space and time around with it, and the curvature it produces is fantastic. For a space shuttle to leave earth's gravitational pull, it needs to have a speed that is strong enough to make the 'escape velocity.' You can imagine the escape velocity is stronger the closer you are to the earth's core. To leave earth, you need a constant speed of something like 25,000 mph. Now, take the speed of a photon (light) - the fastest particle known. The speed of light is very hard to grasp - saying that it travels 186,000 miles a second isn't always easy to reconcile; just remember, the sun is 15 million km away, and it takes a photon a little over 8.3 minutes to reach us! Now imagine a massive body in space with such a high concentration of mass, it is actually able to stop light itself - this is a black hole - and this must mean it has an escape velocity of light! A photon, traveling quite happily will be abruptly slowed down until it reached zero-speed. All Luxens (that is particles with a speed of light v=c) and obviously all Bradyons (particles with a velocity under the speed of light v<c) would inexorably be trapped by the intense pull of the black hole... only a hypothetical particle called the 'Tachyon' could escape its pull, quite easily actually. A Tachyon is a particle that moves faster than light v>c. The idea that an object with a large concentration of dense mass goes right back to the 18th centaury - just after Einstein developed his important relativity theory. It was a physicist Karl Schwarzschild (that is were the black hole gets the name, ‘Schwarzschild radius’ from) who discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an exotic object. It was only later in the 1930's that theorists Oppenheimer, Volkoff and Snyder took the theory seriously. Certain stars that cannot support itself against its own gravitational field have a special destiny ahead of them - a star that does this will collapse and form into a black hole. It was John A. Wheeler that coined the term 'black hole' - before that, it had been called 'frozen stars.' Our star, as big as it is, will not collapse until another 5-6 billion years. Altogether, our sun will have lived a total of 11 billion years, and this is quite a good lifespan. Other stars will not be so lucky. They would collapse into a spherical black hole in half that time. Let's consider a star that is 666,000 times that of the mass of planet earth - this star will have a lifespan of about 5.5 billion years. And there will be much heavier stars out there. You can imagine, stars with a lesser life span with 5.5 billion years as a lifespan would not have given earth enough time to develop life properly; in fact, if science is correct, there wouldn't have been enough time to allow human life to form, considering science informs us that human life did not appear until only about 100,000 years ago, and the earth being 6 billion-odd years old itself. This is another factor that makes human life on earth rather extraordinary. Physicist Stephen Hawkings, arguably the best mind in the world, has spent much of his time working on the theory of Black Holes. His contribution into the hypothetical black hole is astounding, and if you want more information on his work, i advise you to read his book, 'A Brief History of Time.' A black hole has something called 'the event horizon' - the event horizon is the spherical surface, or boundary of the black hole. This is the point, that if anything passes it, nothing can escape (apart from a Tachyon), or unless an object began its journey from the interior; this is because of a strange rule: You cannot pass the surface twice. It was this reason it was called the event horizon, just like a sunset horizon - you can travel towards it but never quite reach it, or at least, this is what it would be like for an observer sitting comfortably away, watching me traveling towards the black hole... It would seem to take an infinitely long amount of time, and it would look like as if the closer i got to it, the slower i would be in momentum, until it looked as if i had stopped completely. This is because time becomes highly dilated between the traveler and the observer who is a bit away - this is the bizarre effect of relativity. We must take these facts into consideration, when one moves closer to the weird singularity. If our calculations are singular, this means that aspects, like a time interval, or space itself take on infinite values. If this is hard to imagine or a little tedious on the mind - do not fret - anything you don't understand just move on and tackle it later. If one passed the event horizon, you will inevitably move closer and closer to the singularity in its center, moving faster and faster because space is dragging you closer to the speed of light. To an observer who is sitting comfortably far away from the event horizon, the hole itself appears static. However, if we moved a little closer to the boundary, it would become visible that the hole itself has a remarkable velocity - in fact, a black hole spins with a velocity of the speed of light. Once inside of the black hole, spacetime are distorted to such a degree, that space and time switch roles (more on this in next part). We could not jump into a nonrotating black hole - the force of the black hole would rip matter apart! How big can a black hole be? Most black holes will have formed from supernovae, so it is expected that they will be as big as a standard candle (usually depicted as bright white dwarfs - the remnant of stars) and much bigger, and if Stephen Hawkings is correct, each supergalaxy has a supermassive black hole at their centers. And if theory is correct, the universe itself has a supermassive black hole at its center, where all matter orbits over billion upon billions of years. And there is even a theory suggesting our universe is a black hole itself, based on the fact that our universe has a lot of mass, but isn't too dense. And if black holes do exist, Stephen Hawking believes we might be able to detect a small black hole, as it will radiate a glow... a natural lantern in space. I presume that black holes would also be more visible nearer stars. Light reflects off natural objects and creates the ability to see them. A black hole would absorb light, and it would become visible as a hole. The attention black holes have received over the years is truly mind-blowing... let us just hope that the work does not go in vain, and that black holes do indeed exist. They should exist... after all, Cosmology and Relativity Theories predict them as real 'things out there'. Whether or not they are indeed portals into other universes is another thing... Though, if theory is right, a lot of physicists will be proven wrong; it would seem to indicate a universe without the collapse of the wave function. |
|
|||
|
Falling into a Black Hole
If black holes do actually exist, there is some debate as to whether a human could endure a trip into one – the reason why is because anything that falls into Black Holes get’s shredded into spaghetti. Why would we even want to jump into a black hole? Well, theory says that 'wormholes' which are topological openings inside the black hole might lead to other universes! This is the theory of parallel universes, and we shall see more on this theory in next part. It was John A. Wheeler who named these openings as wormholes. The problem is, if one does not enter a wormhole in the correct way, there is the chance that the object will be stretched apart. It was in 1935, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen predicted that black holes themselves where natural bridges into another possible universe. This bridge from one world into another, came to be known as the 'Einstein-Rosen Bridge,' and most of the developments of this theory came from several physicists - some being Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler and Martin Kruskal. So let's imagine i decided to jump into a spinning black hole inside a space ship... what would i see? Well, before i entered, i would see nothing spectacular. I would just see a big ball of darkness. I wouldn't even see it rotate at first - neither do i feel anything - i am in what is called a state of 'free-fall'. Free-fall is when all the atoms and molecules i am made of are all being pulled at the same rate. Even my ship is being pulled at the same pace towards the black hole. A good way to compare this is with astronauts that orbit our earth - they too are in a state of free-fall. Now i begin to pass the event horizon (remember that is the first boundary, or surface). Now something quite remarkable happens. The space coordinates switches roles with the time coordinate. What does this mean? Well, we move through space freely, back and forth without any problems, and when we consider time, that imaginary dimension, we tend to think we sweep along with it without recourse. Once i pass the event horizon space begins to drag me and my ship, and i begin to move in one direction only - that being forward - however, i begin to move through time backwards and forwards, just as easily as i had moved through the space dimension. In this case, we say that space has become 'timelike', and time has a 'spacelike' character - they are thus interchangeable given the correct conditions. As i move closer and closer to the black hole, the force of gravity becomes stronger and stronger. Now, suppose my legs are closer to the dreaded center of the black hole, i will begin to feel as if my body was being stretched. A greater force will be pulling at my feet, than that of the force pulling at my head. This is called the 'gravitational tidal effect' - thus called because it is similar to the tidal effect on earth caused by the moon. If i looked out of a window towards the singularity, i would see something rather interesting. The center will look like a dark sphere, with a halo of light surrounding it. This light is coming from another universe. And, if i looked back out of the event horizon, i might be fortunate enough to see the universe, and all of its history and future flash past me as if it took no time at all. I would see all the stars die out... most of them forming black holes, but they would not be visible to the naked eye. I might even see the universe undergo an 'omega point' (the end), as a 'Big Crunch' were everything is drawn back, or quite possibly by a 'Big Rip', were everything physical is ripped apart by the universal pressure of acceleration, (note however, someone outside of the black hole cannot see you). Now i have crashed into the dreaded singularity, and i will no longer exist. Here, just like the Big Bang singularity mentioned in part one of chapter one, everything takes on infinite attributes - the laws of physics become invalid. However, you might not crash into the center. It is possible you can fall into the 'inner horizon' - this horizon is adjacent to the singular region. Here, space and time flows the correct way. In theory, you can float around in the inner horizon without ever crashing into the dreaded center. Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula; g=(GM)/d2 Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity. So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole you can work out its mass against the gravitational acceleration formula, by; M=gd2/G We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×10^6)^2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 10^24 kilograms. A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 1016 K, which is 200 GeV, or about 25 million times hotter than the sun. We can measure the density, and radius of a black hole in a series of proportionalities. The radius R of a black hole, even a micro black hole is directly proportional to its mass (R- M). And the density of a black hole is found to be given by its mass divided by its volume (D=M/V). If our universe is indeed a black hole, you might imagine we exist in the inner horizon. In fact, our universe may as well be a black hole. Now, if one passes by the singularity, we might be able to move out of the inner horizon and pass through a second inner horizon, and then by finally passing another outer horizon, we will have entered another universe - but i had better be careful. There is a very good chance that this universe is made up mostly of antimatter. If i come into contact with antimatter, me and my ship will explode in a flash of light. I would like it known to my readers that Hawkings has changed his mind on the theory of Black Holes, as he no longer believes that it is possible for a spacetime traveler to jump into one and move into other universes… This was proposed because of a fundamental problem involving information. If information moved into a Black Hole, it would suggest that the information would be lost, but here lies the paradox, because information can never totally be lost. Thus instead, he now believes that information is ‘’mangled’’ and returned back into this universe through quantum tunneling. In fact, a more recent research into mathematics shows us that there actually needs not be any Black Holes at all! If any do exist, then they would have formed at the very beginning of time. But to keep things not too complicated, I will continue with the idea that it is all still possible, and this is based on one well-known fact: That is, that our mathematics could be formulating a lie, instead of the truth. Thus, as much as I like the idea that no one can travel into other universes, because I protest against the multiverse theory, I must admit still that we may have it all very wrong, because mathematics may be pointing to the wrong conclusions… Who knows but God? We will certainly never achieve any unification, as I believe. Such knowledge must be left to God alone > Thus, for the sake of it, let us imagine we have got it wrong, and that universal spacetime traveling is possible… |
|
|||
|
Too much to read.
Is this ATM? Shouldn't you just post a link to your webpage for those interested, rather than cutting and pasting such voluminous text into a forum thread? --Your essays are now scattered all over. It just seems odd.
__________________
Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life. - Goethe Jump in with both feet! - Me, indulging my inner eight-year-old *** *** *** "Are you a mad-hatter that just types what he wishes, or have you actually any physics training?" Occam's Ghost to Grant Hutchison. |
|
||||
|
__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.... |
|
||||
|
01101001,
I just did the binary to hex conversion... I'm sure theres a good "two nibbles" pun to be made somewhere along the line but it's just not hitting me at the moment. I'll have to work out your signature one of these days... I'm sure it's interesting.
__________________
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. Arthur C. Clarke The Brain Science Podcast |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2 essays about Moon Landing Denial compared to other denials | MH69 | Conspiracy Theories | 23 | 15-September-2007 06:05 PM |
| Gravity Research Foundation still exists | John Kierein | Astronomy | 0 | 17-February-2006 06:47 PM |
| Einstein didn't write his own material? | N C More | Against the Mainstream | 15 | 29-May-2004 12:34 PM |
| Life's Recent Origin | Darth_Racer | Life in Space | 120 | 31-March-2003 01:33 PM |