Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 51
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

mr. duck - sometimes i want to ask you what the hell are you talking about?

You tell me and we'll both know. Sorry about the cutesy allusion to Fermat's Last theorem, but I kinda couldn't resist. I really have to apologize for that, but it was my way of saying I intended to comment on my own cosmological speculations later on. (and it is now later on)


I'm wondering about the nature of this realm, which at this time is sometimes called "nothing"...and understanding more clearly what we do know at this side of the edge of what we know.


All kidding aside, I do have my speculations on the nature of nature. Unfortunately, they are probably unprovable, however, they do appear to answer many questions and may point in a possibly useful direction for scientific research (especially if we can find a way to verify that the universe/multiverse is really a mathematical construction as some suspect…i.e. that the universe is built on math and not simply in some amazingly coincidental correspondence with it.)

The idea that what amounts to matter or spacetime really only consists of probabilistic information and not what we might call "solid" matter at all, would seem to indicate that the idea that all that exists doesn't really exist in the sense that we think it does in the first place.

Speaking in terms of wavefunctions, we can only say that matter/energy is really a form of information that hasn't been fully "disclosed" to our universe yet except in terms of probability itself. I think it might genuinely be said that an uncollapsed wavefunction only has a percentage of full "existence" (the sum of all probabilities being full existence) Therefore, full existence is only achieved upon wavefunction collapse. Before that, a particular event/particle sits in a sort of never never land somewhere between existence and non-existence.

I think if you want to contemplate "nothingness" you need look no farther than the outer boundaries of a fractal, because that's what I think the universe is. I see the multiverse as an infinite sea of many and varied fractals using "laws" (the iterated simple functions upon which fractals are built) which can (and probably do) differ from universe to universe.

We have to be careful with our infinities though, because while I believe the sea of universes to be truly (countably) infinite, the individual universe we live in seems to appear as a finitary approximation (owing to quantization) of the ideal infinite (Platonic) "form."

Following this speculation, we can see why (for instance) physics must use (as yet unformalized) "renormalization" to eliminate the infinities it comes across in order to make their calculations compatible with what we'd call physical reality. This speculation might suggest why renormalization "just seems to work" to spite the fact that it has as yet, no formal justification in math.

Such things have many precedents in math. For instance, Newton's (actually Leibnitz's) infinitesimal "fluxions" didn't have a formal basis until 1964, when Cohen formalized the concept. That's one hell of a long time to operate on faith. In the interim we had criticisms like Berkeley's: "What are these fluxions? The velocities of evanescent increments. And what are these same evanescent increments? They are neither finite quantities, nor quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them ghosts of departed quantities?" to torment mathematicians in the meantime. Both the physicists & applied mathematicians knew they "just worked"; the purists were vexed as heII for centuries, but I digress…

Getting back to our own universe for a moment, we can see its fractal nature all around us in the beautiful blend of order (laws of physics) and randomness (quanta?) that is the chaos of the fractal. We see it all around us in nature. This implies to me that nature itself is fractal from top to bottom, and I believe if we take the "as below, so above" view, we arrive at (a finite approximation of) a fractal universe.

I could go on with my speculative flight of fancy, but at this point I think i'm just rambling philosophical without direction. However, if you want to read a viewpoint that appears (on the surface at least) similar to my own (I really don't know…I'm posting before I've read it myself), here's a webpage of an abstract that contains a downloadable pdf of the whole thing:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1245/

If nothing else, it's probably worth considering his views, whether they agree with my own or not.


Why all the hostility?

There is no hostility at all, and I'm not discounting your ideas. I would not presume them to be fallacious or anything else, since I don't even know what they are. I was merely trying to point out earlier that even though you might want the copyright to your ideas as intellectual property because you're tired of being poor (a justifiable motive for not wanting to give them away), it is not in the spirit of science to do so. It is my opinion that in keeping your ideas to yourself, you are denying yourself any possibility of the necessary peer review that might give them some credibility.

What you are doing now, whether or not that is your intention, is to say you have "worked out" some key puzzle piece of the universe, but hanging onto it like you are playing "I've got a secret" and playing it like it is bait to get someone to bite. Since it is a simple fact that 99.9% of independent amateur ideas don't pan out, most serious scientists & mathematicians won't even bother to look at it in the first place, so you are effectively cutting your own throat and denying yourself the opportunity to achieve your goal of having your idea accepted. You are caught in a catch-22.

My more recent posts weren't intended to be malicious, though I can see how they might be taken that way; I apologize for leaving you with that impression. They were merely intended to point out that your views could be a bit naive, since it is virtually impossible to even know the full area of a particular specialization, let alone an entire field of logic or mathematics, and without knowing the entire field, you couldn't logically make the comments you did. You might be a smart kid, but I can't reasonably give you credit for knowing so much…It would make you the smartest man who ever lived in human history (by a country mile), so I think it more reasonable to presume you are an enthusiastic amateur who sincerely believes he's built a better mousetrap. Again, if I've hurt your feelings I apologize; it was only my intent to address what I perceive to be naivette, not to crush you.

The GUSH parody wasn't addressed to you, nor intended for you (so don't take it personally). I explained my reason for using it earlier in this post. (maybe I was being too cute about it too)
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:34:39 AM
quack...I'm just worried that the more lay-people who visit this thread won't be able to follow such non-lay language.

...did somebody actually feel the need to say that this isn't "my" thread?? Is there rudeness to follow?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 53
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:54:17 AM
Why am I always in the position of having to apologize?…OK…I apologize; I had no intention of monopolizing or hijacking this thread, or of using abnormally complex terminology. (Maybe that's one of the reasons I like to be kinda cute with my stuff, to make it more "digestible.")

After the response to my overly cute post, I may have overcompensated by making the next one too big and serious…I'm not sure. One thing I can assure you of, is that I wasn't "showing off" or trying to impress anyone.…In fact I may well have been talking thru my ass, as these are only my honest speculations on the thread topic and not to be considered as any more authoritative than anyone else's thoughts in any way.

I can appreciate that my post should probably have been broken down into more manageable (easier to digest) bite-sized chunks, but I'm limited in my number of daily posts, and there is therefore an incentive (which I concede might be counterproductive) to put as much as I can squeeze into one post. Sorry to turn it into some sort of dissertation.

I hope to God you don't think there will be any forthcoming rudeness from me. I like to think I'm a polite li'l duck who wouldn't hurt ANYONE"S feelings with rudeness…ever. My days of "scrapping" on these forums are solidly behind me.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:03:39 AM
duck...I'm not sure what you mean. I've so far never felt you need to apologize for anything, nor have I felt you are hijacking anything. And I think that some of my posts were meant for others that you think are referring to you. Keep on trucking the way you are, I say.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:53:47 PM
Dukky:

Sorry Drink but:


They were merely intended to point out that your views could be a bit naive, since it is virtually impossible to even know the full area of a particular specialization, let alone an entire field of logic or mathematics, and without knowing the entire field, you couldn't logically make the comments you did.


It wasn't nessesary to know the entire field. It was only nessesary to spot the logical in consistencies (which is something that I do very well if you haven't noticed) which were aparent from the very beginning. Math for instance: how can one expect to fully understand a curved universe when the only logical tools one has (mathematics) is based in the use of strait lines only. Ones view of the universe is going to be just as incomplete as if you were to aply pi to the area of a circle or volume of a sphere. You're always going to be missing curtain key bits of understanding. To my knowledge, no one has, as of yet, figured how to deal with this. Pi is still inaccurate, and still necessary to dealing with curvatures. I think that the key to more directly mathematically dealing with curvatures, lies in understanding the pattern in prime. This is an idea that I have only toyed around with, but I think that this approach may eventually lead us to a new system of math in which irrational numbers are no longer irrational.

As I said the above idea is something that I have only been toying around with, meaning I don't have much time invested in it. My ideas about dimensions, however, (though initially easy to spot that our understanding of dimensions was flawed) took me years to find and properly understand the all the flaws, and then correlate them to the observable universe, which I believe that I have quite successfully done.

You argument for me to just come out and lay my ideas on the table, appeals to me very strongly. I do realize that I am being an ass. I am wrestling with just saying, screw it, and putting it all out there, right now. But I don't know if I can win that battle. Not because i am afraid that i might be wrong, i couldn't care less if it turned out that i was wrong. I just want to be credited for them if they are right.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:54:19 PM
oh...well...ok...um, so, we'll just keep on swimming then. Onward ho! to infinity, and beyond.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 57
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/8/2012 11:43:51 PM
The following is NOT a put down of any sort. I'm just using quotes from a post to expound a bit on a subject I love for the greater good of acquainting people with some things about math they may not be familiar with. Hopefully, the curious reader will google some of the terms & terminology (italicized as a suggestion) to at least read a wiki to familiarize themselves with what is at it's core a FASCINATING topic.


how can one expect to fully understand a curved universe when the only logical tools one has (mathematics) is based in the use of strait lines only

That hasn't been true since the times of the ancient greeks. The development of things like non-euclidean geometry, the field of topology, set theory, and modern logics themselves have taken mathematics FAR from whatever roots it might have in a straightedge and compass.


Ones view of the universe is going to be just as incomplete as if you were to aply pi to the area of a circle or volume of a sphere.

How does that make for an incomplete understanding? Are you thinking of pi in constructivist terms, where a finite approximation is always used because infinite transcendental constructions are impossible and must be disallowed?


You're always going to be missing curtain key bits of understanding.

inevitably.


To my knowledge, no one has, as of yet, figured how to deal with this.

and nobody ever will. Look up Godel's therorems on undecideability & incompleteness. In a nutshell, among other things, he proved that there will always be true but unprovable statements in any sufficiently complex formal system of reasoning.


Pi is still inaccurate, and still necessary to dealing with curvatures.

Pi has been calculated to decimal places well into the trillions. I dare say that is a sufficiently accurate approximation for this universe.


I think that the key to more directly mathematically dealing with curvatures, lies in understanding the pattern in prime.

You argument for me to just come out and lay my ideas on the table, appeals to me very strongly. I do realize that I am being an ass. I am wrestling with just saying, screw it, and putting it all out there, right now. But I don't know if I can win that battle. Not because i am afraid that i might be wrong, i couldn't care less if it turned out that i was wrong. I just want to be credited for them if they are right.

Ah…The zeta function. Well if you have proved the Reimann Hypothesis, then you've got something incredible that will set the entire world on its ear! Still, there is no need to conceal it. If you have the proof, you're good for a Fields Medal hands down…and I believe it also comes with a $15k cash prize to boot, not to mention you've probably assured yourself a place of honour as a lecturer/professor at just about any distinguished university in the world. The last thing you'd have to worry about is poverty. If you haven't proved it, don't be too hard on yourself. Proving it has been the dedicated task of some of the greatest minds in the world for over a century and they haven't done it either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

It may well be that you have a similar brain anomaly to Einstein's, which gave him the incredibly rational intuition with which he conducted his thought experiments on relativity. I'll let you in on a little "secret" though, to spite that brilliance, Albert's math skills couldn't match his intuition. It took a guy named Hermann Minkowski to show that his thought experiments had mathematical merit as geometric constructions of spacetime. I sometimes shudder to think what might have happened if Albert hadn't gotten the support of a solid reputation and some good friends. He might have only been remembered as a patent clerk who had bizarre imaginary trips on fast trains where really wierd stuff happened. Such "visions" can often result in institutionalization. (I might be exaggerating for effect here, but you get the point)

I have always been very touched by the story of Srinivasa Ramanujan, so I'm not so quick to discount "crackpot ideas" as you might think. I'm not fit to judge anyway. It may well be that you are another such as he. If you are, I feel deeply for you, because I'm sure there have been MANY like him, that historically have been marginalized, even trampled & destroyed by scientists & mathematicians, who, unlike Godfrey Hardy, didn't see the value of the pearl thrown in their sty.

All I know is you're probably a really earnest guy who has an idea. I doubt that its all that valuable or brilliant, but it isn't for me to say one way or the other. There is a very great risk of the (fairly standard) ridicule on trying to share that idea with bona fide scientists, since they will have no compunction about telling you what they think (if they bother to look at all…most don't). If it turns out to be a great idea, there is little danger of it being stolen if you notarize your papers; you'll have proof that your idea (and copyright) was yours before someone tried to steal it.

My recommendation would be to go for the gusto and risk ridicule, because even ridicule isn't so bad…I can tell you from personal experience that it won't hurt a bit if you let it roll off your back (but then, I'm a duck and it just rolls off my back anyway). And who knows?…People do win lotteries, and great things have come from totally unexpected places (please look up Srinivasa Ramanujan)…Miracles have been known to happen from time to time.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/9/2012 1:56:56 AM
72, & c0., etc:

I'd agree with the idea that there might not be any such thing as a new math...math has already gone to places where it's been implied here it hasn't, and math evolves and unleashes secrets already enough to do the job so far - math is 1+1=2; there's no new or other way to do that. One and one still needs to be two. And I'm not sure there'd be another way to show that it is. Pardon the ridulous and seemingly unapplicable oversimplification.

I also have that funny suspicion (scientific intuition, not to be confused with the 'gut feeling' jazz indulged in too much by the non-objective crowd) that we've gone one step too far in accounting for or interpreting what we think we see. The multiple universe stuff, for example, just doesn't ring well for me...

Consider the relationship between newton and einstein (to use those two, just because these poster-boys of science are more recognizable, even though we've went a bit past them, depite popular understanding, just like how we've advanced past darwin yet anti-evolution folks like to pick on him); It's not correct to say that newton was wrong or disproved, but einstein simply learned and explained more. Using newton is still very useful, he was right, he wasn't wrong about anything really, he still applies...while einstein showed us even more, brought more accuracy, etc, YET einstein's model(s) and explanations are different. A different story, different approach. A paradigm shift to a degree...

I wish more people were familiar with a logic board game I love called mastermind (hate the name though); It demonstrates how you can have clues to what's the correct answer, and your guesses aren't wrong in light of the clues at any given moment, your guesses account 100% for all data so far...yet all data could also be accounted for by another completely different direction, and sometimes this other direction is where the truth lies, and you can only know one or the other when you gain more data...

I propose that it's at least possible that when it comes to things like the multi-verse, branes and higher dimensions, particle versus wave function and spooky action at a distance and affecting a particle by observing it and other stuff in the quantum world, dark energy, dark matter, etc...we are trying to accounting for it all with this stuff but we might be speculating one step too far without the imagination to consider other things, and being limited by still thinking in certain paradigm-terms versus another paradigm approach.

When trying to discuss things with the crowd who don't respect or understand science on a fundamental level, we're prone to putting our collective foot down and "defend" the validity of current theories, and this is certainly justifiable and necessary...but WITHIN the objective crowd we shouldn't stick to hypothesizing in a dogmatic way, and not forget to do one of the things real science does - seriously consider other options from scratch.

I seriously think that there are some cases wherein we see such-and-such, and we account for it by coming up with such-and-such, and then we defend that hypothesis or theory, but that in fact something else entirely different is really going on. And all of what we DO see or know would still be accounted for and not glossed-over.

One of my purposes for this thread is to see what others have to offer by way of speculating, IN A SCIENTIFICALLY RESPONSIBLE FASHION, on other possibilities or paradigms or solutions outside of the current popularly-known theories.

And now for some cool quotes just to use as some way to close my post:

From where we stand
the rain seems random.
If we would stand somewhere else,
we would see the order in it.

> Tony Hillerman
(Coyote Waits)

Science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled.

>Albert Einstein

Concepts without percepts are empty.
Percepts without concepts are blind.

>Immanuel Kant

To say that Newton's law of gravitation is true is to say that it can be applied successfully; so long as that could be done, it was true. There is no inconsistency in saying that Newton's law was true and that Einstein's law is at present true.

> Hector Hawton
( describing Pragmatism )
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/12/2012 6:32:34 PM
Wow. That's it? No one has a response to mrgoodmanuk? I don't think this thing is even going to let me post anything again yet. Let's click post and see...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/13/2012 12:36:56 AM
Not being an expert on physics, I can't really say whether or not his speculation holds validity. What I would say is that based in his model (and assuming it to be true), he may well have something with respect to some infinitesimal variance he calls an "imperfection", which could well explain gravity (insofar as I understand gravity, but again, not being a physicist, I can't say my understanding is "competent")

What makes me uncomfortable with his explanation (and with the idea of quarks in general) is that I see quarks as manifestations of a simpler, more elegant underlying theory. What that theory is I can't say, but I have an intuitive feeling that quarks can be explained as let's say quantized spacetime itself, where the quanta are composed of tensors implying various properties in terms of direction or orientation.

It's my guess that seeing things this way, may simplify things for us in the long run.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/13/2012 2:09:12 AM
Dukky:

I have not read the materials that you suggested yet. I wanted to test my logic against your knowledge a little before I do, if you wouldn't mind, but first:


Ah…The zeta function. Well if you have proved the Reimann Hypothesis, then you've got something incredible that will set the entire world on its ear!


Ahhaha... So, people have been working on this for more than a century now, hunh... Haha noobs (just kidding).

The answer is no. I have not solved it (yet) but now that I know that it is such a big deal I may give it a more serious attempt. Like I said, I have not spent much time investigating the matter. I had heard, anecdotally, when I was young, that there may be a pattern in prime. I didn't start to investigate prime until late in my work with dimension. A lot of that work involves curvatures, that and a few other logical jumps, which I don't care to share, led me to investigate prime. I printed out the first 10,000 primes from the Internet. The pattern is very distinct though intricate and not very intuitive (it breaks down then lapse back on itself then breaks down again and relapse again. It's kinda like a spiral, where each new, larger, distinct pattern segment is interwoven into the smaller previous pattern. I identified maybe seven to ten distinct patterns segments (it's been five or six years since I worked on it) and made maybe more than a hundred margin notations (necessary to keep up with the pattern). Then the pattern broke again and jumped way down the line. Considering the size of the last distinct pattern segment that I identified, the difference in size between the previous distinct pattern and the last one, and the increase in the gap between the two, and previous patterns, I assume that it jumped quite a ways out. I attempted to look for it, for a while, to no avail. With out the next distinct pattern segment I was sunk - each new distinct pattern is like a key that allows you to understand how the previous pattern is interwoven. The jump was just to far for me to make with nothing but my own mind, and I am not a mathematician so I don't know how to make an algorithm, which would be necessary to track the pattern. All I can do is identify it when found. Anyway, I was, at this time, rapping up my work with dimensions and some philosophical concepts I had been working on which stemmed from my work with dimensions, and at the time I was quit satisfied with what I had accomplished. So I never tried to delve any deeper than I did at that point.

I could show you this work if you like (prime pattern) I believe I still have it somewhere in my papers.

I'm curious, in this Reimann Hypothesis, do they have the idea of attempting to marry the algorithm found in prime (if one is found) to the irrational sequence found in pi and other irrational numbers?

Alright, as I said, I would like to test some of my logic against your knowledge: 


That hasn't been true since the times of the ancient greeks. The development of things like non-euclidean geometry, the field of topology, set theory, and modern logics themselves have taken mathematics FAR from whatever roots it might have in a straightedge and compass.


I would contend that we did not move past the mathematical base in the use of strait lines. But instead moved to linear mathematics as a base replacement. For instance: A squared plus B squared equals C squared, describes a geometric construct based in the use of strait lines that allows us to calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle, as well squaring a number also creates a geometric construct. Identically, the area of a circle (pi • r squared) also describes a geometric construct that fills the area of a circle and thus can be measured.

I am unfamiliar with this terminology:

non-euclidean geometry
topology
set theory

Are these systems of math based in the use of linear mathematics? If so, then I would contend that that these system are based in the use of strait line geometric constructs.


How does that make for an incomplete understanding? Are you thinking of pi in constructivist terms, where a finite approximation is always used because infinite transcendental constructions are impossible and must be disallowed?


I am unfamiliar with this terminology:

constructivist terms
finite approximation is always used because infinite transcendental constructions are impossible and must be disallowed

My meaning is that the geometric constructs used, in mathematics, to calculate curvatures, such as the area of a circle or volume of a sphere, will always be inaccurate, because the geometric construct you are filling the area or volume with, will never completely fill the the circle or sphere. Thus inevitably leavening one with a loss of vital information. Now for general purposes this information loss is negligible, but when we get down to the scales involved in quantum mechanics it becomes vital information that is necessary to making accurate calculation. Something that comes to mind immediately is the uncertainty principle. Perhaps if we could more directly deal with curvatures on these scales it would clear up a lot of the mathematical inaccuracies we have in quantum mechanics. As well, being able to more directly deal with curvatures would also help me with me with understanding the dimensional structure of the universe, calculations which are going to represent scales much smaller than the quantum level.


inevitably.


I don't agree. I think that a flawless understanding of the universe will eventually be obtained. My reasoning behind this is very simply, the universe functions flawlessly and invariably. It IS.


and nobody ever will. Look up Godel's therorems on undecideability & incompleteness. In a nutshell, among other things, he proved that there will always be true but unprovable statements in any sufficiently complex formal system of reasoning.


I can't accept this idea. I does not seem to allow for unforeseen influences, like the potential to deal more directly mathematically with curvatures, as well as, any other potential mathematical innovations.


Pi has been calculated to decimal places well into the trillions. I dare say that is a sufficiently accurate approximation for this universe.


Regardless of how fine the detail is, I would contend that the use of geometric constructs, at the quantum level and smaller, is highly inefficient, and that we need to learn to deal with curvatures more directly.

Well, I guess that raps it up. I'm kinda pretty nervous. I've never talk to someone about my ideas at this level of detail. I hope I don't get schooled to bad.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/13/2012 2:42:38 PM
I find that I'm tempted to think of it in terms of a discrepancy between our math being digital...using distinct units, no matter how many decimal places are available...and nature being analog in many respects. We're trying to understand something that's often analog with a digital tool.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 63
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/13/2012 9:26:22 PM

I have not read the materials that you suggested yet. I wanted to test my logic against your knowledge a little before I do…

While I'm flattered that you think I'm the Old Poop on the Hill (I often like to pretend I am), I think perhaps you might be better served to look the stuff up first (as i intended). This would allow you to test your logic against currently accepted knowledge in specific areas more applicable to your line of inquiry, as opposed to my quite limited knowledge in the domains of math/physics in which you'd like to venture.

I'm not your mentor, nor am I suited to be. All I should be to you is someone who might (hopefully) point you in the direction you want to go & give you a few tips. This is what I have tried to do. The rest is kinda up to you.


I'm curious, in this Riemann Hypothesis, do they have the idea of attempting to marry the algorithm found in prime (if one is found) to the irrational sequence found in pi and other irrational numbers?

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "the algorithm found in prime"…prime what?…what algorithm? I'm sure you know what you intend to say, but your expression isn't making your meaning clear. Are you perhaps referring to the prime number theorem?

http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml

Please look up the Riemann Hypothesis to find out what it is. I italicized a bunch of stuff in my earlier post, intending for you to use search engine so you could do some reading on it and hopefully answer a lot of your questions. (While it may be useless for a lot of things, I find Wikipedia to be a decent source for things like math & physics…You might want to search in there.) I'm pretty sure with all the hyperlinks & such, you can follow a sort of free-form line of exploration that will at least acquaint you with modern mathematical thought. Additionally (and this was intended too), it will give you an idea of just how vast & diverse mathematics has become, not to make it intimidating, but to give you a sense of the absolute awe I feel when I look at it myself…Quite simply, one could spend lifetimes delving into one little area of it. Personally, I think it has come a long way from what probably started as cavemen counting off a pile of rocks to see if they had enough for their stone tools.

At any rate, this isn't the thread to be talking about this stuff. We should try to restrict ourselves here to speculations & comments related to the thread title.


We're trying to understand something that's often analog with a digital tool.

Yes and no. While numbers are (obviously) discrete digital units, the wealth of mathematics encompasses both the digital and the analog. For instance, a simple continuous function, such as y=x^2 uses discrete (but continuous "real") numbers (x,y) to create what is in essence something totally analog, the graph itself.

While I can appreciate that this thread was created with the intent of letting our minds "run wild" with plausible speculation, and while we want to be "anchored" to the limits that might be imposed by nature, what we don't want to do is limit our reasoning with artificial restrictions, such as a possibly erroneous limitation imposed by the difference between discrete and continuous math. Both views are easily accommodated.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/13/2012 11:00:00 PM
Dukky:

No worries. It was not my intention to put you on the spot. I only thought that maybe you had a knowledge base that I could test my ideas on.

I have already begun to research the suggested materials.

I found a book that seems interesting:

Prime Obsession by John Derbyshire

Looks like a good place to start.

Thanks for your help.

{edit>>>Oh and by the way, the prize for solving the zeta function $1,000,000.00
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 65
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/14/2012 1:10:54 AM
@ CressB
Bon Appetit!

BTW...If you win the million, remember I get half for giving you the idea. LOL
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/14/2012 1:24:21 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Haha... Howabout 10%
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 67
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/14/2012 10:01:08 AM

no matter where you are in the universe, there is always gravity.

If true, it may be either that gravity is the "aether" that the scientists of old believed existed until the Mitchelson-Morley experiment disproved (the prior conception of) it, or that gravity is another as yet not-united aspect (or "facet") of the Grand Unified "stuff" of the universe.

That the universe/multiverse is composed of only one thing (probability of existence IMO), I have no doubt. What we see as different things/laws/etc. are really(?) different manifestations of a single underlying thing. IMO, that thing is fractal and what we perceive to be different phenomena may only be something like a single tensor we might call the dimensions of spacetime. The tensor could represent more than what we perceive as the physical topology of spacetime. It may be the "stuff" of which the universe is constructed, which IMO is akin to the iterated function or recurrence relation upon which the entire fractal (universe) can be constructed. For all I really know, the universe itself is a self-defining fractal construction built from itself, using itself as a model. (i.e. that the final product is a tensor built from identical tensors as the "iterations" upon which it is built.) This would be in keeping with the self-similarity property of fractals (as above, so below)

I think too, we might now see our quantum-mechanical universe as a quantum "smudged" finitary approximation of the Platonic form implied by the perfect "classical" fractal (the "model" for the universe).

It's my guess that physicists thinking along these lines might come up with a creative idea to unite relativity with QM.
 OldSpice48
Joined: 9/17/2011
Msg: 68
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/14/2012 9:30:53 PM
Attention!!!

********************

I have decided to share the ultimate, all-encompassing, & final truth, rendering moot any further comments on this forum:

,,sƃuıpuǝ ǝʌɹǝu ɥʇıʍ ʞɔɐɹʇ ǝʌıʇsǝƃıp ɐ uɐɥʇ ǝɹoɯ ƃuıɥʇou ǝɹɐ ǝM ˙ǝqnʇ ǝuo ɟo spuǝ oʍʇ ʎldɯıs ǝɹɐ snuɐ puɐ ɥʇnoɯ ǝɥ┴,,

Thank you, & goodnight...

***************************************
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 69
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/14/2012 10:01:36 PM

,,sƃuıpuǝ ǝʌɹǝu ɥʇıʍ ʞɔɐɹʇ ǝʌıʇsǝƃıp ɐ uɐɥʇ ǝɹoɯ ƃuıɥʇou ǝɹɐ ǝM ˙ǝqnʇ ǝuo ɟo spuǝ oʍʇ ʎldɯıs ǝɹɐ snuɐ puɐ ɥʇnoɯ ǝɥ┴,,

Just wanted to see what this looked like after going through pof's digestive track
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 70
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/15/2012 12:29:42 AM
I may have found the flaw in your GUT (Grand Unified Truth):


sƃuıpuǝ ǝʌɹǝu ɥʇıʍ ʞɔɐɹʇ ǝʌıʇsǝƃıp ɐ uɐɥʇ ǝɹoɯ ƃuıɥʇou ǝɹɐ ǝM ˙ǝqnʇ ǝuo ɟo spuǝ oʍʇ ʎldɯıs ǝɹɐ snuɐ puɐ ɥʇnoɯ ǝɥ┴

Shouldn't "ʞɔɐɹʇ" be "ʇɔɐɹʇ"?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/15/2012 2:02:45 PM
^^^^ahhaha LMFAO^^^^
 gedanken
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 72
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/15/2012 5:59:13 PM
@MrGoodManUK

Soooo, if we take an atom of Helium with 1 proton, 1 neutron and 1 electron

First, you made a little error; this is not a Helium atom that you have described , but rather it is an isotope of Hydrogen, a Deuteron to be exact, also known as Heavy Hydrogen. The simplest atom in the universe is, of course, Protium: 1 proton and one electron. So, with a Protium atom, which also accounts for most of the observable mass of the universe, and has 2 positive particles (2 Up Quarks) and 2 negative particle (1 Down Quark and an electron); does this affect your theory?

As well, could you be a little bit more specific as to how much charge is missing from each particle. Is the same quantity (as opposed to ratio) of Coulomb charge missing from each particle. I assume that it was you mean, since you desire to create an imbalance in charge on an atom.

And finally, reference that imbalance,

...that all atoms would hold a slightly negative bias.
Electrons flows from negative to positive so this would make all atoms have a net attractive force.

...just clarify that when you say 'hold a slight negative bias" that you mean that all matter (the earth, a human, an atom of lead, etc) would have a slight positive charge (which is why they are attracting the electrons)?
Thanks in advance.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/25/2012 3:39:54 PM
...still makes me sad that this subject if frequently dipped into and even argued over in other threads, yet this (kind) of thread is about to die.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 74
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/27/2012 10:16:47 PM

this (kind) of thread is about to die.

Not if I have anything to say about it it won't! I think all that's needed is a bit of a recap of what we know so far about our glorious universe. (of course it doesn't hurt to make it a bit entertaining too). So without further ado, here's a little something to (hopefully) garner a bit of interest and start the speculation going again.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/27/2012 10:34:34 PM

...still makes me sad that this subject if frequently dipped into and even argued over in other threads, yet this (kind) of thread is about to die.


Maybe what this thread needs to get it going is a little God.

So with that in mind, remember to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoaktW-Lu38&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory