It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 25cents
so you're basically saying that the 'code' to generate our universe was created in a comparable scenario to Shakespeare’s 1000 monkey re-writing hamlet?


That depends on how you apply that. It maybe more correct on deeper levels than most people realise.

However the most direct application of the 1000 monkeys is more suitable to the naturally arising quantum reality as opposed to the computational universe.

The question is that if the universe were comprised entirely of data, then how many other Simulations are there?


what if the dimension of time exists beyond the 'walls' or 'brackets' of our universe (or it's code) - what time frame would you be looking at for something like that to be generated randomly? googleplex^googleplex? mind boggling, really.


This is an interesting thought.

For anyone out there not a tech head, Computers work in cycles. so many cycles per second. The more powerful computers are able to process more and more information within each cycle. Faster computers still are able to reach more cycles per second.

now if for example you had a computer simulating a consciousness that was aware within it's construct but not aware of the outside, and then you turned the cycles down to say 5 cycles a second. Would the conscious know it was being generated slower?? I bet not.

Even though to the observer or operator of the computer the simulation has slowed down time. but from the perspective of the consciousness nothing had changed...

Now what if we were to turn down the computer to one cycle per 100'000'000 years. So long as the computer survived, the consciousness would perceive no slowdown. However the time deferential between simulation and observer would be huge.

With this in mind, you could also go the other way and turn the cycles up to a googolplex per second, since a googolplex is much larger than the number of atoms in the Universe, you could simulate the birth and death of a whole universe in a matter of a few days or possibly a few hours.

A computer running cycles at a googolplex raised to the power of a googolplex per second, could result in many universes being simulated within a single cycle.

Again to the simulated consciousness within the construct of the compute programme there would be no discernable change

Interesting thoughts indeed.

All the best.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Neon Haze]




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
i had to give you a second vote this month. you're probably my favorite person to bounce ideas off of, because you can take the conversation so much further and generate more questions in my mind.

it goes a long way to distracting me from the trials and tribulations of daily life. thank you.

i'll respond with more science stuff later. my boss is expecting me to do something called 'work', and i think i need training on that.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Hmmm... now choice is an interesting subject when related to quantum effects, will come onto that a little later. ...

...if the simulation scenario is correct then it would explain entanglement… read further down the post





I read with bated breath, searching for references to "entanglement" - but found none!

Can you get back to it please NH?

Thanks, sofi


PS. I gave you a Way Above too. Absolutely excellent thread. Good job.


[edit on 9-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Hmmm... now choice is an interesting subject when related to quantum effects, will come onto that a little later. ...

...if the simulation scenario is correct then it would explain entanglement… read further down the post





I read with bated breath, searching for references to "entanglement" - but found none!

Can you get back to it please NH?

Thanks, sofi


PS. I gave you a Way Above too. Absolutely excellent thread. Good job.





I posted a link about this earlier. It's a theory that all minds are entangled and it is really worth the read! entangled minds



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Neon Haze

...when related to quantum effects... if the simulation scenario is correct then it would explain entanglement… read further down the post





I read with bated breath, searching for references to "entanglement" - but found none! ...Can you get back to it please NH?



I posted a link about this earlier. It's a theory that all minds are entangled and it is really worth the read!



Thanks techsnow. Interesting stuff.


...I'm still hoping NH will explain 'entanglement' from the physics perspective.



.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

...you haven't taken the time to read the link I provided in my original post, which points to the white paper that goes into loop quantum gravity in a lot more depth...

Sorry NH, I tried and failed to make any sense of that.

Here are some questions I have, I think I understand the theory in principle but I'm not sure:

You say these braids make particles, but what particles? Are braids atoms, electrons or some smaller thing that clump together to make up electrons or some smaller building block. It's just you say mass is explained by more dense braids, so am I a braid, or is my fingernal a braid, or the atoms in it? If braids are the fundamental building block then how come there are different braids? Surely mass wouldn't be tighter braids but more braids. I think this has implications for the ability for us to construct objects out of braids.

The image on the first page of this thread shows the braids with 'ends' that aren't attatched to anything; is this where you would have the other braids that make up an object. So can we imagine the universe as one big jumper? But then how come we have concrete particulars, and not just a mess of braids?


So if space does not exist then the data that describes your arm can be connected to anything within the overall programme

Isn't that like saying the last and first words of this sentance are connected because they are in the same sentance? Wouldn't it be that my arm must necessarily be connected to the braids of my body or we'd have a mess of braids and no concrete particulars?

How can space (the existence on nothing) braid into anything? You say quantum fluctuations caused space/time to braid into matter. But didn't there need to be braids in order for there to be quantum fluctuations.

Is the space in time/space tau space? I don't know about tau space but can you give us a very brief explanation of it if it's relevant to understanding this theory.

I still don't see how a graph of connections gives you numbers resembling a quantum computer and how this form of information would imply that we are in a computer programme. If 'they' are reducing the data from the real world, then it could be due to there reductions rather than the universe actually being a computer programme.

Also there are some questions littered through this thread that haven't been answered, although I understand you are probably very busy. All the best NH.

[edit on 13/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Just thought as well (couldn't edit the thread above) what new predictions can this theory make that means it should superceed our current theories and does it explain all current phenomena that we experience more simply?

I think I have so many questions because it's so interesting, but also, you stated that this theory is supported by the math. I can't understand that, so can I get a brief description from you or be pointed in the direction that would allow me to analyse the math in the white paper.

Hope you can find the time to enlighten me.


[edit on 14/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Hi all,

Been busy over the last couple of weeks.

Hopefully have some more time coming up to me.

Some very interesting questions have arisen on this thread over the last week and I WILL I promise come back to post about entanglement in more detail and to talk about what braids are made of, the unified field.

Have some nice links to share too, just in the middle of something at the moment.

Please have patience.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Sorry guys not been able to update this thread for a while. Been working on some supporting visualisations.

Some one asked earlier about physics and the progression from classical to TOE (Theory of Everything). As you can see LQG is a direct and logical progression.




Originally posted by byhiniur
Here are some questions I have, I think I understand the theory in principle but I'm not sure:

You say these braids make particles, but what particles? Are braids atoms, electrons or some smaller thing that clump together to make up electrons or some smaller building block.


The braids describe all the particles. These for example, are the braids that describe an electron and a positron:



The twist in the braids actually account for charge.


It's just you say mass is explained by more dense braids, so am I a braid, or is my fingernal a braid, or the atoms in it? If braids are the fundamental building block then how come there are different braids? Surely mass wouldn't be tighter braids but more braids. I think this has implications for the ability for us to construct objects out of braids.


The more densely compact and complex the braids become the more exotic and unstable the particle they describe. However Mass is a direct derivative to the amount of or if you like the total surface area of space twisted into braids.

If you were to relate this to an object at our level of reality, the more mass an object has, the more densely the braids are packed. Within LQG the reasons why one object has more mass than another is simply more space is required to describe the object.

LQG explains mass in a simple and straight forward way. the simplest equation I can think of would be Mass = Space x Braid Density squared.

Equation should read M=SBD2

M = Mass Total
S = Space (brane)
BD = Braid density.


The image on the first page of this thread shows the braids with 'ends' that aren't attached to anything; is this where you would have the other braids that make up an object. So can we imagine the universe as one big jumper? But then how come we have concrete particulars, and not just a mess of braids?


Interesting you should bring this up. The braid is connected to everything else by what is called a node. Nodes are points in space (brane) that join the trions to form a braid.




So if space does not exist then the data that describes your arm can be connected to anything within the overall programme. Isn't that like saying the last and first words of this sentence are connected because they are in the same sentence? Wouldn't it be that my arm must necessarily be connected to the braids of my body or we'd have a mess of braids and no concrete particulars?


Precisely...


In Loop Quantum Gravity theory the reduction of the data produced a spin network.



The following Link takes you to the animation that visualises a spin network in a more pleasing on the eye manor. This should give you an idea of how braids are woven into the fabric of space.

Animation Spin Network Visualisation

One trinion (braid leg) maybe in your arm and the other trinions be located at the other side of the universe. What's more is other braids that are connected to the node that describes a particle in your arm maybe absolutely any where in the universe.

My point is this. Uncertainty and entanglement are key in interpreting the data and producing a series of numbers.


How can space (the existence on nothing) braid into anything? You say quantum fluctuations caused space/time to braid into matter. But didn't there need to be braids in order for there to be quantum fluctuations.


There needed to be exactly nothing for quantum fluctuations to form in the first place.

The quantum uncertainty principle as follows dictates that the actual position of a particle at the quantum level is uncertain until observed. This is the foundation of quantum reality.



The following is a visualisation of the so called quantum foam, the sea of uncertainty.



In classical quantum physics (if you can call Quantum physics classical) particles are created by the following mechanic.



This is a good way of visualising how particles come into existence in a two dimensional animation. However the reality is much more complex as the quantum fluctuations that occur at the Planck scale do not release the particle. It is held stead fast to everything else by the node.

I realise that Soficrow is awaiting an answer on entanglement. I will post more shortly.

In the mean time, the following link is excellent for explaining what entanglement is and how we came to discover it

Quantum Entanglement

Sorry for the delay.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Is this similiar to the theory of the Holographic Universe? Sounds to me like it is. Anyways I think this theory is very close to the truth of the matter. It would explain various phenomena such as levitation, esp, bending things with your mind, and things like that.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Is this similiar to the theory of the Holographic Universe? Sounds to me like it is. Anyways I think this theory is very close to the truth of the matter. It would explain various phenomena such as levitation, esp, bending things with your mind, and things like that.


I'm not entirely sure what the principles are behind the holographic universe theory.

What I can say to you is this...

What ever the ultimate truth behind LQG is, be it a Computational universe or a naturally arising quantum reality, one thing is certain....

All things are possible.

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Here is a link to the Holographic Universe. I think maybe what you are presenting here makes this theory possible, I'm not sure. Feel free to correct me.

www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Here is a link to the Holographic Universe. I think maybe what you are presenting here makes this theory possible, I'm not sure. Feel free to correct me.

www.crystalinks.com...


Hey there,

Thanks for this link.

I have only just read the first few paragraphs, and I have to say this strikes me as a totally astute observation.


The physics of black holes--immensely dense concentrations of mass--provides a hint that the principle might be true. Studies of black holes show that, although it defies common sense, the maximum entropy or information content of any region of space is defined not by its volume but by its surface area.




I believe mankind is about to uncover the ultimate truth.

The large hadron collider currently under construction at CERN Geneva, will be officially switched on around march 2007.

With this kind of energy we will be able to validate a founding principle in LQG... What Mass is and where it comes from.

A black hole is a perfect way of doing this, since the density of braids within a black hole is so immense, the localized gravitational waves will validate a sudden drop in braid density outside of the event horizon.

This would also predict and support the spaghettification of matter that falls beyond the event horizon due to major gravitational distortions.

We are currently working on a method of detecting other more major gravitational waves caused when two black holes collide.

When this occurs, we will get our first real glimpse at reality for what it is, since we would have a point of reference by which to measure it.

We would be able to measure our own reality warping due to the wave effects.

What's more is,

Dare I say, that the reality of where we are now in terms of development and knowledge sounds unbelievable similar to what a certain John titor predicted... not that I subscribe to it... believe someone debunked a picture purported to be titor.

Anyway... Very Interesting link.. I guess more people should listen to what some are calling fringe scientist... I say, Fringe would not be fringe if it wasn't cutting edge...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry - Double Post



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Neon Haze,



Now again that’s a scary thought.... because the if there is no distance between anything then we are 1.


This thought occured to me last night.

There is an old philosophical paradox that philosophers and mathmaticians have been trying to solve for centuries.

I cant remember what it is called but it goes somthing like this:

If you take a distance from A to B and you start at A and travel to B you first must cover half the distance from A to B.
Then continuing on you must now cover another half the distance then another half the distance and so on and on.
Each half the distance get incrementaly smaller but you can keep dividing the half the distance for infinity.

So mathmatically speaking you never really arrive at B because the distance keeps getting divided by another half for infinity.

But in the illusion of reality we do arrive at B

So I guess what Im saying (or asking) and please correct me if its wrong the quote of yours I posted above and the LQG theory solves this paradox?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr


I cant remember what it is called but it goes somthing like this:


Not answering for NH, but for a little insight on Zeno's Paradoxes, you might check here.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
yeahright,

Thanks, for the life of me I could not remember the name of it.

It does seem though that LQG solves this paradox along with many others.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
It isn't a paradox...

If you always travel half way along a path of a set length you'll never reach the other side.

If you just travel to the other end of the path, you don't travel half way everytime, you just tarvel a set distance.

Where's the paradox?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
It isn't a paradox...

If you always travel half way along a path of a set length you'll never reach the other side.

If you just travel to the other end of the path, you don't travel half way everytime, you just tarvel a set distance.

Where's the paradox?


I did not give the paradox justice in my description. In fact I got it wrong.

There is in fact several verisons called Zeno's paradox that have been around for centuries.

This is one version called the dichotomy paradox ( the one I was trying to describe):


Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.


en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

The arrow paradox:


Finally, in the arrow paradox, we imagine an arrow in flight. At every moment in time, the arrow is located at a specific position. If the moment is just a single instant, then the arrow does not have time to move and is at rest during that instant. Now, during the following instants, it then must also be at rest for the same reason. The arrow is always at rest and cannot move: motion is impossible.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The example where Homer catches the bus: he doesn't travel halfway everytime (that'd be a good excuse for being late to work), in reality he travels the whole way.

The arrow paradox: In each instant the arrow has alot of force acting on the arrow propelling it forward. It is not the arrow 'moving' but forces on the arrow causing it move. Anyway, the example is fallicious because we can't stop the arrow in each instance, we can only view the arrow flying through the air.

Zeno isn't exactly regarded as a great philosopher. They aren't paradoxes, they are thought experiments that misrepresent the nature of reality as we experience it.




top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join