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: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
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.


Your so called explanation is a symptom of classic linear thinking.

What is reality but an illusion.


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein


They are considered pardoxes by those in philosophy and science, and if you bothered to read the link you will see they are still unresolved today.


However, with the discovery of quantum mechanics, those mathematical solutions have now been shown to be incongruent with deeper physical (quantum) processes (see above section "Are space and time infinitely divisible?"). This is quite clearly demonstrated with the failure of calculus (and mathematics entirely, as of late 2006) to map the transition of quantum possibilities (as mapped by a wavefunction) to observed physical reality - what is generally known as the wave-function collapse. In the quantum realm, Zeno's Paradoxes not only remain unresolved, but form the very foundations of science's "most successful physical theory in history"[15], as is reflected in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Bohr's Principle of Complementarity).



These quantum paradoxes (along with Zeno's) have led some physicists to assert that they are a fundamental, irreducible feature of life, including the operation of intelligence. As Physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein wrote:



"The actual operation of intelligence is (thus) beyond the possibility of being determined or conditioned by factors that can be included in any knowable law ... Intelligence is thus not deducible or explainable on the basis of any branch of knowledge (e.g. physics or biology). Its origin is deeper and more inward than any knowable order that could describe it."


[edit on 29-11-2006 by etshrtslr]




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
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.


I'm sure no philosopher
, but yes, any time you go anywhere, you reach a halfway point. It's not suggesting you only go half way, it's stating you eventually get half way. The paradox is that there are an infinite number of "half ways" that must be traversed and since you can never reach infinity, you can never reach your destination. You can never bisect the distance an infinite number of times (in theory) and that's what you're required to do. You can divide any distance by 2 an infinite number of times.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Zenos paradox is valid if time and matter are infinately divisible, which it is not.
At the quantum level a particles exact position is "blurred". It cannot be said to occupy a specific fixed point in space. How can a halfway point be established when the beginning point and the end point are in a state of flux.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Zenos paradox is valid if time and matter are infinately divisible, which it is not.
At the quantum level a particles exact position is "blurred". It cannot be said to occupy a specific fixed point in space. How can a halfway point be established when the beginning point and the end point are in a state of flux.


I think that still makes the paradox valid.....after all what the paradox is saying is that all motion is an illusion and if the beginning and end points are in a state of flux how do you know where you started from and how do you know if your at the end or how do you know if you moved?

And from what NH has stated on LQG:


You see there is no real distance when talking about prions and braids, it is possible that the connections could be right next to each other at a quantum level but from our perspective they are light years apart....


So if there is no distance then that reinforces the notion that motion is an illusion because what distance can you travel if there is no distance to travel?


Note to Neon Haze,
If im misinterpeting what you have been saying I apologize in advance and please correct my misconceptions.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This topic is going faster than I can read it, but not as fast as the speed of light!

robertfenix alluded to this as nonsense, because he can touch a rock, therefore it is not made up of 'nothing'
When you touch something, you touch a forcefield of electrons that are of 99% not thereness, or empty space.

Braiding of spacetime, like braiding a breeze, if you could braid wind it would probably feel denser to the touch, or how about an air cannon launcher, shoots wind pockets across a room, you feel it because it's moving air.

Neon haze said:

But your post does raise the question of responsibility, as this technology if or

when we get it, could be used for evil as well as good.

Yabbut, if we controlled these braids, why would evil even need to exist in humans, evil is

a result of desire, and if we could get whatever our hearts desire by manipulating matter,

then why fight and not get along?
Just create what you desire, instead of taking it by force. But of course we being humans, we will find a way to screw it up!

How can space time exist without any matter, spacetime needs matter, so there could never

be nothing, or else braids could not form without the influence of spacetime caused by

matter. So, what I mean simply is that, do braids need matter in order to form? And that

precludes non-existence of influencing matter (or spacetime warping objects)

Neon haze said:

One thing is for certain now, we can never find a mysterious particle that adds mass

to matter (the higgs bosson). This so called god particle wont be able to state where mass

comes from any different from any other particle.

According to braid theory, more mass means more and/or denser spacetime tangles, weight

simply is the gravitational force on these braid tangles.

rizla said:

So is this saying quantum entanglement works because the these braids exist in more

than 3 dimensions, and as such can apparently connect across huge distances?

Could they also explain synchronicity (i.e. coincidence)? Or have I got it all wrong?

Hmmm, good point, could this even help explain deja-vu? And as for coincidence, seems like

'like' things happen in groups in the shorter or concentrated spaces in time.

etshrtslr said:

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.

Assuming a block of cheese is still cheese down past the atomic level, you could also cut the

cheese in half forever, never achieving no-cheese.
Cheesy thought.
I'll cut it. Braid that!



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It is still not the end all be all of theories. It doesn't explain how to get my purple widgets from Houston to Podunk, WI in the next business day on time and on budget.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It is still not the end all be all of theories. It doesn't explain how to get my purple widgets from Houston to Podunk, WI in the next business day on time and on budget.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
It is still not the end all be all of theories. It doesn't explain how to get my purple widgets from Houston to Podunk, WI in the next business day on time and on budget.


Hmmm... Interesting....There have been loads of questions raised on this thread that I admit I haven't had the chance to answer as of yet.... Sorry for that…

I do promise I will be back with more to add to this thread...

But in the mean time....

If we were able to reap the fruits of this theory... you wouldn't need to transport widgets... if there were a need for a widget then they could be made wherever they were needed.... Literally pulled into existence from the ether...

It sounds so cliché and geekish... but try and think Star Trek... Replicaters... they are a distinct possibility.

All the best.. and hold onto your horses... will be back.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Dreams are a one sided image where consequences are transparent. The real world consequences are permenant, thus there exists a physical existence.


How do you know? what you see, hear, feel, smell and taste are only electric impulses that your brain gives a meaning to. For example colors don't really exist, blue green and red are only different electromagnetic frequencies that your brain represents as being blue green and red. your thoughts are only the result of brain patterns and your emotions are chemicals.

After all you could be a file located on the hard disk of a computer and there would be no way you could find it out.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Hi There,

I always gain a 'smile' whenever I see 'time' included within mathematics, as t=nth...time is not a reality, it is not a dimension, it holds no existentialism of its own. Einstien's adaption of space and time into 'space-time' describes two things, space and its extension, and motion occurring within such space. I'll keep this brief and simple.

We can consider 'motion' as a 'event', something that happens in space, it has a start and a stop. The lengths in between the starts and stops of events are what we perceive as 'time'; ergo, time is simply the perception of an event, an 'action of a certain length that takes place in space. To assume time as being a dimension in its own right, as if having existentialism outside and beyond events occurring is quite simply an error. You cannot have time without motion, but you can (theoretically) have space without motion.

Consider, if we have space with nothing in it, no event taking place (and by event, I mean anything from an electron jump, to the spin of a galaxy), how are you able to time space, you cannot do it! You need an event of some form to occur to give you a (perceiving) basis of a start and a stop. Time is not allied to space but to motion (in other words, the 'action' of an event).



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
As for those who are alluding to this theory as nonsense, for whatever it's worth, I've personally talked to Physists that are very enthused about this theory simply because it's the most solid falsifiable attempt to come around in quite a while. Even if this theory fails we will still learn something a bring ourselves one step closer to the ultimate theory. We'll get there eventually.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hello all... couldn't resist creating a user account just to post on this thread... Neon Haze you should be proud. :-)

My view on entanglement is this:

The space-time continuum is composed of a network of 'places'. A 'place' can be thought of as the smallest possible unit of space-time, an indivisible unit of space-time. There would be billions upon billions of these 'places' in the universe.

The things that tie all these 'places' together are the interconnections between them. It's the interconnections between the 'places' that make it a network or, on a larger zoomed-out scale, a continuum.

If I understand it right, in LQG terminology a 'place' would correspond to a node, and an interconnection would be a trinion. I think.

Anyway so you could have node A connected to node B, which is connected to node C, which is connected to node D, and so on through to node Z. This arrangement of nodes and interconnections implies the concept of distance, because to get to node Z from node A means travelling all the way along the chain of interconnected nodes.

But theoretically there's nothing to prevent node A being directly connected to node Z with an interconnection between the two. Presumably this extra connection between the two nodes would enable a cause-and-effect relationship to exist between A and Z directly, as well as the conventional 'long way' via the intervening nodes.

So from a conventional viewpoint there may be a large distance (ie. a large number of interconnected nodes) between A and Z, but the direct connection between A and Z provides the entanglement and enables the action-at-a-distance to occur.

And it's a mistake to think of the direct connection between A and Z as spanning a large distance, because from the viewpoint of an interconnected network of nodes, the only way you can define 'distance' is by how many nodes there are in the chain between A and Z. So the 'distance' between A and Z is simultaneously a large distance and also a very small one. In other words, A is a large distance from Z and also at the same time right next to it.

That's my understanding anyway. Probably off the mark but hey.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Neon,

I will precede my questions with the customary ignorance statement but I'm going to post my questions/ramble anyway and hope for the best...

What limit, if any, could/would be placed on objects created? For example, you could create planets? What if you could create a quantum computer to run simulations?

If everyone had the ability to create what they want, how could that physically work? What if everyone created an ocean?

I suspect the background data for the braids looks like it is computed because it is, surely this is only confirming that what we see as three dimensional reality is designed.

The purpose of the program is the same as some peoples perception of God works, to experience, to test and for us to learn, for perhaps this is also confirmation that we are here on purpose. We have a reason to be, we must be important, let's not lose all hope.

What if the rope with the red centre had no end and was the preverbial doughnut shape with the two ends, not two ends but a circle? Is this not possible? Why not? If it is, what would that imply?

If the theory is correct, would it not also explain why people refer to "look within" for the answers to the universe and experience all manners of wonderous things. If we are made up of the very same fibres of these braids, then the universe literally runs through us. If you could access the braid that literally makes up the fibres of mind and soul, you get to peek outside of our known reality. This would explain a certain information stream and a physical connection to an underlying energy source, well, everything except that that resides externally.

What if the quantum computational device was itself a result of a quantum computational device? Isn't it logical that if we are in a matrix, then the device running the matrix is simply one level higher in a larger matrices web. You see how that could get monotonous, kinda like standing in a room full of mirrors.

Is it possible for the braided universe to be an artificial reality created as a learning centre? As you use the Q Continuum analogy, I will use the Holodeck. You could create any reality you like, shove your kids in and they come out having experienced anything you programmed. Anyway, I'm sure I enjoyed writing this more than you guys will reading it. Perhaps what sits outside the braids is reality. Schools in session otherwise.

~Peace



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
As for those who are alluding to this theory as nonsense, for whatever it's worth, I've personally talked to Physists that are very enthused about this theory simply because it's the most solid falsifiable attempt to come around in quite a while. Even if this theory fails we will still learn something a bring ourselves one step closer to the ultimate theory. We'll get there eventually.


Wow, really? I have personally talked to chemist who have never heard of this crap and could careless. A theory is only as good as its use. Relativity is pretty much useless as are many theories in astrophysics and cosmology. Geology and chemistry, now there are some damn good theories in those fields.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
My vote is Neon Haze and the Quantum Loop Braided space time mamma jama- ZERO

REALITY + 1,000


Sorry but the above hypothesised theory forgets one thing, I can touch myself. I can touch a rock, I can touch the rock to myself, I can make the rock into smaller rocks.

The rock therefore exists independant of both space and time, was the rock there yesterday, umm possibly, if I went back to yesterday (if it was possible but its not because there is no such thing as time, therefore there is no "before" time to return to) would the rock be there, yes (assuming again it was physically possible to reverse time).


Time like I said is nothing but an abstract concept, if you were in a room with nothing, and no outside source of judging day light and no watch and no plants just you a big room and a chair. Do you think you could accuratly tell what "time" it was, ever. Would you know when a week went by compared to when just two days ???

Nope, you can only stay awake so long marking dash marks at regular counts, one, one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. What about when you went to sleep how would you judge how long you had been asleep for ????

Then "time" does not exist.



what a strange line of reasoning - we cant perceive it so it must not exist. If I was in an empty room I would not be able to count the number of particles in the air or see the bacteria on the walls...it hardly means it doesnt exist.

Excellent thread though OP, im very interested in this kind of stuff.


Dae

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
Wow, really? I have personally talked to chemist who have never heard of this crap and could careless. A theory is only as good as its use. Relativity is pretty much useless as are many theories in astrophysics and cosmology. Geology and chemistry, now there are some damn good theories in those fields.


Wow really indeed. Why would a chemist have heard of this theory hmm? Unless they have an interest in physics its like asking a dentist.

Now, Im no fan of Einstein but that statement about Relativity being 'pretty much usless' is extraordinarily wrong. Off the top of my head I can name an application of Relativity; GPS, yes Global Positioning System. Read it and weep!

Oh and E=mc² is kinda useful...



edit for spelling

[edit on 11/1/07 by Dae]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Wow so much conversation going on! This is an excellent concept. Reading through all the posts, I have, if I may, the following comments:


Originally posted by devilwasp

A planet is bigger, the time taken to complete one full rotation is larger.


devilwasp - actually I have only one comment - Jupiter, the largest planet in our system, rotates once about every 9 hours or so - considerably faster than the Earth, even though it is considerably larger. And the Sun - well it's rotation varies by latitude. At any rate, there is no fixed ratio for size to rotation. Otherwise, I agree it is perception.


Originally posted by robertfenix
The "electron" and the "anti electron".

Because they determine the atomic stability of every atom in existence. They are also independant of atoms, can jump between atoms, be exchanged, be absorbed and then radiated. Without electrons atoms can not retain their nuclei.


robertfenix - The Electron and it's opposite, the Positron, are but 2 of the many known fundamental particles - specifically these are Leptons. There are also bosons, mesons, quarks, etc... How on earth you would believe these are the only fundamental particles that count is beyond me. At any rate - I have read your posts, and all I can make out is that you can't seem to decide what you really believe. But you like to argue about linguistics - not physics or science. Human perception is vague and non-quantifiable. A Mile is simply a human reference. So is a Kilometer. On another planet they might be gloobs and terghs. So what? That's why they make conversion tables. You are arguing science from the perspective of human experience - this is different for every human. A word is what we make of it. So what?

That doesn't change science or physics. These concepts are universal. A second on earth is a second on any other world. They may call it something else, they probably have a different reference for time, and a different method of measuring it. But that doesn't, and can't, fundamentally change it. Just because we don't understand the nature of time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Time is measurable and quantifiable, therefore it must exist. Only human arrogance would assume that because we don't understand it, it's fundamentally flawed. The only thing that changes is how we experience it, and that's where relativity comes in. Here on earth, a second is:

the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.


Now it doesn't matter where I am - this is a second. If I'm at the north pole, and that clock is with me, that's a second. If I'm traveling across interstellar space at 99.99999% of c, and that clock is with me, that's a second. But, if I'm traveling at 99.99999% of c and looking at that clock while it stays on earth, that's where relativity kicks in. But that's the kicker - time doesn't change, our experience of time doesn't change. Only how it relates to others and those interactions.

Consider this though - the speed of light is unchanging. This is where the concept of this paper is important: no matter how fast I'm going, the speed of light is unchanging. If I'm traveling at 99.99999% of c, and I look at a photon - how fast is it going? It's still going the speed of light! It doesn't slow down in relation to me and that is the fundamental principle of physics and relativity. Apply this concept to the braids and it becomes apparent that if we consider that fundamentally all the braids are connected to all the others, that distance is no longer a factor, then this property of light makes much more sense.

Ok I'm about out of room here... Also, I know I'm replying to earlier postings but my there's a lot to read through! I apologize if I've duplicated anything...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
o.k. people.

Some more supporting evidence.

As I predicted using LQG, the Higgs Boson will not be found to be the magic mass producing component of matter.

The value of the upper limit for the mass of the higgs boson was thought to be 166 GeV though it has been re-calculated following more accurate measurements of the W-boson and now has a value of just 153 GeV.

Phsy.org have a paper on this re-calculation, you can find it here

Precision measurement of W-boson mass suggests a lighter Higgs



I very strongly suspect that when a particle with the value of 153 GeV is detected (LHC coming online march this year), the establishment will herald in 'WE have found the Higgs' etc etc…

However, I strongly suspect that what we will also find are many other particles that have a total maximum mass out of the range of the minimum Higgs value of around 140 GeV...

Pushing the Higgs-Boson aside as the mass component of matter.

As all mass comes from Space Density. The total Surface area of the space it takes to describe an object = the objects total mass. This means that we can theoretically smash as particles together indefinably and always find ever smaller particles.

Anyway... I'll keep you all up to date of other supporting evidence.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
oh man, how many times does it have to be said! the Zeno's paradox is no paradox at all! it's only word play: every time you move, you don't travel half of the remaining distance, but all of it!

I've posted this in other threads as well...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
oh man, how many times does it have to be said! the Zeno's paradox is no paradox at all! it's only word play: every time you move, you don't travel half of the remaining distance, but all of it!

I've posted this in other threads as well...


Just to add, Archimedes found a way of measuring the surface area of a curved object using the concept of infinite slices.

The only surviving example of this method was a small scrawl on one of Archimedes' surviving texts. The knowledge of how to do this was lost along with countless other gems when the great library burned.

But to add further still, I would say that Infinity is purely a human concept, an attempt to describe something outside the bounds of experience.

If you were to take infinity as a number then it has to be a big Zero Zilch 0.

No beginning and no end.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Neon Haze]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join