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.

 

A Scientist Takes On Gravity

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Great Post Korg Trinity!


The only thing I wonder about, is the base of the foam that is depicted in your pictures.

What happens when you zoom into the flat sections between the loops? Same thing?

And, it looks like a new paradigm of space-time is trying to come forth in LQG, but they are still 'hinging' it upon a flat spacetime fabric.

Why are the loops dependent upon that 'fabric' still? It just looks more 2D than 3D to me.

Could they be independent structures that are 'nesting' within each other?



If only Buddhasystem would actually put forth a worthwhile idea once in a while instead of being so pompous.

Apparently, he/she was a physics teacher... so perhaps the new paradigm is contrary to his/her cherished beliefs.



Some stuff:



Couple papers


[edit on 14-7-2010 by beebs]




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Great Post Korg Trinity!


The only thing I wonder about, is the base of the foam that is depicted in your pictures.

What happens when you zoom into the flat sections between the loops? Same thing?

And, it looks like a new paradigm of space-time is trying to come forth in LQG, but they are still 'hinging' it upon a flat spacetime fabric.

Why are the loops dependent upon that 'fabric' still? It just looks more 2D than 3D to me.


Not quite, because the visual I presented was presented in a way that we can understand. But in reality at the Planck length dimension is well.. Meaningless.

Space-time as considered a fabric is only a way for us 3 dimensional beings to relate to something that is impossible for us to image.

Actually to take it further, the concept of LQG leads to some rather interesting thoughts. Firstly if you look at the data it explains entanglement and superposition as the data looks more like a network. Coined as a "Spin foam network"

That is to say that one particle could be directly connected to another particle that appears to millions of miles away but at the Planck length is in direct contact.

Spin foam networks are very very hard to make sense of and to visualise, I have seen a visualisation vid of it but it's hard to understand how that related directly to LQG or our observable universe...

LQG appears to validate the idea tha we live in a holographic universe which is also the premise of the OP.

As for Buddhasystem if he truly was a physics teacher then he will get quite a lot to chew on in my post


The main issue you see about our science establishment is that they like to protect thier own conjectures and the standard model, which is like a skyscraper built on the foundations of a cottage.

My view is the Standard Model is simply wrong. Doing science by consensus litrally throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I think this chap has it about right...







Korg

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I read a theory like this from a guy in California also he had access LLNL. I think was also Rosicrucian he spoke about Latin and pyramids. He had some crystal that had been changed from a machine at LLNL.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Very good points and I have thought about this as well. Maybe it isn't spooky action at a distance. Maybe these particles just appear to us to be far apart from each other but on a Planck's scale there in direct contact.

This should allow for non local communication because separation would just be an illusion of perception and everything would be connected and in direct contact.

This could also explain some Psi effects that have been confirmed in experiment after experiment. Here's a you tube video by Dean Radin called Science and the taboo of Psi.
www.youtube.com...

The article makes some good points like this:


Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards. All the information about what has been lost inside them is encoded on their surfaces. Physicists have been wondering ever since how this “holographic principle” — that we are all maybe just shadows on a distant wall — applies to the universe and where it came from.

In one striking example of a holographic universe, Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study constructed a mathematical model of a “soup can” universe, where what happened inside the can, including gravity, is encoded in the label on the outside of the can, where there was no gravity, as well as one less spatial dimension. If dimensions don’t matter and gravity doesn’t matter, how real can they be?


I'm glad scientist are starting to think outside the box on these things because this is the direction the data is taking us and we can either accept it or remain in denial



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Hum? This is a very interesting theory. I wonder if this guy is correct about this issue. What do you guys think about this?


Here are some of the comments in the article that caught my eye:


Dr. Verlinde bristles when people say he has added nothing new to Dr. Jacobson’s analysis. What is new, he said, is the idea that differences in entropy can be the driving mechanism behind gravity, that gravity is, as he puts it an “entropic force.”

The resulting paper, as Dr. Verlinde himself admits, is a little vague.

Dr. Jacobson said he couldn’t make sense of it.


So my interpretation is that Dr. Verlinde has been accused of almost but not quite plagiarizing Dr. Jacobson's paper, by just adding "entropic force" and Dr. Verlinde admits his paper is vague? And Dr. Jacobson can't make sense of it?

If the paper is vague by the author's own admission, he's not a very good communicator.

I think some string theorists have a special talent for vagueness. If they keep their assertions vague enough, nobody can ever prove them wrong. Of course, I'm not really seeing any proof they are right yet either.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please explain how you "construct" stuff from space-time.


Firstly you have to think very small.... very very very small in fact...10 to the minus 35 meters or if you like the Planck length.

This is the boundary where the coherence of matter breaks down, this is the smallest level possible.


What exactly is the coherence of matter?


At this level the universe is not smooth and predictable


It's already not smooth or predictable, we have strange things happening left and right... You point?


it is where chaos reigns


Either it's poetry or you are trying to scare me, but neither works. Show me the math.



Quantum Foam is derived from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that until a particle or quanta is measured it has the potential to be in anyplace at any time.


Wow. The "anyplace" must be something you invented, not Heisenberg. How about:

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision.




As you should be very well aware... from chaos comes order.


No it does not. Not at the level of particle physics.


A recent discovery, a theory known as Loop Quantum Gravity or LQG


There was no such discovery. A discovery is a measurement, and LOG has none in its favor. So it's just one of a garden variety of exotic theories. Besides, beware mnemeth, who's gonna have you for breakfast for suggesting such exotic crap, whereas it's clear that all of the Universe is explained by Ohm's law



I maybe more special than you realise...


Bleh. Only in the "special" sense, maybe.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleKnowledge
He had some crystal that had been changed from a machine at LLNL.


This is deep, dude... New Age crystals from Lawrence Livermore... Do they also make incense conducive to lucid dreams and sh!t?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Do you have your own opinions or insights into the paper?

Please refrain from commenting on the man himself, and focus on his paper.

-----

An excerpt from the paper:


The universality of gravity suggests that its emergence should be understood from
general principles that are independent of the specific details of the underlying micro-
scopic theory. In this paper we will argue that the central notion needed to derive
gravity is information. More precisely, it is the amount of information associated with
matter and its location, in whatever form the microscopic theory likes to have it, mea-
sured in terms of entropy. Changes in this entropy when matter is displaced leads to
an entropic force, which as we will show takes the form of gravity. Its origin therefore
lies in the tendency of the microscopic theory to maximize its entropy.

lanl.arxiv.org...



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'm afraid I don't know too much about the workings of the subject!

The only thing I can really do is state what I've learned about Gravity. When mass is introduced to space-time, it warps it around the object. The size of the 'warp' depends on the amount of mass in the object. If a second object enters the first object's 'warp', the two will begin to rotate around each other to create balance.

This is just what I've learned! I do hope to learn more about how the universe and gravity actually works!

Thanks for the thread. Many interesting ideas!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


I'm working today, but will be putting together a responses and answers to your questions throughout the day. When I get a spare moment or two. The maths is easy to put my hands on but not so easy to interpret, I want this to be understood by anyone who reads it not just people that know about vector math.

Someone stated you used to be a physics teacher... I seriously doubt this given your responses.

No physicist I have ever conversed with would deny chaos theory. It is the underlying fact that gave rise to everything from the first stars to the earth on which you stand.

You mention someone will have me for breakfast? Come on stop being so childish!!

I'll come back in short time, now I have people to see and things to do.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
You mention someone will have me for breakfast? Come on stop being so childish!!


Oh. OK then, I'll wait till mnemeth chimes in. I'll let you guys duke it out.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
You mention someone will have me for breakfast? Come on stop being so childish!!


Oh. OK then, I'll wait till mnemeth chimes in. I'll let you guys duke it out.


Go on then go get your mates and why not swallow the Blue Pill... you may be happier.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
why not swallow the Blue Pill... you may be happier.


Doubtless you are kindly giving this advice based on your own experience, but I'll pass.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
why not swallow the Blue Pill... you may be happier.


Doubtless you are kindly giving this advice based on your own experience, but I'll pass.


Do not try and swallow the pill... only realise the truth....

Korg.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are such an arse.
Courtesy is Mandatory

I'll bet you slapped kids that asked interesting questions in your classes.


Why don't you provide any substantial input in any of your posts?

Why do you claim to be a 'rational mystic', and have 'buddha' in your name? You obviously disagree with both of those ideal frameworks in principle.

Do you not understand, then, that there is no pill? No spoon? No ego?

Mysticism is the experience of the collapse of space and time. What else would Nirvana be?


Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion)[1] is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic. Differing religious traditions have described this fundamental mystical experience in different ways:

Nullification and absorption within God's Infinite Light (Hassidic schools of Judaism)

Complete non-identification with the world (Kaivalya in some schools of Hinduism, including Sankhya and Yoga; Jhana in Buddhism)

Liberation from the cycles of Karma (Moksha in Jainism and Hinduism, Nirvana in Buddhism)

Deep intrinsic connection to ultimate reality (Satori in Mahayana Buddhism, Te in Taoism)

Union with God (Henosis in Neoplatonism and Brahma-Prapti or Brahma-Nirvana in Hinduism, fana in Sufism)

Theosis or Divinization, union with God and a participation of the divine nature (in Catholic Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy)

Innate Knowledge Hinduism, (Irfan and Sufism in Islam)

Experience of one's true blissful nature (Samadhi Svarupa-Avirbhava in Hinduism and Buddhism)

Seeing the Light, or "that of God", in everyone Hinduism, (Quakerism)

The Love of God, as in the Hinduism, Baha'i Faith, Christianity, Islam and many other spiritual traditions


Please do not claim to be aligned with these wondrous principles if you do not embody them through your 'rationality'.

----

I am looking forward to your post, Korg.


Another interesting tidbit of the paper:

In this paper we present a holographic scenario for the emergence of space and
address the origins of gravity and inertia, which are connected by the equivalence
principle. Starting from first principles, using only space independent concepts like
energy, entropy and temperature, it is shown that Newton’s laws appear naturally and
practically unavoidably. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by a change
in the amount of information associated with the positions of bodies of matter.

A crucial ingredient is that only a finite number of degrees of freedom are associated
with a given spatial volume, as dictated by the holographic principle. The energy, that
is equivalent to the matter, is distributed evenly over the degrees of freedom, and thus
leads to a temperature. The product of the temperature and the change in entropy due
to the displacement of matter is shown to be equal to the work done by the gravitational force. In this way Newton’s law of gravity emerges in a surprisingly simple fashion.

The holographic principle has not been easy to extract from the laws of Newton
and Einstein, and is deeply hidden within them. Conversely, starting from holography,
we find that these well known laws come out directly and unavoidably. By reversing
the logic that lead people from the laws of gravity to holography, we will obtain a
much sharper and even simpler picture of what gravity is. For instance, it clarifies why
gravity allows an action at a distance even when there is no mediating force field.


It seems to me that Zero Point could be the 'mediating force field', the vacuum itself due to its density could transfer information. But it is nice that his theory doesn't even require that(apparently).



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Interesting read.

The main problem I see with this is that they're still hammering on String Theory -- which, in spite of numerous experiments has not ever produced a result saying that "yes this is correct" and the predictions made by it have not (to date) turned out to be right, either.

If the theory is flawed, the results won't hold up... and I think this may be true in this case.

Of course, they could prove string theory tomorrow and in that case I'd be very wrong about all this.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Thanks for this. The actual paper was a very interesting read. I especially liked the simple way he derives Newtons and Einsteins equations. The implications if this is reality are profound.

It would be interesting to see if it can be modified to account for the recent evidence that the Equivalence Princple is not a valid assumption, at least in some scenarios.

I wonder how this theory would affect models of the early universe where entropy should have been high, then low, then steadily getting higher.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I think the holographic principle and information theory don't really need string theory to hold up in their own right. I think



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
It seems to me that gravity occurs in perportion to size and mass of
possibly any object. Anything of not enough size and mass is effected
instead of productive. Is their an equation for this?

Good thread
Snf

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Interesting read.

The main problem I see with this is that they're still hammering on String Theory -- which, in spite of numerous experiments has not ever produced a result saying that "yes this is correct" and the predictions made by it have not (to date) turned out to be right, either.

If the theory is flawed, the results won't hold up... and I think this may be true in this case.

Of course, they could prove string theory tomorrow and in that case I'd be very wrong about all this.


I know it will sound a little superficial but... There is a possibility that certain phenomena could be found in LHC experiment. I agree we don't know that, but if we did, what would be the point of experimentation?




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join