The Weird and Wacky World of Physics: Strings, Calabi-Yau and Massless Blackholes

page: 3
112
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackPoison94

1. The Holographic Principle
Let's remember that this is still a theory yet it's actually being tested..I can't remember where but either Fermilab or Stanford are coming to my head. I may be completely wrong but it's definitely some American physicist.

Now, the idea that we are actually 'holograms' is rather unsettling. What I picked up though from some books I've read is that it may in some way indicate that everything is pre-planned. That information about ourselves is 'stored' in the surface of the universe.

Ooo good idea for another thread haha...I can fit this snugly in.



Its frmilab that was going to build the holometer, but dunno how far they have come with iit, which will basically prove that the universe is 2 dimensional and we all exist in a hologram.
IMO, they will succeed. As a 2D infinitesimalyl thin membrane, the length of the known universe, whether elastic or otherwise to exist will require some amount of energy, now to beef up this membrane to the 3rd dimension, integrate this energy to encompass the 3rd dimension and you end up with an absurdly large energy value, which imo will cause the universe to collapse on itself.
Sure we'll wait for your newly compiled thread on this. You do write just as well as zazzy




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by BlackPoison94

1. The Holographic Principle
Let's remember that this is still a theory yet it's actually being tested..I can't remember where but either Fermilab or Stanford are coming to my head. I may be completely wrong but it's definitely some American physicist.

Now, the idea that we are actually 'holograms' is rather unsettling. What I picked up though from some books I've read is that it may in some way indicate that everything is pre-planned. That information about ourselves is 'stored' in the surface of the universe.

Ooo good idea for another thread haha...I can fit this snugly in.



Its frmilab that was going to build the holometer, but dunno how far they have come with iit, which will basically prove that the universe is 2 dimensional and we all exist in a hologram.
IMO, they will succeed. As a 2D infinitesimalyl thin membrane, the length of the known universe, whether elastic or otherwise to exist will require some amount of energy, now to beef up this membrane to the 3rd dimension, integrate this energy to encompass the 3rd dimension and you end up with an absurdly large energy value, which imo will cause the universe to collapse on itself.
Sure we'll wait for your newly compiled thread on this. You do write just as well as zazzy


Yes. I think the reason people struggle with the theory is because they haven't gotten around the image of lasers and holograph film. The name really does dissuade many people from understanding it.

The best way to understand it (or at least break your brain into it) is by first realizing how your brain works as a hologram. You mind projects images and sensations in a three dimensional illusion where, in reality, it's all being processed in your head.

I think most people just hear "hologram" and then those "project blue beam" guys pop in and crap all over it. It gives it a horrible stigma.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunlionspirit

Originally posted by illuminazislayer
Nice thread ! I have a very minimal knowledge of science, but I am particularly amazed by some of the theories expressed in today's quantum physics. Many physicist are coming out with theories that nothing in this world is solid or matter does not exist. And without observer their can be no universe. I wonder what you think about it.

Matter does not exist


peaceandloveism.com...

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

- Quote attributed to Albert Einstein

Yes, this is quite a bold statement, if true, that would certainly demand some sort of evidence or mathematical proof to back it up. It may seem like a paradox that the things which we can see and touch are nonexistent. However, there is an answer to this, which may be found in the bold and exciting (relatively) new science of quantum physics.

In ages past, it was believed that what we can see and touch, like a rock for instance, was the elements, in other words, matter. However, as science developed, such as chemistry, and much more recently quantum physics, it had been observed that matter seems to exist on one hand, but once one takes a deep look into the heart of the matter (no pun intended), there seems as if there is nothing.


I agree with you : matter does not really exist, what we feel with our senses when we touch a chair for example, is just highly concentrated energy : I explain ( as I said in another thread ) : take 2 magnets and try to push the north pole against the other north pole - what do you feel ? yes you feel repulsion, the nearer the stronger, and after a while the force seems to be touching like touching a wall : looks like it is touching matter !
Anyway : never forget that when you walk on the ground with your feet, you never really touch the ground ! because the electrons of the ground atoms/molecules never touch the electrons of the feet atoms/molecules.
Otherwise they would merge together and collide - no, there is a repulsion between the electrons of each sort of atoms.
So the next question is : why look for Higgs ??? not for the MATTER but for the MASS ?
what makes the mass ? photon has NO mass that is for sure. Have to look for all this also once more.
edit on 13-4-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)


so we are walking on a "repulsion" field : our feet on the ground = on atomic electron level.
but at the same time in our gravitational system : the earth is attracting our bodies AND the ground to the center of earth ...
so, the strongest field is the gravitational one : it attracts everything !!
how would I like to comprehend those forces !!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


Don't believe any theory of physics that has not been proven experimentally. We typically call it conjectures. There has been many absurd false conjectures in physics and none of them turned out to be reality.
Time machine and warm hole of the popular idea have never been proven. That's why they are false.

There are strict rules for a physical theory can be reality. The first one is that you have to prove it by experiment.

I would weigh more on the free energy, antigravity principles published in the journal and the net than any other nonsensical mumbo jumbos.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Absolutely far out post! This one will keep me up all night to night trying to get it straight. I'll have some serious questions later. Right now I can't decide between coffee, tequila, or other substances cause my brain just imploded on the first try at understanding the theory.

Thank You. And S&F



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Of course not but there has been sufficient evidence e.g. special relativity that is actually works...but to be honest, we can't test it in all of the universe so how we can know that theories hold?

reply to post by barkingdogamato
 

I can't wait to answer them

Hit me, whenever.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I don't think we (most of the general public), the maths to grasp this. I love science, but i am not very good at solving maths or doing calculations. I love the theories, the ideas, the fact that it may be able to solve age old question like why and how we are here. I will leave the maths to those who can do it, and just sit back and be constantly amazed and what they can find.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thedarktower
 


That's what I'm aiming here.
No maths.
Just theories...easy for EVERYONE to understand



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 

Posts like this are the reason I love ATS.
edit on 13-4-2011 by dn4cer2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Very interesting. I wish I had the brain power to understand some of the more detailed parts of it. I would have to say that for the most part I agree with him.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dn4cer2000
 


Aww. Thank you



reply to post by solkim
 

With who sorry?
Brian Greene?
I do too



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Firstly, sorry for not replying sooner...I completely forgot to.


IMO, they will succeed. As a 2D infinitesimalyl thin membrane, the length of the known universe, whether elastic or otherwise to exist will require some amount of energy, now to beef up this membrane to the 3rd dimension, integrate this energy to encompass the 3rd dimension and you end up with an absurdly large energy value, which imo will cause the universe to collapse on itself.


Wait so how many dimensions do you believe the universe has? 3?
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some way for the universe to collapse...but i'm not following what you're saying..do you mind expanding for me please?


Sure we'll wait for your newly compiled thread on this. You do write just as well as zazzy

That thread might be a bit later on...got some other ideas.
And thank you..you don't know how much that means to me!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
about the math problem well... sorry to say, but the formalism of math is essential to explain a whole plethora of phenomena, if you just think a little about it, expressing the most basic physical laws without formalism is one hell of a challenge. Sorry to say, but if you want to understand you need to study.

Apart from this I still have an objection towards string theory: I agree, the standard model is all but perfect, and everytime some experiment exposes its flaws, someone earns a nobel prize for renormalizing something to make it fit. Still, if we want the string theory to be worth more of the fairy tales of the virgin mary, there has to be a conceivable experiment to falsify it, and still there isn't, so as far as I'm concerned, string theory is not physics, it's more like religion with a lot of math involved. Not that I have anything against religion or magic... just I think science is a whole different topic



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 

Wait so how many dimensions do you believe the universe has? 3?
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some way for the universe to collapse...but i'm not following what you're saying..do you mind expanding for me please


To get some inkling on dimensions/energies, click on the link
in my signature

Cheers



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by crowdtransplanter
 


Of course we need maths.
Maths in some cases does appear to be the 'language of the universe.'

But there's no harm to understand concepts without maths

I'm not studying anything of this yet



string theory is not physics, it's more like religion with a lot of math involved. Not that I have anything against religion or magic... just I think science is a whole different topic


Science itself is seen to be a religion to some. I however disagree that string theory is a religion...religions can't be proven correct but so far, everything is falling snugly within string theory...all previous concepts and it has predicted certain things which we have proven or will be able to.
edit on 15-4-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
Science itself is seen to be a religion to some. I however disagree that string theory is a religion...religions can't be proven correct but so far, everything is falling snugly within string theory...all previous concepts and it has predicted certain things which we have proven or will be able to.
edit on 15-4-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)


I have to disagree; the fact that a theory explains things correctly doesn't prove it correct; you need to be able to at least think of an experiment that could prove this theory against the others, which cannot be done with string theory, not even with the LHC. It's an elegant logical construction, it is built with the same logical tools as a scientific theory, but it isn't science; I'm not saying we should completely neglect it, just saying that I trust the predictions of string theory and the tarots about the same, since the connections with reality of the two are just as solid. Imho all that exotic fancy stuff, massless black holes and similar things are interesting theorical objects, but so are angels and demons.

Science isn't a religion. It does have a couple or more hidden dogmas, but whoever sees science as a religion probably doesn't understand what both are; the differences in method and purpose are just too huge to be ignored.
edit on 15-4-2011 by crowdtransplanter because: ortography mistakes



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by crowdtransplanter
 


I understand where you're coming from...but extra dimensions, supersymmetry can indeed be experimentally proven by the LHC in the future. And as time goes on...our technology should advance and possibly, we could "prove" some elements of it. I'm not saying that string theory IS the GUT...I'm saying that it's just the first significant possible step for us to reach the GUT.

Many people do see it as a religion...which I disagree on again but still, it's their choice



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


A most interesting thread

Physics is also one of my favourite subjects-i use it all the time. That is to say, i apply the scientific method in my everyday work, but it is only the results based on OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT that are of interest to me as a machine builder.
Classical physics has many loopholes, especially EM & gravity theory, this was just a hunch i had, 30 years ago, that something didn't add up. They can't marry QM & gravity, Einstein's explanation of 'curved spacetime' sounds cute but i don't think it's the real deal.The gaps are still there, & i am still looking.
Being open minded i will watch the films etc, and read all the comments (you have to, with threads like this)

So i have a question for you (well, 2 actually).
Are these strings merely energy itself? Mass & energy are mutually exchangeable, the prescence of mass being that a force will act on it, the prescence of energy itself is not measurable unless it interacts with a mass.
I tend towards the ZPE or 'new aether' theory to be a step in the right direction, which is why i beleive they won't find the Higgs particle. ZPE (and i'm not talking thermal here, before you all start posting
)-can and does explain an awful lot of things QM & the other theories can't. I refer you to people like Tom Bearden & Harold Aspden.-i posted some of his papers on ats HEREand HERE

Second question concerns gravity, not being OF mass but working UPON it, of all the fundamental forces the least understood, even today. Is there an electro-gravitic link? There definitely seems to be evidence for it, but without knowing the actual mechanism of conversion, not much can be done in the form of a demonstrable device (although stories abound, rodin coils etc
.
Gravity also works much faster than light, some stuff i have read placed this as much as 60,000 times faster, although Tesla maintained, for some reason, that gravity was only 6 times the speed of light....
Certainly the multidimensional nature of energy (& therfore also mass) has not escaped me, what do you think of charge? it is also massless in nature & (i suspect) multidimensional, or even possibly a dimension itself!
The usual explanation for charge being this or that quark behavior or being related to the surface of an electron doesn't fit. Particles merely 'hold' a charge, they are not the charge itself.
OK so if we think of these theories in terms of the 'strings'-could they not be energy itself. Energy may be expressed as having 2 components, a power component & an information component (think of an FM radio station running 50Kw of power, that's the 'power' part of the energy, the music is the 'information' part).
Strings, then (if they exist screams my sceptical alter ego) may be seen as energy, and depending on the information component, will have different charactaristics, like the Quark diagram you posted.
The 3rd diagram 'closed strings' certainly looks to me like a transfer of energy (part of a string) from A to B.
The basic universal rule in classical physics that energy will always flow from an energy-rich to an energy-poor environment, doing work, & be realised as 'power'-which is work done/unit time-holds true, however, it holds true for n dimensions, right?
One more thing, Bearden predicted that if they fired 2 protons with anti parallel spin (both turning opposite ways) that they will pass right through each other, which they did just that in a lab a few years back. This contradicts many laws of classical physics

Food for thought
edit on 18-4-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typeset



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


One more thing, Bearden predicted that if they fired 2 protons with anti parallel spin (both turning opposite ways) that they will pass right through each other, which they did just that in a lab a few years back. This contradicts many laws of classical physics

Food for thought
edit on 18-4-2011 by playswithmachines because: Typeset


You mean none of the protons collided? Wt was the speed at which the 2 beams were fired at each other?
At which lab was this done? Why exactly is tommy tom tom not bringing is meg to the market



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


What are strings made of?
I really don't know. But yes, energy seems to be quite a good hunch. I mean, it influences literally everything...and is a basis for much. And the fact that mass and energy are interchangeable is very intriguing. Thanks for the papers, I can't wait to read through them!

For your second question...well there should be. I think? We're anyway trying to merge all of the forces together and therefore there indeed has to be a link for that to occur.

I'm sorry I'm not much help...I'm not really an expert on this.


edit on 19-4-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
112
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join