It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

The test was done at Argonne national laboratory (new mexico?), they have since then done some other amazing experiments.
The speed, i don't know, as i understend it, it's not a very big facility, couldn't have been more than 1 or 2 MeV.
This only works if the spins are exactly opposite, a few degrees of & they do interact.
At the time i just noted it as an interesting snippet of information, but going back to what i have read several times about rotation being the key to a lot of things, can rotation affect charge?.Apparently electrons will spin faster in a strong magnetic field, it makes them move into a circular path, which is useful for things like microwave production.You can do the same with protons, only it requires more energy because they are so much bigger than an electron, so it's more mass to get moving.
OK so if an electron is a kind of string, it could well explain why it behaves as a 'cloud' & not a solid object, and could explain why it reacts the way it does in a magnetic field (that other unexplained phenomenon).
Maybe there is something to string theory after all, but don't ask me, ask someone who knows

I still have the preference for ZPE/aether theory, since it provides more answers than questions.
I would just like to add that i am shocked by the (lack of) knoweledge from many engineers, electricians etc, who's basic physics appears to have stopped at high school, they just don't want to know!
And i know why, it's because the schools that teach them, teach them to look no further.
Jaques Fresco phrased it best; "if you make the best ever whatsit, it's only the best that can be made TODAY, Tomorrow someone else will make a smaller, faster whatsit, science & society is always changing".
He also said that to try to alter or stop that change will give serious problems, just look around you

Thankfully there are so many sharp minds here on ATS, people who do look further, together we can do so much, make the smallest, fastest whatsit. it's great to be here!
PS i don't know why thw MEG isn't on the market, i can tell you that while i never measured actual overunity, i did encounter 'negative resistance' so it's not debunked as yet, unlike Steorn

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

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:46 PM
GUT... I was afraid the term was about to come up sometime. One thing all the GUT people never talk about is the fact that physics, or any scientific theory you could think of is in fact just a formal system, it has then to deal with the consequences of Goedel's theorem. I don't know how reality as a whole works, but I'm afraid logic tells us that logic itself can't explain it. Whoever claims to be working on a GUT and pretends to be a scientist is imho making a fool of himself and his audience.

About playswithmachines post: you are trying to tell me that someone in a proper lab actually designed an experiment in which the orientation of the angular momentum and at least 2 components of 2 proton velocities were known with such a high precision? Was Mr Heisemberg informed?

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by crowdtransplanter

I am trying to upload some papers on Dirac & Schrodinger that prove the universe works differently to the Standard model, but there's no 'submit' button
maybe it will come back later.
Yes, i am aware of the uncertainy principle, and it's a problem, but these people have got the tracking of particles down to a fine art, especially with the help of computers, and lots of sensors. NIKHEF, the dutch high energy physics institute, has been building massive sensor arrays (it's supposed to be a bit of a secret)
They know if they send 50,000 protons going one way, & the same number the other way, that they may get a few collisions. They know the spin due to the magnetic field they were in as they entered the tank, they would all be spinning the same direction. Collisions would be very rare events given the CHARGE on the particles, like charges repelling etc, if they DO collide, then it's a whole mess of mesons, neutrino's & what-have-you's that come out. If 2 protons pass right through each other, there will be no straying from the path, no neutrino's, and thr protons will be seen moving on through the tank. They would be very obvious in that they did not deviate from their course, when they should have. I am imagining that's how they did it, i will have to do some research to make sure. And i don't know what GUT is except german for 'good'

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
The amount of experimental equipment available doesnt' make the impossible any more possible; there is no way around the Heisemberg principle, as Bell's inequalities clearly demonstrate; Dirac and Shroedinger died probably way before the term "standard model" was even conceived, though I'm not so sure about that. GUT ist no gut, but it's the acronym for "Grand Unified Theory" imho just a fancy and epic name for people masturbating with strings in at least 11 dimensions

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by crowdtransplanter
GUT... I was afraid the term was about to come up sometime. One thing all the GUT people never talk about is the fact that physics, or any scientific theory you could think of is in fact just a formal system, it has then to deal with the consequences of Goedel's theorem.

No this isn't true. It's not a strict formal system in the sense covered by the theorem. And physics always allows for the possibility of things which can be true and yet unprovable from the existing axioms---and in fact, that's exactly what people are looking for. It's a feature, not a bug.

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by crowdtransplanter

Dirac postulated a theory that everything is waves, back in 1930, his formula was altered (probably by Schrodinger) in 1936, just as Maxwell's equations were altered (shredded) by Lorentz & Heaviside a few decades earlier. Funnily enough, Einstein was working on something similar at the time
It is said that Tesla & Einstein also met once, Tesla described him as a brilliant man, but not in touch with reality.
Of course Albert is now saint-like in stature, no one dares to question him.
Since i still can't upload files at this time, here is an extract from a book by one D.L. Hotson,

"The Hotson “family business” is English literature. Mr. Hotson’s
father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late
uncle was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however,
always intended a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not
resist asking awkward questions. His professors taught that conservation
of mass-energy is the never-violated, rock-solid foundation
of all physics. In “pair production” a photon of at least 1.022
MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of
rest energy, with any excess being the momentum of the “created”
pair. So supposedly the conservation books balance.
But the “created” electron and positron both have spin (angular
momentum) energy of h/4p. By any assumption as to the size
of electron or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied
by the photon at “creation.”
“Isn’t angular momentum energy?” he asked a professor.
“Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is
the energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave
around the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion
principle, hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You
could say it is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements.”
“Then where does all this energy come from? How can the ‘created’
electron have something like sixteen times more energy than
the photon that supposedly ‘created’ it? Isn’t this a huge violation of
your never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?”
“We regard spin angular momentum as an ‘inherent property’
of electron and positron, not as a violation of conservation.”
“But if it’s real energy, where does it come from? Does the
Energy Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time ‘creation’
is invoked, billions of times a second? How does this fit your
never-violated conservation?”
“‘Inherent property’ means we don’t talk about it, and you
won’t either if you want to pass this course.”
Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock
aphorism: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” Later Mr. Hotson was taken
aside and told that his “attitude” was disrupting the class, and
that further, with his “attitude,” there was no chance in hell of his
completing a graduate program in physics, so “save your money.”
He ended up at the Sorbonne studying French literature, and later
became a professional land surveyor.
However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the “awkward
questions” of physics, and with Dirac’s Equation has found
some answers."
.....Been there, done that...
Dirac died in 1984.
I would just like to add that when Maxwell formulated his EM equations, or quaternions, they really were a Grand universal theory, they included gravity, time, & ALL forms of energy, not just the 'visible' part.
Sadly this information is lost because contemorary mathematicians/physicists will not go there...........
Edit to add; Obviously, angular momentum has everything to do with it, it's not just energy, it's an exchange mechanism.
edit on 20-4-2011 by playswithmachines because: Afterthought.

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:08 PM
oh, is it? For sure looking for new things that are true regardless of the previous postulates is good, I have no problem accepting that physics could be incomplete and coherent. A GUT by definition is complete, then it can't be coherent, and well, you will agree with me that it's quite unacceptable.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by crowdtransplanter


posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:15 PM
Something just occurred to me,
IF string theory holds true for all known forces and 10 dimensions, then the trick is to find out what those extra dimensions are. I'm not comfortable with standard field theory because it still does not explain 'action at a distance'-there would have to be a medium to carry this force, as it were. Aether theory springs to mind

If the strings (energy) were responsible, it would explain a lot.
It would also explain why particles are sponaneously appearing & disappearing billions of times a second all around us-it would be the result of random string vibrations occasionally vibrating in a 'particle' fashion.
It would also explain the humungous amount of energy that exists all around us, it would also explain the temporal anomalies associated with rotation, gravity, magnetism etc.
These are all dimensions.
Tesla always maintained that the whole universe worked on resonance, and what is resonance but a coherent result of mixed incoherent waves? The internal circulating current in a resonant circuit can easily exceed 100 times the external current, as the electro boffins on ATS are aware of

There may be something in string theory after all.
Maybe we should add angular momentum to the list, it would then explain 'action at a distance'-what fascinates me, (and the first video posted was clearly wrong) is the speed of gravity.
It is clearly much faster than light, & the explanation in terms of Einsteins warped space doesnt seem to fit.
I believe that if the sun exploded, we would feel the gravitational effect immediately, even though the sun would still be shining for 8 more minutes.
How does that grab you?
But i will have to read up some more first, i already have more info than i can read, so i'm trying to post it all up.
But in order to post it, i have to read it first

edit on 21-4-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by BlackPoison94

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific,
Loftily poised in the ether capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous!

-author unknown

(Yes, that is twinkle, twinkle little star in scientific lingo).

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in