Atlantis Online
August 19, 2022, 08:46:45 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ruins of 7,000-year-old city found in Egypt oasis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129/wl_mideast_afp/egyptarchaeology
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

What we think we know

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What we think we know  (Read 2792 times)
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2007, 08:12:14 pm »

OK

Riddle me this,  Batman.


Quote
=Hartle-Hawking or = Hawking-Moss....the instanton describes the spontaneous appearance of a universe from literally nothing.


How does a universe spontaneously appear from nothing unless by mind or  pre-matter energy/force according to their theory?

example.......

15:4.4 Paradise force organizers are nebulae originators; they are able to initiate about their space presence the tremendous cyclones of force which, when once started, can never be stopped or limited until the all-pervading forces are mobilized for the eventual appearance of the ultimatonic units of universe matter. Thus are brought into being the spiral and other nebulae, the mother wheels of the direct-origin suns and their varied systems.


or



8:1.2 The first act of the Infinite Spirit is the inspection and recognition of his divine parents, the Father-Father and the Mother-Son. He, the Spirit, unqualifiedly identifies both of them. He is fully cognizant of their separate personalities and infinite attributes as well as of their combined nature and united function. Next, voluntarily, with transcendent willingness and inspiring spontaneity, the Third Person of Deity, notwithstanding his equality with the First and Second Persons, pledges eternal loyalty to God the Father and acknowledges everlasting dependence upon God the Son.

8:1.3 Inherent in the nature of this transaction and in mutual recognition of the personality independence of each and the executive union of all three, the cycle of eternity is established. The Paradise Trinity is existent. The stage of universal space is set for the manifold and never-ending panorama of the creative unfolding of the purpose of the Universal Father through the personality of the Eternal Son and by the execution of the God of Action, the executive agency for the reality performances of the Father-Son creator partnership.

8:1.4 The God of Action functions and the dead vaults of space are astir. One billion perfect spheres flash into existence. Prior to this hypothetical eternity moment the space-energies inherent in Paradise are existent and potentially operative, but they have no actuality of being; neither can physical gravity be measured except by the reaction of material realities to its incessant pull. There is no material universe at this (assumed) eternally distant moment, but the very instant that one billion worlds materialize, there is in evidence gravity sufficient and adequate to hold them in the everlasting grasp of Paradise.

8:1.5 There now flashes through the creation of the Gods the second form of energy, and this outflowing spirit is instantly grasped by the spiritual gravity of the Eternal Son. Thus the twofold gravity-embraced universe is touched with the energy of infinity and immersed in the spirit of divinity. In this way is the soil of life prepared for the consciousness of mind made manifest in the associated intelligence circuits of the Infinite Spirit.

8:1.6 Upon these seeds of potential existence, diffused throughout the central creation of the Gods, the Father acts, and creature personality appears. Then does the presence of the Paradise Deities fill all organized space and begin effectively to draw all things and beings Paradiseward.

8:1.7 The Infinite Spirit eternalizes concurrently with the birth of the Havona worlds, this central universe being created by him and with him and in him in obedience to the combined concepts and united wills of the Father and the Son. The Third Person deitizes by this very act of conjoint creation, and he thus forever becomes the Conjoint Creator.

8:1.8 These are the grand and awe-ful times of the creative expansion of the Father and the Son by, and in, the action of their conjoint associate and exclusive executive, the Third Source and Center. There exists no record of these stirring times. We have only the meager disclosures of the Infinite Spirit to substantiate these mighty transactions, and he merely verifies the fact that the central universe and all that pertains thereto eternalized simultaneously with his attainment of personality and conscious existence.

8:1.9 In brief, the Infinite Spirit testifies that, since he is eternal, so also is the central universe eternal. And this is the traditional starting point of the history of the universe of universes. Absolutely nothing is known, and no records are in existence, regarding any event or transaction prior to this stupendous eruption of creative energy and administrative wisdom that crystallized the vast universe which exists, and so exquisitely functions, at the center of all things. Beyond this event lie the unsearchable transactions of eternity and the depths of infinity -- absolute mystery.



http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p008.htm
.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 08:34:24 pm by Majeston » Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2007, 12:37:18 pm »

OK

Riddle me this,  Batman.  How does a universe spontaneously appear from nothing...

Well, let's look at this in a different way:

For physicists to assert that the universe arises out of nothing actually means that it is erupting from what was there prior; "nothing" represents (in one scenario) our inability to describe it, or, we are aware of - or "nothing" we can explain.  It could also be said that "nothing" represents the something that is no longer present in our universe - essentially - "nothing" from 'IT' remains.  It may seem like semantics, but that is what "nothing" describes in this context.  So, in that light, we could say that - because there were no "fundamental building blocks" for a universe's creation available, the eruption of a universe in that spot violates our perception, therefore it spontaneously appears from nothing. 

What you aren't getting from that discussion is that there is actually "something" there and that "it" comes in a pair of [mainstream] theoretical possibilities. a)  Vacuum energy - dark energy/matter - Higg's Field  In other words: some form of 'unseen energy' field that spontaneously converts itself into matter and energy in our space time/worldsheet.  b)  Higher dimensional membrane collision/intersection.  This is a tricky one, and the one that taxes my theoretical skills at their limit.  I try to devote 50% of my cognitive thought to this theory and I find myself slipping into long bouts of disassociation when I'm there due to its radical abstractness.  I know better physicists (younger ones too) that have literally LOST THEIR MIND and have switched to mathematics instead of physics in the process.

"Option a" is what most of us refer to as the "Einstein Effect".  We do that in order to acknowledge that Al was the originator of the idea that something always exists, even in empty space, and that this "something" is what is pushing the expansion of the universe.  He originally proffered the idea, by way of a new addition to General Relativity (GR), and it was dubbed the Cosmological constant.  Granted - he did it for his own reasons, but ultimately he was trying to explain how the universe could continue to exist.  The constant was proven to be incorrect by Edwin Hubbell, but that's not really the point.  Einstein's idea that *something* exists that keeps gravity from working its magic to its full extent, be it vacuum energy, field potential, Dark matter or Dark energy, or even the elusive Higg's mechanism, appears to be generally correct.  The problem is, everything in this option is unproven and aside from casting a shadow - we have no evidence that it even makes sense.  That's why "option b" arose.

The concept of "option b" is simple enough to explain, but the dynamics at play are so enormously complicated that one is really tasked with trying to write the recipe for building the entire universe out of ingredients that do not exist - but may.  Part of the transformations that are required are used to determine how ingredients may arise from this process, and then how they would be 'ordered' on our dimensionally oriented worldsheet so that they manufactured all that is useful, while disallowing all that isn't; therefore unseen.  What gets in our way is "Dark-stuff".  We cannot/have not developed a means of explaining Dark Matter (DM) or Dark Energy (DE), and this is seen as a lynchpin since so much of the physics field assures us that it is there.  It also takes us back to "option A" which is a problem in itself...  Anyway, I agree that there is *something* driving expansion and ordering the movements of galaxies, but that doesn't mean it has to be DM or DE.  But I admit to being a little biased against them.  Even at the limits of my ability, DM & DE do not "naturally arise" from anything that we theorize, any of the math we follow or any of the models we manufacture.  Those effects (expansion galactic sigma) do, however, arise naturally from other models, theories and math that do not incorporate mythical and magical items that we have not and cannot see.  So, we wind up back where we began - trying to cook up a universe in a computer - a process begun by simply slamming two (or more) membranes together.  Enter supergravity and string theory (ultimately M-Theory).

M-theory assumes that the whole process for our universe begins in a complete void called the bulk.  In the bulk, there is nothing or, there is something - depending upon the theory.  At the very most (we surmise) there would be fields that escape the brane and are worthless in the bulk (as it has a neutral effect on everything) but may have an effect in another (adjacent) brane.  Obviously, the strong fields in our brane would be weakest in the bulk (they are 'used up here'), and the weakest ones here are the strongest ones on another brane.  In that case, proximity plays no role and is referred to as the "Zero Net Sum Gain Theory".  Having said that - proximity may play a role in another scenario, and that theory is encompassed by the "Proximity Gain Theory".  It holds that the branes are like parallel plates separated by only the Casimir Effect (or something similar), and distance between the plates control the strength of interactions between them.  Finally, we have "Field Weakening Theory".  It theorizes that the branes are nothing at all like any of the other ideas and that they are multi-dimensional objects that mold and conform with one another.  Their proximity causes expansion in our universe to shrink or grow and ultimately - expansion accelerates until the branes orient properly and SPLAT!  They connect and a new eruption of "something" arises.  In this scenario, neither brane ceases to exist, but the values are totally reordered and changes definitely occur.  The affected portions of space are simply pinched off and begin to grow into a new universe as large as ours and we are hardly any the wiser of it. 

What keeps the "math" correct is that our overall mass remains stable.  This is also part of the quandary.  Take a basketball for example:  Blow it up to its regulation diameter and pressure - then weigh it.  Now, increase its size by filling it with "unobtainium" .  If it’s now twice as large (volume), but its mass has remain constant; what has happened?  Is it possible?   No – it isn’t possible with the physics we have today.  Energy was imparted into the ball, no matter what you put into the ball and therefore mass had to have risen…  Unless… 1)  There is an external force being applied to the universe (from another brane), or, 2)  There is something out there that actually has a negative mass [effect] that would offset the amount of energy imparted exactly.  Enter DM & DE again.  Neither of them can exist in our universe according to our physics, so both will need new math and science to support them.  This is a little reported fact about their properties, and one of the main reasons that neither arise naturally from our current theories and math.  And still, there is no explanation for the energy being imparted that DM & DE are offsetting – unless DE IS the energy.   Any way, that’s what’s happening to the universe, it’s expanding although the overall mass is remaining constant. 

Ultimately, the *something* that has resulted in "nothing" being predicted is really quite fascinating.

...unless by mind or  pre-matter energy/force according to their theory? {snip}

I really cannot comment on that Buddy - there's not enough information to work with.  I could just as easily say that the mythical magical being, The Pllsbury Dough Boy, has created something from where there was nothing.  He gathered the materials and took that which was empty (a cookie sheet) and combined the necessary ingredients to ultimately fill that void.  By gathering it all together and imparting his wisdom and power upon it, he was able to create small universes filled with nuts and chocolate and ultimately expand the universe; one waistline at a time.  Because the recipe existed only in his mind, he "thought them into existence".  I need more detail to separate Pillsbury from the "Father and Son" or the Gods in general, that you speak of.  Wish I could be of more help.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2007, 06:13:36 pm »

All right folks - back on target with discussions of "what we think we know".  Here's an interesting article that is pretty much a "puff piece" by the University of Rochester to publicize their work over at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.  Take note of what they are actually trying to work on.  Read very carefully and see if you can discern what they are attempting to prove.  Here's a hint:  They are trying to find proof to support a theory that is purportedly "bullet-proof", and one that is relied upon in order to make Quantum Mechanics make sense.

Enjoy!


Conjuring Matter From Light
David Ehrenstein

Turning matter into light, heat, and other forms of energy is nothing new, as nuclear bombs spectacularly demonstrate. Now a team of physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) has demonstrated the inverse process--what University of Rochester physicist Adrian Melissinos, a spokesperson for the group, calls "the first creation of matter out of light." In the 1 September Physical Review Letters, the researchers describe how they collided large crowds of photons together so violently that the interactions spawned particles of matter and antimatter: electrons and positrons (antielectrons).


 
Flash dance. An electron beam intersects a laser pulse, boosting photons to gamma energies and triggering an interaction that spawns particles.

Physicists have long known that this kind of conjuring act is possible, but they have never observed it directly. The experiment is also a proof of principle for a technology, based on intense laser beams boosted to enormous energies with the help of SLAC's electron beam, for exploring a theory known as quantum electrodynamics. QED describes electromagnetic fields, such as those of light, and their interactions with matter, and its predictions are notoriously accurate. But physicists are eager to study it at so-called "critical" electromagnetic fields--fields so strong that their energy can be converted directly into the creation of electrons and positrons.

To create a field as close as possible to critical, the 20-physicist collaboration started with a short-pulse glass laser that packs a half-trillion watts of power into a beam measuring just 6 micrometers across at its narrowest point, resulting in extraordinary intensities. To increase the energy of the photons, the team collided the pulses with SLAC's 30-micrometer-wide pulsed beam of high-energy electrons--a feat that required precise alignment and synchronization. When laser photons collided head-on with the electrons, they got a huge energy boost, much like ping-pong balls hitting a speeding Mack truck, changing them from visible light to very high energy gamma rays. Because of the laser's intensity, these backscattered gamma photons sometimes encountered several incoming laser photons simultaneously; a collision with four of them concentrated enough energy in one place to produce electron-positron pairs.

Melissinos views the result as the first direct demonstration of "sparking the vacuum," a long-predicted phenomenon. In it, the energy of a very strong electromagnetic field promotes some of the fleeting, "virtual" particles that inhabit the vacuum, according to QED, to become pairs of real particles.

Electron-positron pairs are often spawned in accelerator experiments that collide other particles at high energies, and photons produced in the collision are what actually generate the pairs. But at least one of the photons involved is virtual--produced only for a brief moment in the strong electric field near a charged particle. The SLAC experiment marks the first time matter has been created entirely from ordinary photons.

Princeton University physicist Kirk McDonald, another spokesperson for the collaboration, which also includes the University of Tennessee and SLAC, thinks the high-field experiments could shed light on phenomena at the surface of a neutron star, where magnetic fields are very strong, and in other exotic astrophysical settings. On a more practical level, the conversion of light into matter could also give particle physicists a new source of positrons that are exceptionally uniform in energy and momentum.

The result is also the first step toward using powerful lasers and electron beams to test high-field QED predictions, such as what McDonald calls "vacuum optics"--the behavior of light in a strong-field environment. "We're exploring new regimes and trying to map out the basic phenomena," he says. Physicist Tom Erber of the Illinois Institute of Technology looks forward to the results: "Hopefully, this will open the door to future experiments which will approach [more probing] tests of QED."
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2007, 06:26:15 pm »

Here's another one.  Only this one is much more recent.  If I can locate the research in the public domain I'll post it.  Otherwise - I'll just have to give you snippets.


Cool clouds turn light to matter


The light enters one cloud of atoms
and is revived in another


A fleeting pulse of light has been captured and then made to reappear in a different location by US physicists.
The quantum sleight of hand exploits the properties of super-cooled matter known as a Bose-Einstein condensate.  The emerging pulse was slightly weaker than the high-speed beam that entered the experimental setup, but was identical in all other respects.  The work, published in the journal Nature, could one day lead to advances in computing and optical communication.

"Instead of light shining through optical fibres into boxes full of wires and semiconductor chips, intact data, messages, and images will be read directly from the light," said Professor Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University and one of the authors of the Nature paper.

Exotic freezer

The Harvard team rose to prominence in the late 1990s when it slowed light from its constant 299,792km/s (186,282mps) to a leisurely 61km/h (38mph).  It applied the brakes by shining light into a cloud of sodium atoms trapped in a vacuum and cooled to just above absolute zero (-273C), the theoretical state of zero heat.  At this temperature the atoms coalesce to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, an exotic quantum entity first predicted by Albert Einstein and created in the lab in 1995.  A second laser tuned the tiny atomic cloud to slow the pulse of light.

In 2001, working with a team from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the same group brought light to a halt, by slowly turning off the second control laser.  Switching the laser back on set the light free.  The new experiment builds on this work.

Light switch

Instead of just one cloud of sodium atoms, the new setup used two, a fraction of a millimetre apart.  "The two atom clouds were separated and had never seen each other before," said Professor Hau.

 
The team had previously "frozen"
a beam of light in a gas cloud.


A pulse of light was shone on the first cloud, impressing a "cast" of the pulse into a clump of spinning sodium atoms, nudged in the direction of the second condensate.  This slowly moving clump was composed entirely of sodium atoms, effectively turning light into matter.  Once the "messenger" group had merged with the second cloud, a second laser was shone through the condensate to revive the original pulse of light.

From a standing start, the reconstructed beam sped back up to the normal speed of light. Analysis showed that it possessed exactly the same shape and wavelength of the original beam, although it was slightly weaker.  Writing in an accompanying article in Nature, Professor Michael Fleischhauer of the University of Kaiserslautern in Germany described the experiment as "striking and intriguing."   He said that science was entering a period of "unprecedented experimental control" of light and matter.  "That could bring very real technological benefits," he wrote.  Applications could include optical storage devices and quantum computers, far quicker and more powerful than today's PCs.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2007, 09:49:38 pm »

very interesting Merl,  seeing as we were just discussing light and sodium/calcium.

You sure are busy today with the depp stuff.  LOL

I need some time with this but I think it is right up Ub alley.

.
Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2007, 10:57:28 am »

Quote
The deafening silence always makes me a little nervous...


Guilty conscience?  Afraid of the dark, too?  Cheesy 
 

Quote
I begin to wonder if I have lost people with my words or possibly bored them to death.


A statistical improbability, Dr. Science!


Actually Merl, you haven't lost me, and I don't mean to blow you off.  Just real busy.  SO busy, that I shouldn't even be caught posting now. :-)

Phone's ringing....
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2007, 10:05:43 am »

Quote
The deafening silence always makes me a little nervous...


Guilty conscience?  Afraid of the dark, too?  Cheesy 

Just concerned that I might have gone too deep - too far - too much, too fast.  Typically people just leave when I do that and don't bother saying, "Whoa - hold on there."  I'd rather hear "Hold up!" than nothing at all.
 
Quote
I begin to wonder if I have lost people with my words or possibly bored them to death.


A statistical improbability, Dr. Science!


Actually Merl, you haven't lost me, and I don't mean to blow you off.  Just real busy.  SO busy, that I shouldn't even be caught posting now. :-)     Phone's ringing....

I hear you...  I tend to do most of my posting during phone conferences (I have a lot of them).  We are living in a day and age where decision by committee is paramount and everyone wants to "discuss" before refusing to take a position on a subject for fear that they may ultimately be held responsible.  It makes me laugh most of the time - I have 135 people trying to avoid taking responsibility when things get tough and the same number claiming credit when we are ultimately successful.  Anymore - I just post or chat during [the endless] meetings, ignore the conference discussion, and do what I do best when they have all left for the day - achieve results.  I share the credit so no one's ever the wiser to my tactics. 

Talk to you soon.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2007, 02:53:51 pm »

OK, total stab in the dark re: the SLAC - and this is just based on your hint, and the articles use of "give-aways" such as:

Quote
Physicists have long known....never observed directly

and,

Quote
first direct observation...long-predicted phenomenon


These things throw up the same type of flags as "possibly," "could," "large," etcetera..

Anywho, this reads like the grand "something (matter) from nothing (energy)" and I automatically think: "BIG BANG!"  (bleat?)

re: slowing / stopping light.

That is interesting.  Some questions for you:

1.  When they say "From a standing start, the reconstructed beam sped back up to the normal speed of light. Analysis showed that it possessed exactly the same shape and wavelength of the original beam, although it was slightly weaker."  What is meant by "weaker?"  It had the same velocity, shape, and wavelength...what was different...has to be frequency? or amplitude? both? - edit - in preparing my funny math (below), I read on wiki that "frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength."  So, "frequency" could not have changed, either...  what did?


2.  Is the "reconstructed beam" the same photons as in the original beam?  Is there any way to know? (i.e., seems to me if it is "reconstructed" by shining the laser on the second set of sodium, then they must entertain the possibility that this is in fact a new "original" beam (from exciting the sodium atoms - even though they believe they have revived the "original")).  And, now that I think about it (damn you, Merl!), if the "reconstructed beam" isn't exact (it's "weaker") then it's not much of a reconstruction, is it?

Like I said, interesting, but if this is their idea of "reconstruction," I'm not stepping into their transporter! Smiley


Quote
Just concerned that I might have gone too deep - too far - too much, too fast.  Typically people just leave when I do that and don't bother saying, "Whoa - hold on there."


Well, on subjects that you're passionate and knowledgeable about, it is going to be hard for you to post almost anywhere (except w/in your circles) without going too deep, too far, too fast.  For example, I wiki'd "wavelength" and "frequency" to prepare my question above, and have to admit, looking at 'wavelength' graphically,  I don't see how it's different from frequency (except by the equations).

And, I'll just give you my logic, so you can better gauge the depth, breadth, and speed of you responses (at least to me - lol).

Frequency is Period / Time (Hertz)

Wavelength is Velocity (Distance / Time) / Frequency (Hertz = Period / Time)

In my world, time cancels out, "Period" is "Distance" and Wavelength is Frequency.


If you're wondering, "yes," I passed my college physics course. Smiley  But, the thing with that (and all education) is that I just plugged numbers into equations to (hopefully) get a "right" answer.  I never had the time / luxury of thinking about the equations and their implications.

With all that, I understand the reason for f = P/T, l = V/f (to account for apparent changes when waves change mediums).  But, and along the lines like our discussion on the prior page re: gravity, I think these equations are are just human constructs - not physical Laws.  Kind of circular, too.  I'll maintain that Wavelength IS Frequency, the problem is Speed: our concept of distance, or time, or both distance and time.


Well, that ought to occupy a few minutes of "time" while you beat your head against the desk in frustration.  Glad to help. Smiley


Quote
I'd rather hear "Hold up!" than nothing at all.

I don't recommend a bank job for you, then. Wink
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2007, 01:13:29 pm »

OK, total stab in the dark re: the SLAC - and this is just based on your hint, and the articles use of "give-aways" such as:

"Physicists have long known....never observed directly" and, "first direct observation...long-predicted phenomenon."

These things throw up the same type of flags as "possibly," "could," "large," etcetera..

Anywho, this reads like the grand "something (matter) from nothing (energy)" and I automatically think: "BIG BANG!"  (bleat?)"

I was thinking more along the lines of still trying to prove that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is correct, though we require it to be correct in order to make our calculations work.  Those calculations are then used to provide evidence that QED works...  That's circular logic at its best.  Don't get me wrong though, I agree that QED (and QCD for that matter) are close approximations - I just seriously doubt that they are the final word on the subject.  Any more correct than Newtonian gravity as compared to General Relativity, although, there is the potential that Newton may have been more correct, but there is another variable involved that GR accomodates and Newton never considered.  It's a topsy-turvy world out there and scientists are often a bit too quick to yell Eureka!

1.  When they say "From a standing start, the reconstructed beam sped back up to the normal speed of light. Analysis showed that it possessed exactly the same shape and wavelength of the original beam, although it was slightly weaker."  What is meant by "weaker?"

Amplitude.  It's signal strength was effectively lower than its original or that presupposed by summing the strength of the frozen wave with the energy input of the lasers.

I read on wiki that "frequency is an invariant quantity in the universe. That is, it cannot be changed by any linearly physical process unlike velocity of propagation or wavelength."  So, "frequency" could not have changed, either...  what did?

First, through a process of elimination, you did find the answer - AMPLITUDE.  This is the signal strength (for lack of a better description).  It is the measurement of peak to peak waveform "potential".  As for the "invariant quantity" issue - don't worry about it...  It's a matter of someone at Wiki being dramatic, although correct.  Basically they are trying to say that, "what goes in must come out", although it may come out altered.  Wavelength and velocity, the two terms that makeup frequency will invariably change as they are moving through a different medium, but it is the ratio between them that remains the same - thus f remains the same.

2.  Is the "reconstructed beam" the same photons as in the original beam?  Is there any way to know? (i.e., seems to me if it is "reconstructed" by shining the laser on the second set of sodium, then they must entertain the possibility that this is in fact a new "original" beam (from exciting the sodium atoms - even though they believe they have revived the "original")).  And, now that I think about it (damn you, Merl!), if the "reconstructed beam" isn't exact (it's "weaker") then it's not much of a reconstruction, is it?

Now you are starting to see my point...  This article was offered "as is" - meaning that the authors expected you to buy it hook, line & sinker without protest (much like most non-peer-reviewed articles are).  It's a puff piece and they played fast & loose with the terminology.  It reminds me of reading a science textbook in any school in the country.

No - it isn't the "exact same" as the original.  Keep in mind, photons are considered to be 'fundamental' - meaning that they are constructed of nothing smaller.  The only way to set them loose is to free them from something else.  They are a packet of quanta and their velocity is directly proportionate to the energy required to set them free.  Once they are stopped (absorbed), they can be 're-emitted' (same photon is possible but not a certainty) through excitation.  If that excitation is not identical to the original excitation process - they will remain differentiated.  So, the weaker beam indicates that there are losses in the system that they cannot account for and have no intention of explaining to you.  Wink

Like I said, interesting, but if this is their idea of "reconstruction," I'm not stepping into their transporter! Smiley

I'll be right there, standing next to you - NOT IN LINE FOR THE TRANSPORTER (yet), watching the lemmings running off the cliff (cheering them on).  Smiley

Well, on subjects that you're passionate and knowledgeable about, it is going to be hard for you to post almost anywhere (except w/in your circles) without going too deep, too far, too fast.  For example, I wiki'd "wavelength" and "frequency" to prepare my question above, and have to admit, looking at 'wavelength' graphically,  I don't see how it's different from frequency (except by the equations).

And, I'll just give you my logic, so you can better gauge the depth, breadth, and speed of you responses (at least to me - lol).   In my world, time cancels out, "Period" is "Distance" and Wavelength is Frequency.

See if this helps.  I did it up really quickly, but it should cover the basics:


If you're wondering, "yes," I passed my college physics course. Smiley  But, the thing with that (and all education) is that I just plugged numbers into equations to (hopefully) get a "right" answer.  I never had the time / luxury of thinking about the equations and their implications.

Aye, that's a lot of the problem today...  "Plugging in" instead of "turning on".  I prefer to tune students in to the mystery and make 'em capable of solving it for themselves.  Taking their calculators away helps too!  Smiley  I have Master's researchers that throw complete hissy fits when I do that, but I'm a stickler for demonstrating that they "KNOW" how to do the work.  They thank me................ eventually.  Cheesy

With all that, I understand the reason for f = P/T, l = V/f (to account for apparent changes when waves change mediums).  But, and along the lines like our discussion on the prior page re: gravity, I think these equations are are just human constructs - not physical Laws.  Kind of circular, too.  I'll maintain that Wavelength IS Frequency, the problem is Speed: our concept of distance, or time, or both distance and time.

Ouch...  Hopefully this view changes after reading the "cheat sheet" above.  We can discuss the rest when you respond.

Well, that ought to occupy a few minutes of "time" while you beat your head against the desk in frustration.  Glad to help. Smiley

Nicely done - but I'm dent free.  Those were good questions.

I don't recommend a bank job for you, then. Wink

That's funny!  I didn't even consider that reply when I typed the original comment.  Good work Daffy.  Anyway, I had to keep it short today, I have a date with the girls to watch Aragon in a few minutes.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 01:35:20 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2007, 04:48:37 pm »

Oh boy, Merl, I came ready for a fight today! Cheesy

Almost got one, except I took a few extra minutes....

OK, what I might have better said yesterday (still equally wrong, of course) is that Period is Wavelength.  And YOUR graph shows just that. Smiley

But, Period is not a distance, is it?  it is a cycle, a repetition, like "tick-tock, tick-tock...?" and wavelength is actual (physical) distance between "ticks" (or tocks).

Good gawd, I should have known that.  I do know that.... oh bother.

So, your graph is a 4Hz frequency; if it's a light wave, the lambda (wavelength) is (3.0^8 m/s) / (4 Hz) = 7.5^7 meters.

Then we put it in Harvard's sodium decelerator, frequency doesn't (can't) change L = (610,000 m/s) / (4 Hz) = waves are scrunched to 152,500 meters.

OK, I calmly accept my defeat.  Now, tell me, when these light waves peaks are getting closer together due to deceleration, will amplitude increase?  (I'm thinking like tsunami wave coming ashore...wave slows, wave rises).

And, now that I'm thinking about it (stupid mathematics, anyway), what exactly does a "stopped" wave look like L = (0 m/s) / (4Hz) = 0 meters??  Does a stopped have a frequency?  Or, if it's stopped, it's not a wave, so wave-functions / terminology no longer apply?

That last one is probably it, since they say "effectively turning light into matter."  OK, then how much does it weigh? Cheesy
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2007, 08:56:47 pm »

OK, I calmly accept my defeat.  Now, tell me, when these light waves peaks are getting closer together due to deceleration, will amplitude increase?  (I'm thinking like tsunami wave coming ashore...wave slows, wave rises).

Maybe - maybe not.  Energy is not like a physical wave - therefore the same rules do not apply.

And, now that I'm thinking about it (stupid mathematics, anyway), what exactly does a "stopped" wave look like L = (0 m/s) / (4Hz) = 0 meters??

It looks like a Direct Current (DC) potential.  It has an amplitude fixed about 0, but not AT 0.

Does a stopped have a frequency?  Or, if it's stopped, it's not a wave, so wave-functions / terminology no longer apply?

No it does not have a freq.  It becomes a particle (atom or matter) or a field (depending upon the nature we're referring to).

That last one is probably it, since they say "effectively turning light into matter."  OK, then how much does it weigh? Cheesy

That's like asking, "How much does a pound of flesh cost?"  My answer is always the same, "How much you got?"  Anyway, we know how much an electron a proton and a neutron weighs so all we have to do is add up the numbers of constiutent objects and calculate the weight.  Interestingly enough, the amount of energy expended into the "stopping process" figures into the weight as well.  Potential energy adds heaft you know!
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2007, 11:34:36 pm »

OK, I calmly accept my defeat.  Now, tell me, when these light waves peaks are getting closer together due to deceleration, will amplitude increase?  (I'm thinking like tsunami wave coming ashore...wave slows, wave rises).

Maybe - maybe not.  Energy is not like a physical wave - therefore the same rules do not apply.

And, now that I'm thinking about it (stupid mathematics, anyway), what exactly does a "stopped" wave look like L = (0 m/s) / (4Hz) = 0 meters??

It looks like a Direct Current (DC) potential.  It has an amplitude fixed about 0, but not AT 0.

Does a stopped have a frequency?  Or, if it's stopped, it's not a wave, so wave-functions / terminology no longer apply?

No it does not have a freq.  It becomes a particle (atom or matter) or a field (depending upon the nature we're referring to).

That last one is probably it, since they say "effectively turning light into matter."  OK, then how much does it weigh? Cheesy

That's like asking, "How much does a pound of flesh cost?"  My answer is always the same, "How much you got?"  Anyway, we know how much an electron a proton and a neutron weighs so all we have to do is add up the numbers of constiutent objects and calculate the weight.  Interestingly enough, the amount of energy expended into the "stopping process" figures into the weight as well.  Potential energy adds heaft you know!


This whole thing is quite confusing.  I did not know that we did not know how much light weighs. I knew from the Urantia papers that light had weight and also if gravity bends light then it must have weight.  Why don't we know how much light weighs?

I am also confused by the statement that Merl makes that potential energy adds heat.  How can something that is potential add something that is not yet manifested?  This whole thing about slowing light down or even stopping it is very very puzzling.  It brings to mind  a few Urantia quotes but I don't know if or how they really have any bearing.  Merl of course will tell me I'm being bizarre again and there is no proof, Wink  but it appears that cold rather than heat is what brings matter into existence above the level of course of spirit(intelligent) initiation.  So.  let's just skip intelligence and deal with cold since we are talking about slowing down light by the use of cold.
Merl,  explain how these quotes apply or don't apply if you will to slowing down light and converting energy to matter.  Also I think ultimatons are what we have discovered and named neutrino's.

                                Some points to consider when we observe these light "waves" The waves apparently are an illusion.
.

P461:3, 41:5.7 Solar energy may seem to be propelled in waves, but that is due to the action of coexistent and diverse influences. A given form of organized energy does not proceed in waves but in direct lines. The presence of a second or a third form of force-energy may cause the stream under observation to appear to travel in wavy formation, just as, in a blinding rainstorm accompanied by a heavy wind, the water sometimes appears to fall in sheets or to descend in waves. The raindrops are coming down in a direct line of unbroken procession, but the action of the wind is such as to give the visible appearance of sheets of water and waves of raindrops.

P461:4, 41:5.8 The action of certain secondary and other undiscovered energies present in the space regions of your local universe is such that solar-light emanations appear to execute certain wavy phenomena as well as to be chopped up into infinitesimal portions of definite length and weight. And, practically considered, that is exactly what happens. You can hardly hope to arrive at a better understanding of the behavior of light until such a time as you acquire a clearer concept of the interaction and interrelationship of the various space-forces and solar energies operating in the space regions of Nebadon. Your present confusion is also due to your incomplete grasp of this problem as it involves the interassociated activities of the personal and nonpersonal control of the master universe -- the presences, the performances, and the co-ordination of the Conjoint Actor and the Unqualified Absolute.

>>>>>>>>>

P475:10, 42:5.1  4 The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

P476:1, 42:5.1  5 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.


P476:2, 42:5.1  6 Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus.


>>>>>>>>                      cold converting energy to matter

P473:5, 42:4.7 Temperature -- heat and cold -- is secondary only to gravity in the realms of energy and matter evolution. Ultimatons are humbly obedient to temperature extremes. Low temperatures favor certain forms of electronic construction and atomic assembly, while high temperatures facilitate all sorts of atomic breakup and material disintegration.

P473:6, 42:4.8 When subjected to the heat and pressure of certain internal solar states, all but the most primitive associations of matter may be broken up. Heat can thus largely overcome gravity stability. But no known solar heat or pressure can convert ultimatons back into puissant energy.

P473:7, 42:4.9 The blazing suns can transform matter into various forms of energy, but the dark worlds and all outer space can slow down electronic and ultimatonic activity to the point of converting these energies into the matter of the realms. Certain electronic associations of a close nature, as well as many of the basic associations of nuclear matter, are formed in the exceedingly low temperatures of open space, being later augmented by association with larger accretions of materializing energy.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2007, 02:42:56 pm by Majeston » Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2007, 10:45:59 am »

Thanks Merl.  And thanks for not calling out my erroneous math  61Km/s = 61,000 m/s, not 610,000 as I wrote.  No matter.  And feel free to continue on with yourt original line if any of this gets too boring or juvenile for you...

Quote
Energy is not like a physical wave - therefore the same rules do not apply.

Yes, I'm still *stuck* in my Period/Wavelength analogy - I'm thinking of the photon as 'riding' that graphical wave, ala a roller coaster, and if the wave slows, the photon still has to 'ride' the same amount of track, ergo amplitude should go up, i.e."conservation' of something.  My problem, not yours...


Majestron:

Quote
I am also confused by the statement that Merl makes that potential energy adds heat.  How can something that is potential add something that is not yet manifested?

Majestron, Merl said "heaft," not "heat."    My interpetation is that the faster the initial wave was travelling, and the faster it is brought to a halt, the more "mass" will be added to the resultant sytem??  No, that can't be right...the amount of energy expended to stop it has to be fixed, regardless the time interval (You can use a little energy over a 'long' time, or a lot of energy over a 'short' time).  I think that makes sense, otherwise you'd be in a situation where you could "create" mass M, or 1/2M, or 2M...that can't be (awaiting Merl's arrival to tell me I'm once again bonkers).

Merl said:

Quote
Interestingly enough, the amount of energy expended into the "stopping process" figures into the weight as well.  Potential energy adds heaft you know!

Does this in any way shed 'light' on why the reconstructed wave was not an exact copy of the original - it was 'weaker' because you can't get 100% back out?  Then again, the stopped system has this extra potential (above and beyond the original sodium atoms + the original stopped wave).  And then that was excited with a second laser (I assume adding more energy)...What was left over in the sodium atoms that wasn't there in the beginning?

Majestron:

Quote
A given form of organized energy does not proceed in waves but in direct lines.

That's the part I'm having trouble conceptualizing, even though I fully? understand and "know" it.  Like in an ocean wave, the wave is moving, but the individual water molecules are mostly just rising and falling.  SO, are photons rising and falling, travelling in a straigh line, or both?  They're obviously moving, slapping me in the retina, since I can read the drivel I type.
Report Spam   Logged
Majeston
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 447



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2007, 02:37:02 pm »


Majeston:

Quote
I am also confused by the statement that Merl makes that potential energy adds heat.  How can something that is potential add something that is not yet manifested?

Majestron, Merl said "heaft," not "heat."    My interpetation is that the faster the initial wave was travelling, and the faster it is brought to a halt, the more "mass" will be added to the resultant sytem??  No, that can't be right...the amount of energy expended to stop it has to be fixed, regardless the time interval (You can use a little energy over a 'long' time, or a lot of energy over a 'short' time).  I think that makes sense, otherwise you'd be in a situation where you could "create" mass M, or 1/2M, or 2M...that can't be (awaiting Merl's arrival to tell me I'm once again bonkers).

daffy,  i can't find heaft in the dictionary.  i thought it was a typo.

Merl said:

Quote
Interestingly enough, the amount of energy expended into the "stopping process" figures into the weight as well.  Potential energy adds heaft you know!

Majeston:

Quote
A given form of organized energy does not proceed in waves but in direct lines.

That's the part I'm having trouble conceptualizing, even though I fully? understand and "know" it.  Like in an ocean wave, the wave is moving, but the individual water molecules are mostly just rising and falling.  SO, are photons rising and falling, travelling in a straigh line, or both?  They're obviously moving, slapping me in the retina, since I can read the drivel I type.
[/quote]

daffy,

I don't think the water wave analogy is valid.
Report Spam   Logged

"melody has power a whole world to transform."
Forever, music will remain the universal language of men, angels, and spirits.
Harmony is the speech of Havona.

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper44.html
Daffy Duck
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 66



« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2007, 04:24:15 pm »

Quote
daffy,  i can't find heaft in the dictionary.  i thought it was a typo.

LOL, I can't find it in the dictionary either.  SO, it are a typo.  OK, when I read it, "heaft" became "heft" to me (by Merl's contextual use associated with weight, preceding sentence).  I can see where you got "heat". Smiley


Quote
I don't think the water wave analogy is valid.

I know it isn't.  Just trying to give myself an every-day similarity to an (energy/light) wave.  In smoke or fog, turn on a flashlight - I get a beam, same with laser pointer.  Yet, it's a wave.  I'm also familiar with the 'slit experiment' (interference) on how waves can act as particles, and vice versa.  So, somewhere in there, has to be the stumbling block that I'm desperately trying to trip over.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy