· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 03/27/2010 11:06:22 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Very informational. Thanks.
And thanks always for the ping, SC.
My pleasure, 1d.
An amazing feat of reasoning. His clarity and simplicity are delightful. When I studied language and meaning in the 60’s I was overwhelmed by the verbal contortions and special meanings. He breaks it down and leaves me with my ultimate proof of truth, my intuitive sense of rightness. I am excited to talk with Alamo girl about this.
So, a theory of everything is not possible because the theory (information) is not everything.
We can,however, and do, intuit everything and the nothingness that encapsulates everything. It is the intuitive nature of knowledge, of consciousness, that grapples with reality.
Consciousness is or is not expressive of the nature of existence, while is not expressive of the nature of nonexistence. If consciousness is not expressive of the nature of existence then it must exist outside existence. Since it cannot exist in nonexistence it must be expressive of the nature of existence.
There is a serious theological problem in all of this. The mind of God must exist outside existence, in nonexistence if He is able to bring existence out of nonexistence.
There is another approach that can be taken. The Mind of God can exist outside both existence and nonexistence. This would make nonexistence an aspect and the foundation of creation. That solves the problem but it removes God to a place outside reality and non reality, existence and nonexistence.
The alternative is for God to exist in nonexistence. While this is conceivable it is not possible, then, for us to be joined with Him eternally. I have no answers to this, only stumbling blocks.
[ It suggests that differences in entropy between parts of the Universe generates a force {A MIRACLE OCCURS} that redistributes matter in a way that maximises entropy. This is the force we call gravity.]
Sometimes ya gets the goat, and sometimes the goat gets you - that’s just the way it is.
Use the Force, Neo, there is no spoon.
http://beyond-information.blogspot.com/
gets high crackpot score http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
more links
http://www.letstalkphysics.com/2010/01/gravity-as-entropy-sounds-cool-but.html
Time will tell whether or not Mr. Kumnick is on to something. Everything I've found on him points to him being a top shelf mathematician and theorist. With that said, I am not a physics or mathematics expert, but my intuition tells me this guy is not spinning his wheels. Here's a link to a thread at KurzweilAI.net MIND-X forum. Read through the thread and and tell me he's a crackpot. His logic and thinking is extraordinary. Below is an excerpt from this forum link. Double-click on the top comment... http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/thread_index.php?rootID=172255&highlight=172255
Beginning of BKumnick excerpt:
From our perspective inside the universe, time starts with the big bang. From our perspective as observers, the big bang is time zero. The big bang creates the quantum zero point energy field that is spacetime itself. Spacetime continues to expand as long as the universe expands. Time ends when the universe collapses back into a black hole and the black hole destroys the last of the zero point field that composes the spacetime in the universe. There is no absolute measurement of time that spans universes. You can't say that the big bang occurred at some absolute time x because from our perspective as observers, time didn't exist before the big bang. The big bang created spacetime itself.
Question:
I'm very curious though. Previously you were talking about how bosons exists inside a singularity, about how they occupy the "space" inside it. That was some interesting stuff, care to expand on it? I'm really curious as to what goes on there.
Answer:
Sure. All fermions (leptons and baryons) have spin 1/2. That means they have size and occupy spacetime (Pauli Exclusion Principle). They are a kind of "matter". When they cross the event horizon they are travelling at the speed of light. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. Because the fermions are travelling at the speed of light, time is stopped. The zero point quantum field that fills spacetime itself must be a fermionic field because it fills spacetime, so it too must have spin 1/2. It is also traveling at the speed of light at the event horizon so time stops for it too. If time stops, you no longer have spacetime. You can't have spacetime without time. If time stops, the direct representation of the fermions crossing the event horizon and the direct representation of the zero point field becomes inconsistent. The fermions aren't crushed by gravity; they are converted into a mixture of photons and gluons. Photons and gluons are bosons. All bosons have spin 1. Particles with spin 1 don't occupy spacetime. Any number of bosons with the same quantum state (i.e., the same frequency and energy) can occupy the same "space". Well, that "space" is not space as in spacetime. It is an abstract "space". The abstract space just represents the existence of each photon or gluon. In other words the photons and gluons don't have any size in spacetime. They are just 1 dimensional mathematical points. Their single dimension just represents their existence. That is why they can all occupy the same "space". That is why they can collapse into a singularity, and it is why the singularity can contain arbitrarily large amounts of energy. The other thing about photons and gluons is they have zero mass. There are Z0 and W+/- bosons with mass, but those particles are vector bosons, not scalar bosons. Vector bosons occupy spacetime, and are associated with the weak force and are the force carriers in radioactive decay. They can only exist in association with matter in spacetime. They don't exist in the singularity. That means the only particles that can exist in the singularity are photons and gluons. They are the only particles that can exist outside spacetime. Photons and gluons have no mass, which means the black hole has no mass. Energy can only be converted to mass if you can create particles with mass from energy. Inside a black hole's event horizon, there is no spacetime for fermions to exist in, so the photons and gluons can't create fermions. That means that inside the event horizon, E=mc^2 doesn't work!
Physicists think black holes are extremely massive because a very strong gravity field can create a black hole, but what they don't realize is the mass that created the black hole is all converted to gamma ray photons and gluons inside the black hole, so the mass disappears. Physicists think gravity is caused by mass, but in reality gravity is caused by the curvature of the zero point field of spacetime. The spacetime geodesics in general relativity aren't just abstract mathematical geometry. Geometry has to be a geometry of something. That something is the zero point field of spacetime. Matter and energy can't follow the curvature of abstract mathematical geometry, unless that geometry is the geometry of something that has physical existence. The spacetime geodesic curves must represent the curvature of the zero point quantum field. Even though photons have no mass, they still follow geodesic curves in spacetime. Light is still bent by gravity. Why is the path of light bent when the photons that make up light have no mass? It is bent because the photon must travel through the zero point field that makes up space time, and that zero point field is curved. The photons are simply following the spacetime geodesic curvature of the zero point field they are flowing through. All fermions do the same thing of course. The "force" we call gravity arises because the particles are forced to follow geodesic curves in the zero point field so they are under acceleration. Remember, acceleration is a change in velocity, not a just a change in speed. Velocity is a vector, and vectors have direction and magnitude. If you follow a curve, you are changing direction and that change in direction will cause acceleration, even if your speed is constant. According to the equivalence principle, acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.
The whole theory of black holes was based on the idea of a "black star". Physicists asked themselves what would happen if the gravitational field of a massive body was so strong that the escape velocity of a particle would have to exceed the speed of light to escape its gravitational field. They naturally reasoned that if the escape velocity required to escape a black holes gravitational field exceeded the speed of light, the photon wouldn't be able to escape the black hole, so it would be trapped inside the event horizon forever (or at least until the black hole evaporated). In reality light isn't trapped in a black hole because it can't exceed the speed of light, it is trapped in a black hole because it has no spacetime to travel through.
Now, the black holes singularity is composed of 100% massless particles (photons and gluons) so the black hole has no mass. So where does its gravitational field come from? Well, when you destroy the zero point field of spacetime inside the event horizon, all of a sudden you have the normal zero point field spectral energy density in regular spacetime outside the event horizon, and absolute zero spectral energy density inside the event horizon. The zero point field energy density is calculated at roughly 10^123 J / m^3 if I remember correctly, which is something like 10^110 times as much energy density as exists at the core of the sun. That is one hell of a lot of energy. Normally, zero point energy can't do any work because it is the lowest possible energy, all other energy is measured relative to (and because it is composed of virtual particles), but in the case of a black hole, the lowest energy density goes to absolute zero inside the event horizon. Energy always follows the path of least resistance to ground. In this case, that means the spacetime outside the event horizon and everything it contains flows into the black hole, like water down a drain. The flow of the zero point field of spacetime through the event horizon creates curvature in the zero point field that represents the spacetime outside the event horizon and that curvature is what causes the black holes gravity.
What really triggers the formation of a black hole is not a large mass per se, but a localized asymmetry in spacetime that is so large that nature can't compensate for the asymmetry through the usual mechanisms fast enough to satisfy the conservation of energy (actually the conservation of nonexistence) without exceeding the speed of light. Normally, nature compensates for spacetime assymetries thru emission of photons, or through particle pair creation. Nature will try to compensate for assymetries in spacetime by increasing the frequency, number, energy of photons, and energy and velocity of particle pair emissions, but it can't increase the velocity past the speed of light. If nature can't conserve nonexistence any way except by breaking the speed of light, that is what it will do. Breaking the speed of light destroys the zero point field composing the spacetime region containing the assymetry along with anything it contained, creating a black hole and eliminating the source of the assymetry, thus conserving complete nonexistence and the conservation of energy. A black hole can be formed by a large enough mass, but it can also be formed by a high energy particle collision if the collision generates so much assymetry in such a small spacetime region that nature can't compensate for it any other way.
Unfortunately, the equation that computes the rate at which black holes evaporate was based on information theory. It also assumed E = mc^2 inside the event horizon. It assumed that the surface area just outside the event horizon is tiled with bits whose size is 1 plank length^2 per bit. But nature doesn't represent itself in terms of bits in direct representation. The equation that computes how fast black holes will evaporate is probably wrong. It also doesn't take into account that the power source of a black hole isn't the energy or mass that created it, it is the difference in energy density outside the event horizon relative to the absolute energy density inside. Even if the black hole evaporation equation still works correctly, it needs to take into account the difference in the black holes power source. In other words, its power source isn't limited to the energy that created it. It will continue to grow by ingesting the energy in the zero point quantum field of the spacetime surrounding the event horizon. The rate at which it will collapse (if it collapses) will depend on the rate of collapse relative to the rate of growth due to zero point field consumption. Until we know more, creating black holes is very, very risky. If my model is correct, when a star sized black hole collapses, it creates a gamma ray burst. Those are some the biggest explosions known. I doubt if that could happen with a quantum scale black hole, because I suspect it will collapse very fast, but I don't have any numbers to back that intuition up yet. I'm just guessing that because it would be very small, its Swarzschild radius would be quantum scale so it shouldn't be able to ingest spacetime zero point field very fast, so hopefully it will evaporate before it gets a chance to grow too much. A lot depends on how assymetric the collision masses are in the particle collision. I suspect that is stochastic (random) so its a crap shoot. I guess we'll find out if I'm right if they manage to create a black hole at the LHC. If they get a much bigger explosion than the conservation of energy of the colliding particle momentums can account for, it will confirm my model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.