Doco on Faster Than Speed of Light - Page 2

renormalised (Carl) · #21 29-12-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartman

....off the brane and into another one?. If so than "we" should see similar occurrences in our brane...from photons from other branes appearing in ours....right???

Just thinking out aloud
Bartman

Particles whose strings form closed loops are the only ones which can drift across branes....like gravity. Photons can't because they have open ended strings, same as the neutrinos. One end is attached to the brane. What's happened is that the open end of the string for the neutrino and photon have detached and are "waving" about in higher space. However, maybe the neutrino doesn't wave about so far from the brane or only waves about for a shorter time than the photon.

bartman (Bart) · #22 29-12-2011, 11:02 PM

Thanks Carl.

"One end is attached to the brane. What's happened is that the open end of the string for the neutrino and photon have detached and are "waving" about in higher space. However, maybe the neutrino doesn't wave about so far from the brane or only waves about for a shorter time than the photon. "

Could it be that the 'open ended' string of the neutrino/photon in 'higher space' waving about, have( heheheh "had"/"have been") been disturbed by something - in higher space- to cause them to accelerate/decelerate, interact with our brane and therefore produce the time differences?
Or is that what has been said B4?

renormalised (Carl) · #23 30-12-2011, 01:13 AM

Who knows, Bart. We haven't really done enough with String Theory to say what actually happens. In any case, we have no experimental confirmation of anything that String Theory postulates, so until we do it's merely educated speculation. Even the stuff that I mentioned is only what they think is occurring. In any case if it's also involving quantum entanglement (as Bert mentioned), then they will have to define how QE is accounted for in String Theory. Right now, I'm not up on the nitty gritty of the theory so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely what's the go, but it wouldn't take too long to find out

.

bartman (Bart) · #24 30-12-2011, 01:48 AM

Thanks Carl,
I have no knowledge of QE and QM etc apart from trying to watch Leonard Susskind's lectures on the Stanford youtube channel.
I think I have come to a limit of understanding of what he is saying in the QM tutorials. QE is the next bit that I will watch ( and try and comprehend.....).

I like to express my thoughts sometimes when I think I have have a glimpse of understanding what you( et al ) discuss in these forums......

"I'm not up on the nitty gritty of the theory so I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely what's the go, but it wouldn't take too long to find out http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....es/happy19.gif."

Too True!!!!

Thats why I ask and put forward questions......in the hope it might stir some minds that have more knowledge on these facts

Thanks Carl ( and Bert)
Bartman

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #25 31-12-2011, 09:21 AM

Thank you for the link Bert. Fascinating

Branes and bulks - to come up with these, one had to be human.

avandonk · #26 01-01-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Thank you for the link Bert. Fascinating

Branes and bulks - to come up with these, one had to be human.

We are a very crazy inventive lot are we not. You are stopping some fine calculators from going to silicon heaven

here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4wqAJTu19o

Bert

Peter Ward · #27 27-01-2012, 02:41 PM

Interesting Doco... though I groaned when he made the analogy between a solar system and its planets vs atoms and electrons.

I like the notion that particles might be created while travelling at faster than light speeds i.e that some neutrinos may be tachyonic in nature

avandonk · #28 29-01-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Interesting Doco... though I groaned when he made the analogy between a solar system and its planets vs atoms and electrons.

I like the notion that particles might be created while travelling at faster than light speeds i.e that some neutrinos may be tachyonic in nature

At least he did not mention the raisin bun version of atomic structure!

Yes one day even young children will say it seems so quaint that our ancestors could not comprehend particles or matter existing outside our Universe that could momentarily visit and befuddle the best scientists of the day.

Just Google Casimir Effect. It is a real measure of the existence of 'virtual particles'. Also see Hawking Radiation from black holes.

The origin of the big bang is in here somewhere. That is everything from nothing! Unlike our big banks the cosmological ledger is quite happy as long as the books balance as far as energy is concerned. We are tending back to zero energy according to current best evidence.

Bert

Shark Bait (Stu) · #29 29-01-2012, 07:07 PM

At 30:00 minutes:

"A Barman says, sorry we don't serve Neutrinos."

A Neutrino walks into a bar.

The fact that I find this funny must mean that I am a bit of a nerd.....COOL!

xelasnave · #30 30-01-2012, 05:42 PM

What is a string anyways?

From what I have read my interpretation is a string is a way we can describe the movement of a particle.

How can we describe such movement? well we can visualise the area a particle moves around / within etc like a string it seems..This interpretation suggests there is no string but we can think of the movement of a particle as string like because it scibes out a string like pattern if we can take a looong look at what it does over time....is there an actual string? or is the string the path of travel of a single particle?

To me its seems that a "string" seems to be the region of space the particle scribes out or the region it is limited to travel in space..so although we seek to presumably describe a particle ..a single point or miniscule descrete particle.. it then becomes a string it would seem.

Is a string the path a particle scibes out or do I miss something and are these little strings are the fabric of space (and time presumably)...are we not just taling about particles???

Is this correct? Can anyone help with a simple explanation of presumably a most complex matter?

Is a string not a string at all but a humans attempt to describe the movement of a single descrete particle?

My point is when we talk about a string are we only talking about one particles movement and the region its travel scribes out?

Is a vibrating string no more than our description of the path of a single particle?

alex

bartman (Bart) · #31 31-01-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What is a string anyways?

Hehehhe you sound like Leonard Susskind.......He likes putting a 's' after some of his words......

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Is a vibrating string no more than our description of the path of a single particle?
alex

I guess we/they need to have some description of how things work. Just like trying to describe what is beyond the edge of our expanding universe.
I think I have asked b4....."what makes the string vibrate? ", " what energy does it use to do so?"
I do like those ponderings though Alex

Bartman

Rodstar (Rod) · #32 02-02-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

We men are very predictable as we are made of only three particles a brain cell, a willy and a stomach. We only have enough energy/volume in our blood to supply two of these at once.

Bert

Bert,

I read this very thoughtful post of yours to SWMBO. She wishes to dispute your assertion. It is her eminent opinion that our blood volume is only sufficient to service one of the aforementioned three male particles. As I am about to eat something, I am presently unable to think through the implications of this.

avandonk · #33 04-02-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodstar

Bert,

I read this very thoughtful post of yours to SWMBO. She wishes to dispute your assertion. It is her eminent opinion that our blood volume is only sufficient to service one of the aforementioned three male particles. As I am about to eat something, I am presently unable to think through the implications of this.

I am afraid I was just boasting! It is only one!

Bert

avandonk · #34 04-02-2012, 07:33 PM

Alex here is a couple of videos that may bring some insight into all this multi dimensional and multi universe conjecture.

It also brings some insight into what infinity is and infinities inside infinities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQ...layer_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim?feature=relchannel

Watch them in order. Remember it is only slickly produced conjecture.

I forgot to say that reality is far more complicated!

Bert

avandonk · #35 06-02-2012, 08:39 AM

If you have about twenty hours to spare here is a set of lectures on an introduction to String Theory and M-Theory from Stanford University by Leonard Susskind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25hax...FDCCBC7956448F

It is hard going but it gives you an idea how Physicists interpret experimental data to attempt to produce some sort of self consistent theory.
Bert

xelasnave · #36 06-02-2012, 12:42 PM

Hi Bartman.
My years in law and constant regard to proper gramma and spellen

makes me suspicious of those who are not prepared to forget the rules of all such things... or now that I am so very very old I dont give a fig

I have taken in most all of Suskins lectures at Stanford U via utube

..what a great thing to be able to find out what someone who says he knows what he is talking about explain physics.
I am so happy to get to see him and others.

Thanks Bert.
It is wonderful all the information that is out there.
I do think reality is one of the most difficult things one can seek to describe.
We each have a personal reality so even if we think we gain some grasp we must remember that such has had to pass thru our personal filter of what has been presented to us.
Thanks again.
alex

bartman (Bart) · #37 06-02-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Bartman.
My years in law and constant regard to proper gramma and spellen

makes me suspicious of those who are not prepared to forget the rules of all such things... or now that I am so very very old I dont give a fig

I have taken in most all of Suskins lectures at Stanford U via utube

..what a great thing to be able to find out what someone who says he knows what he is talking about explain physics.
I am so happy to get to see him and others.

Thanks Bert.
It is wonderful all the information that is out there.
I do think reality is one of the most difficult things one can seek to describe.
We each have a personal reality so even if we think we gain some grasp we must remember that such has had to pass thru our personal filter of what has been presented to us.
Thanks again.
alex

Alex, I hope you didn't take it the wrong way

.
I too have waded through a fair few of those lectures and think they are great. Love the way he goes about explaining it all. If I dont understand something I'll just keep on listening cause in the end.....it sort of comes together. Bits and pieces that I pick up in one lecture helps me understand stuff in some of his other lectures!

Bartman

xelasnave · #38 07-02-2012, 11:56 AM

Bartman I never take things the wrong way, or rather I never take offence even if such was intended. Things just "are" it is up to ourselves to qualify them as good or bad, a simple choice as such creates our reality. Mine is..its all good

Yes what else can one do but keep on reading and trying to learn more.
I notice so many folk get stuck in a world where they now know everything and so enquire no more about anything.

AND really the more you learn the more the realization presents that we know so very little relative to what must still be unknown.

regards

alex

xelasnave · #39 07-02-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

If you have about twenty hours to spare here is a set of lectures on an introduction to String Theory and M-Theory from Stanford University by Leonard Susskind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25hax...FDCCBC7956448F

It is hard going but it gives you an idea how Physicists interpret experimental data to attempt to produce some sort of self consistent theory.
Bert

I had covered these.
However although I think I grasp the approach I do think it may not reflect reality ..whatever that may be...Personally I think someone took a wrong turn a long time ago and all have followed and not withstanding the repair needed to the road all declare the road is good and is leading them somewhere. Still on my call I say it must do some good if only to keep many occupied in speculation and hopefully reasearch.
I think all this must present a situation that there is such an animal as "scientific belief" even though science says such can not be true when opperating from a scientific base...speculation does not seem absent from anything I have read.

alex

avandonk · #40 07-02-2012, 08:57 PM

Alex there is no such thing as 'scientific belief' along the same lines of religious dogma. If anything it is pedantry generally voiced by the scientifically illiterate. Reality is almost always counterintuitive.

Most practicing scientists are well aware of the problems due to our lack of perfect knowledge. We can only deal with the mathematical models that seem to work in the real world that we currently have.

If you have some evidence to show the current paradigm is 'wrong' then by all means publish the evidence. That is how science works.

Without speculation or 'gedunken' experiments we stay at our current level of ignorance.

Even Einstein disliked or preferred that Quantum Physics was a temporary aberration. He was completely wrong.

The harmonic oscillator has been used in Physics for a long time. It mathematically mimics reality where the springs are the forces between tiny particles of arbitrary mass. You may as well say that our written words convey no REAL meaning as they are not based in any REALity. They are just chicken scratchings in the sand.

The alternative is to go back to simple stimulus and reaction lives just like bacteria. Hungry then eat. Scared then kill or run. Horny then procreate. Or you could be scared of your young so just kill and eat them. Tabloid 'journalism' thrives on this drivel. This just will not lead to a symphony or lyric or image.

Do not make the mistake that one delusional individual or many is proof that all or part of science is wrong.

We live in a world where uneducated morons think that creationism should have equal time with evolution in science classes. Global warming is a religion rather than evidence based fact. These same twits are now saying that atheism is a religion. Next all of science will be a religion.

These uneducated morons are using something called projection where they think that all other people are just as deluded as themselves. Where without any evidence or any real thought they believe the most preposterous of stories that amounts to no more than fairy tales.

Without a good understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity our modern world would not exist. This is just the pinnacle of our understanding from fifty years ago turned into a practical use. Yet 99.99% of humanity does NOT know how it all works. They sit in their airliner fiddling with their laptop or smartphone and take it all for granted. These are the same twits who then get all emotional when something goes wrong!

A good current case is the dam engineers who caused the Queensland floods! I reckon it was the excess water that fell as rain.

I have been a part of the structural biological revolution. You would not believe what we are capable of even now let alone into the near the future.

Bert