Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

You said all of time would be like a point to a beam of light, a beam of light would then claim all timewise distinguishable events as simultaneous. Yes?


I can't help but wonder how much of this is because you are also pursuing a resolution to this problem.

You seem to be denying it based on your interpretation of things in your work, but you need to recognize that nothing I am stating here is against actual physics.

I know, I've been trying to falsify the idea since I first proposed it. If you have something better than "nuh uh", something I've missed, please point it out.

1. You cant arbitrarily change the constant, as you invalidate the previous results for gravitational/time rate changes.

Yet Einstein was allowed to arbitrarily set the constant, cause he did. With no experimental reason, they share the same derivative up to that constant, it does not insist that the constant occur at 0 mass/infinity.

I invalidated the part of the old curve below the planck mass, guess what, that part didn't work anyways. In case you didn't notice, GR is not valid at these scales currently, this is why the only models of QFT that incorporate GR which seem promising focus on adjustments at those scales and not above them.

I took into account what would happen if the curve was not handled properly, this is why I settled on the Planck Mass.

The shape of the current curve is only known to be roughly accurate along the upper relativistic energy levels anyways!

At lower scales there is significantly more wiggle room.

I didn't pick up a Relativistic Dr. Seuss book.

I started with this: Black holes and warped spacetime
Amazon.com: Black Holes and Warped Spacetime (9780716711537): William J. Kaufmann: Books, while it isn't a scientific text... it's a bit more than you were probably picturing me reading as a little kid.

I had another thick book about Einstein and Relativity that I have forgotten the name of, can't remember what to google for even, it's been so long. I do remember it was given to me after BH&WS was.

Then I dove straight into the library books on SR and GR, QM, QFT, so on and so forth.

At 6, mind you... I was well acquainted with this subject when most kids are learning times tables. I didn't just read a book once when I was 6 and again when I was 20 and decide I had studied all that time, it's basically all I've done with my life.

2. You cant come in and say "well ive combined QM/GR and solved the bell inequalities" and provide nothing to back it up besides "but I moved the curve!".

No, the inequalities show that there is no way to explain the universe with a local realist theory.

When I put the coincidence point over at the planck mass, I had to explain what changed for smaller masses, and the explanation turns out to look just like quantum mechanics. Upon further research it seemed to be a semi-Bohmian model, with no hidden variables, the unobservable periods of interaction before and after the present being "obscured" variables in this case.

[Max™]

Amazon.com: General Relativity (9780226870335): Robert M. Wald: Books

Had one of these floating around for a while too.

Besides the various library books I would get, I loved my library card, I was disappointed that school was not as I imagined it when I was little: a library with teachers roaming around helping students learn.

From that, to "Is this a square? is it red? put it in the box with other red squares! Here's a gold star!"... /sigh.

[Max™]

Your edit did not address the fact that you're acting as if I am outside of the weak field region where GR is only tested to be accurate in approximation.


If I placed R = 1 to occur at .6 of c, then you can bitch all you want, because it is trivially wrong.

Placing it at the Planck Mass, which we know is closer to R = 1 in a flat spacetime coordinate system than it is on Earth, is just a variation of the bottom part of the curve where it would have tapered off to hit 1 at zero mass slowly after shooting rapidly towards 1 from 0 at infinite mass/c.


Gotta admit, it's a nice change having someone more versed in the field, actually gotta stretch my muscles some to make my case here, good questions Neo.


Here's a modified curve I worked out a while back, as I said I'm still teaching myself the mathematics which I feel I lack due to, yup, not having a formal education.

Spoiler: show

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...equalsmass.jpg

[Woozie]

Neo, you are awesome. I just thought you should know that.

[Eliseos]

And lol@ working on the problem since you were 6. I dont mean "time since you've first pondered physics", Im talking about actual research and contributions in the field. You cant seriously try and pass "23 years of work in the field" then quietly say whisper "but im not even 30 yet and havent finished my degree.." Ive been thinking about physics since I was 6 and below as well, that doesnt mean Ive been "working in the field" for 30 years. Jesus.

Pretty much this, if Max is actually not in his 40s. By that logic, I could be a self-proclaimed expert on humans, since I've had 22 years of field experience. This is another of those things that makes you look way more egotistical then you are saying you are Max. Just sayin'.

[Woozie]

Yeah, when Max mentioned the two decades of physics studies (in another topic or in spam, I think) I assumed he was 40 or 50 years old lol

[weeman]

I haven't touched this board in years, but thanks guys.
I went outside and looked up for the first time in a long time tonight. I remember what it is like to dream and feel so small. I was in school for Astrophysics for a long time and gave up because I lost the passion. Seeing you guys debate this stuff really brought it back.
I just wanted to say thanks. Remember this, it might be 93 billion light years of visible space, but you are the center of it.

[Eliseos]

Just a heads up, Brian Cox (the british physicist who does quite a bit of shows on the Science Channel) will be on the Colbert Report tonight, which starts in about 40 minutes.

[Jakson]

I've been silently reading the few threads you've been posting in around general, and people calling you out on acting holier than thou. Quotes like these don't really help your cause.

Makes me think of this:

It is hard to pull back out of the concepts I'm usually thinking in and reduce them back to basic english sometimes, sorry.

Translates out to

I'm trying to dumb myself down for you guys, ya'll should thank me.

I'm all for math studies, but rearranging stuff you read on the interwebs ≠ coming up with something original. I'll start envying max when I see him in a textbook or whatever respectable source the math community looks toward for progress.

[Stiker]

On another note, tonight's Colbert Report is talking about the HLC. This is pretty great.

[Eliseos]

On another note, tonight's Colbert Report is talking about the HLC. This is pretty great.

It's pretty hilarious so far lol. "CERN! Curopean Eenter Ruclear Nesearch"

[Woozie]

It's pretty hilarious so far lol. "CERN! Curopean Eenter Ruclear Nesearch"

ROFL!

[Eliseos]

Stephen is actually pretty knowledgeable about physics it seems. Yeah maybe he had people write his questions, but you can tell when someone is asking a question if they actually know what they are talking about. Cox made a jab at string theory and Stephen jumped in with "You can't say that! Brian Greene is a fan of the show" lol. I'll post a link of the full episode tomorrow when they post it for people to watch.

[Max™]

Translates out to

I'm trying to dumb myself down for you guys

You don't mind if I discuss the ways I am trying to produce to mathematically represent a topological representation of a 10 component tensorial structure that is capable of being curved on scales measured in planck lengths, as a way to represent the force of gravity on the finest scales of reality?

Or the way which the various types of those distortions relate to the overall structure in 3 dimensions to reproduce the known gauge interactions of electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces?

If I said I am trying to convert Ashtekar's new variables into a topological quantum set form, would you know why?

If I told you that the orientation of those bent structures is more important along the temporal axis than the spatial axis, as they can be arbitrarily rotated spatially, but reversing the orientation along t fundamentally changes the nature of the particle described, would that make any sense?

I'm all for math studies, but rearranging stuff you read on the interwebs ≠ coming up with something original. I'll start envying max when I see him in a textbook or whatever respectable source the math community looks toward for progress.

This isn't stuff I read on the interwebs, do you know what I do when I'm not trolling forums to relax or bounce ideas off other people?

I sit upstairs with my textbooks, my math books, occasionally I say something in FFXI, or even more rarely go kill stuff, but usually I sit there and read and write things out in my notebooks.

When I get on here, usually I'm sifting through this wonderful site for new ways to describe what I am working on.





Anyone know how much time a typical PhD in physics spends studying and working on the subject before they get their degree?


I would say as a rough guess that I've spent no less than a few hours a day, 5 days a week, every year since 1986 studying and researching this subject.

I know it isn't exact, as there have been times I was doing other things, but there have also been times where from the time I woke up til the time I went to bed for weeks at a time I did nothing but devour text.

Caution: pompous ass alert, but if I'm being pressed to defend my claims that I taught myself physics, then I feel obligated to do so.

Spoiler: show

I seriously mean I was studying books like this: Amazon.com: General Relativity (9780226870335): Robert M. Wald: Books before I turned 10.

At first I figured I just needed to trawl the library til I found a book that resolved the problem between GR and QM, then I realized it hadn't been fixed and decided I may as well get to work.

So yes, I've been working on this for the last 23 years, if you don't believe someone can teach themselves physics, then consider this.

In 2nd or 3rd grade the CAT tests came around in Texas, I never studied anything in school, I had already covered most everything they teach by then, and every time those tests came around I scored in the top 99%, high school graduate + levels, completely on my own studies.

Is that a big deal? No, I don't think it really is, but the fact remains that I was a self taught 8 year old educated to the same level as a high school graduate.

I got fed up with school, it was clear that they weren't going to give me any scholastic education I didn't already have, and I quickly caught the underlying preparation for the work environment idea as well. I basically dropped out in 5th grade, made it to 9th on end of the year test scores, then got told to cut it out or leave by the principal, so I left.

I realized a few years later that I forgot my GED, so without any study on the subjects since pre-elementary school I walked in and got scores indicative of a 4.0 high school grad's knowledge.

tl;dr by the time I was 8, my self taught education had me at or above the level of a high school graduate... some people really love to learn, and some people who really love to learn have questions that they are driven to answer.

Even disregarding the 2 years of study before that, what do you think I've been doing between 8 and 29? Sitting around picking my nose?

[Neosutra]

You said all of time would be like a point to a beam of light, a beam of light would then claim all timewise distinguishable events as simultaneous. Yes?

Not exactly, I said that time is non-existent to light waves, not simply a point.

I can't help but wonder how much of this is because you are also pursuing a resolution to this problem.

None of it. I'm a post doc that currently works in the defense industry, I haven't worked at the national lab or a university in a few years and the majority of my TOE work is done with my wife and a few previous colleagues, thus I would classify my work as more casual (or at least not professional, since I'm not getting paid for this). Meaning I neither find other theories intimidating (quite the contrary), nor do I attack other ideas if they don't fit my current models. I am simply requiring either a significantly more in-depth response to several or your claims, or a reprisal from the constant barrage of these knot theory tangents that have filled your posts.

Yet Einstein was allowed to arbitrarily set the constant, cause he did. With no experimental reason, they share the same derivative up to that constant, it does not insist that the constant occur at 0 mass/infinity.

You dont have to experimentally determine that R=1 at a gravitational potential of 0, it is an clear observation. That is like saying "well they didnt experimentally prove that 2+2=4, so it is arbitrary".
When g is slowly varying, it gives the fractional rate of change of the ticking rate. If the ticking rate is everywhere almost this same, the fractional rate of change is the same as the absolute rate of change, so that:
dR/dx = g = -dV/dx

Im restating this point to point out the "dx" here. The gravitational potential of 0 comes from expanding out into infinity as stated, but think about that for a second. That means there is ZERO gravitational potential in the system of infinite distance:
F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 -> So at infinite r, F=0.
There are plenty of experiments validating this effect and rate of clock changes at 0 potential and beyond. Im not sure why you are still sticking with "arbitrary". But anyways, lets move onto what you are claiming you did and what you got:

I invalidated the part of the old curve below the planck mass, guess what, that part didn't work anyways. In case you didn't notice, GR is not valid at these scales currently, this is why the only models of QFT that incorporate GR which seem promising focus on adjustments at those scales and not above them. .

Even a minor shift would mean permutations in the non quantum realms which are not observed through observation.

I took into account what would happen if the curve was not handled properly, this is why I settled on the Planck Mass.

2.17644(11)×10−8 kg is the plank mass.

You're picture of:
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...equalsmass.jpg

Doesnt actually say anything beyond what you just stated: You're setting R=1 at Mp, instead of Du (Diameter Universe). But R = 1 at Du.. (or more specifically 0 gravitational potential).
You cant just arbitrarily change that value, as R is not 1 when you apply non zero gravitational potentials.

The shape of the current curve is only known to be roughly accurate along the upper relativistic energy levels anyways!
At lower scales there is significantly more wiggle room.

Its not that its inaccurate at lower relativistic energy levels, the effects just decay exponentially as you move away from the natural state (light speed). That "wiggle" room in time dialation at lower velocities is still testable (albeit with really fast clocks!) and still invalidates your curve shift.

I didn't pick up a Relativistic Dr. Seuss book.

I started with this: Black holes and warped spacetime
Amazon.com: Black Holes and Warped Spacetime (9780716711537): William J. Kaufmann: Books, while it isn't a scientific text... it's a bit more than you were probably picturing me reading as a little kid.

I had another thick book about Einstein and Relativity that I have forgotten the name of, can't remember what to google for even, it's been so long. I do remember it was given to me after BH&WS was.

Great, what you're describing is premature enlightenment. Its what happens when a reasonable intelligent person obtains enough information to redefine how they perceive the world, but not enough information to let them realize how little they still know. We've probably read the same books (oh and I have my degrees), so lets drop the "I learn really well". The IQ/nerd broadcasting works great in college, but the readers of this thread (specifically the several phd graduates and/or close to graduates) arent impressed. You're preaching to the choir. Odds are every person here was the smartest person in their school/college and impress the shit out of themselves with their massive brain muscles, but sadly to impress each other we need -results-, not just hollow bragging.

Also: back this statement up please:

When I put the coincidence point over at the planck mass, I had to explain what changed for smaller masses, and the explanation turns out to look just like quantum mechanics. Upon further research it seemed to be a semi-Bohmian model, with no hidden variables, the unobservable periods of interaction before and after the present being "obscured" variables in this case.

Would love to see a new model for QM that doesnt involve hidden variables WHILE simultaneously satisfying observed bell inequalities. In fact, ignore responding to anything else I've said and just respond with this information, that would make me happy.

[Neosutra]

Now, back to my movie with the wife.

[Max™]

Spoiler: show

Not exactly, I said that time is non-existent to light waves, not simply a point.

Potato, potato.

None of it. I'm a post doc that currently works in the defense industry, I haven't worked at the national lab or a university in a few years and the majority of my TOE work is done with my wife and a few previous colleagues, thus I would classify my work as more casual (or at least not professional, since I'm not getting paid for this). Meaning I neither find other theories intimidating (quite the contrary), nor do I attack other ideas if they don't fit my current models. I am simply requiring either a significantly more in-depth response to several or your claims, or a reprisal from the constant barrage of these knot theory tangents that have filled your posts.

Very well, I retract that and apologize, it is something I encounter from time to time though.

You dont have to experimentally determine that R=1 at a gravitational potential of 0, it is an clear observation. That is like saying "well they didnt experimentally prove that 2+2=4, so it is arbitrary".
When g is slowly varying, it gives the fractional rate of change of the ticking rate. If the ticking rate is everywhere almost this same, the fractional rate of change is the same as the absolute rate of change, so that:
dR/dx = g = -dV/dx

Im restating this point to point out the "dx" here. The gravitational potential of 0 comes from expanding out into infinity as stated, but think about that for a second. That means there is ZERO gravitational potential in the system of infinite distance:
F=G(m1*m2)/r^2 -> So at infinite r, F=0.
There are plenty of experiments validating this effect and rate of clock changes at 0 potential and beyond. Im not sure why you are still sticking with "arbitrary". But anyways, lets move onto what you are claiming you did and what you got:

Which experiment shows the rate of clock ticking at 0 mass is equal to 1?

I've been searching far and wide for it.

Even a minor shift would mean permutations in the non quantum realms which are not observed through observation.

Do you know of tests showing accurately the rate of clock change for sub-classical masses in flat spacetime?

2.17644(11)×10−8 kg is the plank mass.

You're picture of:
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...equalsmass.jpg

Doesnt actually say anything beyond what you just stated: You're setting R=1 at Mp, instead of Du (Diameter Universe). But R = 1 at Au.. (or more specifically 0 gravitational potential).
You cant just arbitrarily change that value, as R is not 1 when you apply non zero gravitational potentials.

Do you know of an experiment that shows that you must set R to equal 1 at 0 mass/potential/infinity?

Do you know of any reason besides worrying about the adjustment to the curve?

Its not that its inaccurate at lower relativistic energy levels, the effects just decay exponentially as you move away from the natural state (light speed). That "wiggle" room in time dialation at lower velocities is still testable (albeit with really fast clocks!) and still invalidates your curve shift.

It has yet to be tested, and it has yet to be shown that R = 1 should occur at 0 mass, I've been looking.

If motion through space reaches a peak at light speed for a massive object (which can't accelerate all the way to light speed because having rest mass takes up some of that ability itself), then as you move away from that speed your time dilation is decreased dramatically.

If the curve stops at 1, at zero mass, then light interacts with time in a classical manner. One second which we measure by tracking a beam of light would be "observed" to take one second for that beam of light.

Light would interact with time in a causal manner, going against what you yourself said, that the rate should be non-existent to a beam of light.

That is a direct implication of R = 1 at F = 0 though.

Great, what you're describing is premature enlightenment. Its what happens when a reasonable intelligent person obtains enough information to redefine how they perceive the world, but not enough information to let them realize how little they still know. We've probably read the same books (oh and I have my degrees), so lets drop the "I learn really well". The IQ/nerd broadcasting works great in college, but the readers of this thread (specifically the several phd graduates and/or close to graduates arent impressed. You're preaching to the choir. Odds are every person here was the smartest person in their school/college and impress the shit out of themselves with their massive brain muscles, but sadly to impress each other we need -results-, not just hollow bragging.

Oh, I know how little I know, but I also know there is little about GR that I don't know at this point.

I wasn't saying it to impress anyone, was simply pointing out that my self-education at an incredibly early age was enough to breeze through school, though being intelligent doesn't make you wise enough to see that breezing through school easily = easy scholarships and shit.

That didn't occur to me til years later, I'm definitely a dumbass about many things.

Also: back this statement up please:



Would love to see a new model for QM that doesnt involve hidden variables WHILE simultaneously satisfying observed bell inequalities. In fact, ignore responding to anything else I've said and just respond with this information, that would make me happy.

Assume for a second then that you can in fact set the R = 1 point at a non-zero mass. Putting aside whatever you think is wrong with the idea.

An electron is tiny compared to the Planck Mass, so it would be at a significant R > 1 value.

I worked out some values for it a while back, it's in a notepad somewhere, but either way let's say that R = 30 for an electron.


You entangle two electrons and perform an EPR type experiment according to the Bell Theorem protocols, you allow them to travel for 10 seconds and then observe one.

The extent to which an electron interacts across time is set by that R = 30 value, so 10 seconds into the past from the observation is still within the period of interactivity, and the states are still entangled at that point.

A temporally extended electron would treat all events within it's period of interaction as simultaneous.




When you observe the state of one of the pair, the other changes immediately as expected, this happens every time these Bell experiments are ran, it is how things work.


Non-local models say the electrons are spread through space in such a way that they still overlap in a sense, and changing the state of one by observing it will change the other without any apparently time delay.


Treating it as extended temporal interaction periods functions in the same way.

The state of the electron in the present at the observation is overlapped with the state in the past 10 seconds upstream in time.

So this interaction deciding the state of the pair at the splitter in the past will obviously determine the result found at the other detector in the present.


Performing a quantum eraser experiment can change these results "after the fact" as long as the period of interaction overlaps with a time when they were still entangled in the past.


For massive bodies it is known to be incredibly difficult to maintain an entangled state for any length of time, while photons appear to happily interact even after traveling for 100's of miles.


The "hidden variable" replacement is the spread out state of the particle across time, which is given by the adjusted Rate curve for the portions where R > 1.


This would not violate the Bell Inequalities, works with experimental results, and most importantly to me, would not violate General Relativity, because two observers in different states of motion would observe the changed states at the detectors being at appropriately different times due to their motion. They would observe different angles of the interaction as it rippled back and forth along the extended length of the electron pair.

If the particles actually interacted instantly across some distance, then all observers would be able to agree on this, while disagreeing about the rest of their plane of simultaneity. That's bad.

[Howard Roark]

I'm new to physics, I may not be 8 years old, but can I too earn a not-Masters in physics exclusively from wikipedia?

Max, I assume you know the term autodidact, curiously enough there is an article on wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain to me why so many other autodidacts have come along better than you have, including the celebrated Irving Layton, and to a lesser extent Al Purdy -- both massively interested in the Etruscans.

You almost seem to be whittling away your knowledge, with each replacement for values in accepted theories and formulae, it's almost like watching a religious person use some sort of book of established codes and beliefs and manipulating it how they choose to explain their sub-par understanding of how to actually apply it.

[Max™]

Wiki is just a handy tool these days, I learned physics from good old fashioned paper cuts and sore necks.

I had heard the term before but never really knew I was one.

Interesting article, never knew Von Neumann was, but I notice the list misses John Moffatt.

I am whittling away at everything I know until I find that which I can not show is false. If I can not falsify it, and can not find a way, I file it away in the "ok to be called true until further notice" bin.

I am not whittling away at Relativity.

I am adjusting one value, which stuck out because while I understand the values chosen for the rest of the theory, that one was left out as it had no logical reason for it's placement other than preserving causality. Something which Einstein was fond of.


Einstein KNEW that GR would never allow non-locality, as I do, and I am fairly certain he realized if that constant was not butted up against zero mass, then he could not maintain the sense of absolute causality he so desired reality to have.

Adjusting that to preserve only the causality we know from day to day is the linchpin which made the rest fall into place.


Incidentally, if you want to study physics, this is a good checklist to run through: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html, I am odd, I started more near the top and am fleshing out the weak points in my mathematical knowledge near the bottom.

[Howard Roark]

Wiki is just a handy tool these days, I learned physics from good old fashioned paper cuts and sore necks.

this smacks of overuse

I am odd, I started more near the top and am fleshing out the weak points in my mathematical knowledge near the bottom.

like replacing incorrect numbers in established formulae as you please?