Alternatives to the Orthodoxy

[Tao_Equus]

Throughout history our perception of what our universe is composed of, how it is assembled, its beginnings and its destiny have all undergone change. Usually there is great resistance to such change as the vested interest of church, state or, in today's case, the scientific community puts a pressure on maintaining the status quo.

Our love affair with relativity in the modern era is justified by its observational efficacy under 10s of 1000s of repeatable experiments. Yet there are still huge questions that remain unanswered. What exactly is a black hole, dark matter and energy, and was the Big Bang really the beginning. The world of the quantum level of reality is spooky and defies the rational linearity we take for granted in our day to day lives. Some of us can sort of "feel" what the quantum physicists are telling us but its hard to know what it's relevance is to the structure and nature of the space/time we live in.

The scientific community is on the whole a competitive one that relies on the sponsorship off government and big business and several surveys have reported that scientists are quick to falsify results and maintain the status quo than rock the boat and risk losing funding. So there are many unreported results out there that fly in the face of the consensus. My question on this thread is what may you have heard that contradicts the orthodoxy of the scientific community. What are your favourite pet theories and why do they make sense to you.

My own favourite, (and it is my own... I have never seen it described as I do), is that superstrings connect supermassive black holes across the brane like multiverse. Sure I steal from several sources of theoretical cosmology to arrive at that, but I never saw anyone put them all together the way I do. i will explain in a bit more depth after I have heard from some of you.

I eagerly await your thoughts

Tao

 

[Bishadi]

My opinion is that in each period of mankind, many have contributed to the evolution of knowledge.

As each period passes phenomenon had been identified and many descriptions have come to be accepted. As benchmarks have established 'laws' and form a pradigm of understanding the diversity of opinions often formed tangents. Such that cosmological physics and chemistry could never marry up with partical physics. Each have reported phenomenon that can only be described within their particular frame of reference. Hence Newtonian versus Relativity.

These divisions represent that the measurments of the benchmarks had to be reformed and readdressed, which in doing so causes a paradigm shift in how the associated systems actually work together.


for example: entanglement is a physical property of energy (light) but no where in 'big bang' or Virial Theorem specifically is there a place to address this physical reality that energy shared upon mass affects each.

So now observations share a unique occurrance regarding how the rotation of the galaxies actually which does not match the simulations (mathematically). The data observed shares a unique difference and now the 'community' is calling this strange phenomenon dark energy and dark matter.

 

[wil]

I saw a special recently on the 'web' of this universe. The largest structures being galaxises hundreds of millions of light years apart yet proven to be still connected by gravity. ie while they are all expanding away from whatever big bang they are doing it together rotating around one another has they fly through space. Our Milky Way Galaxy as I remember is part of the third largest of these webs discovered to date.

They didn't include any link between the 'verses as I'm understanding you've intimated.

 

[Tao_Equus]

....but no where..... is there a place to address this physical reality that energy shared upon mass affects each.

I thought that to be a central tenet of the laws on the conservation of energy.

So now observations share a unique occurrance regarding how the rotation of the galaxies actually which does not match the simulations (mathematically). The data observed shares a unique difference and now the 'community' is calling this strange phenomenon dark energy and dark matter.

Well my 'internal jury' is still out on the matter(sorry) of dark energy/matter. Recent observational data is giving us images that show objects lensing around what appears (or rather it doesnt ) to be dark matter. While still other physicists are declaring that the truth is that gravity behaves differently on the cosmological scale and that even our red shift measurements are grossly in error. One thing is certain though, whatever is behind the dance of the galactic clusters, supermassive black holes are central to the recycling of normal matter throughout them all. And possibly, drawing on my own ideas, linked in what i can best describe as an arterial network. The distribution maps of the cosmic background radiation survey to me clearly indicate interactions that must precede the estimated time of the big bang. Also there are rogue stars that seem to show spectral signatures that date them well before 14 billion years ago. I think the scientific community is not being honest with itself in its insistence that all theories must fit the Big Bang theory.

Wil : I saw a special recently on the 'web' of this universe. The largest structures being galaxises hundreds of millions of light years apart yet proven to be still connected by gravity. ie while they are all expanding away from whatever big bang they are doing it together rotating around one another has they fly through space. Our Milky Way Galaxy as I remember is part of the third largest of these webs discovered to date.

They didn't include any link between the 'verses as I'm understanding you've intimated.

I mentioned above the maps of radiation supposedly left over from the big bang. When you overlay them with the maps of the galactic super-clusters its is easy to imagine them all being tethered to each other and the observational data does indeed suggest, as you state, that they are. The former being an historical record of position. Why I think that there are superstrings involved in this tethering is the nature and composition of the supermassive black holes at every galactic core. if each SMBH is a 'string end' then from what string theorists predict on the nature of strings we would expect to see a super dense gravitationally massive phenomenon. Which is exactly what an SMBH is. SuperString theory that I have read has not postulated what exists at a string end, its simply postulates the existence of superstrings.

The question as to whether or not they all exist within our observable universe or if branes are reality and they (superstrings) are interacting with adjacent branes is the weakest part of my thinking on this. My main reason for invoking them (branes) is as an explanation for their (superstrings) origin and energy. If 2 branes were to interact the energy created would be phenomenal, give us the microwave background radiation maps we have and give an explanation of how the anomalous matter that seems to be out there got to be there. Basicly dark matter would be old spent matter created in an older much more ancient brane collision, as would the ancient stars that dont fit with Big Bang theory. The gravitational effect of clusters of galaxies that have long since spent the energy of the matter in them, that have burnt out and are now dark, existing in tandem with the more recent collision of branes would explain everything we see. We need branes for this because only in brane collisions do we find he required energy to account for what we see. If you can imagine that 2 adjacent branes are made of a sticky fluid. When they collide and part they for a time are connected by strings of material which can potentially flow either way. What we know of as Quasars, the oldest, brightest and most energetic galaxies we know of we are seeing these "string ends" still connected to an adjacent brane. When the string breaks with the other brane the Galaxy settles down and the highly compressed matter seals the hole.

Well... dont know if it makes any sense... but its my "precious" thoughts on things. ask me again next year and it may have changed tho

Tao

 

[Bishadi]

Dmitri V Fursaev

Dubna International University and Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141 980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia
E-mail: fursaev@thsun1.jinr.ru
Abstract. It is argued that the entanglement entropy in condensed matter systems can be used to study different aspects of quantum gravity, such as universality of the low-energy physics, the renormalization group behaviour of the gravitational coupling and the statistical meaning of the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy.

<H4 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">

Entanglement entropy in critical phenomena and analog models of quantum gravity

Dmitri V. Fursaev
Dubna International University and University Centre of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 141 980, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia
(Received 14 February 2006; published 15 June 2006)
A general geometrical structure of the entanglement entropy for spatial partition of a relativistic QFT system is established by using methods of the effective gravity action and the spectral geometry. A special attention is payed to the subleading terms in the entropy in different dimensions and to behavior in different states. It is conjectured, on the base of relation between the entropy and the action, that in a fundamental theory the ground state entanglement entropy per unit area equals 1/(4GN), where GN is the Newton constant in the low-energy gravity sector of the theory. The conjecture opens a new avenue in analogue gravity models. For instance, in higher-dimensional condensed matter systems, which near a critical point are described by relativistic QFT's, the entanglement entropy density defines an effective gravitational coupling. By studying the properties of this constant one can get new insights in quantum gravity phenomena, such as the universality of the low-energy physics, the renormalization group behavior of GN, the statistical meaning of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.
.

That’s just one of the guys across the lake who is looking into what has been suggested.

for example: entanglement is a physical property of energy (light) but no where in 'big bang' or Virial Theorem specifically is there a place to address this physical reality that energy shared upon mass affects each.

then

I thought that to be a central tenet of the laws on the conservation of energy

the above is correct in that it is that ‘conservation’ as to why they created dark energy/matter; they saw something that the current model could not describe.

And the current ‘gravitational’ model can not account for the ‘curve’ on the rotation. (it’s where dark m/e came from) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

What they see is certain areas are attracted to each other greater than they can account for. And to recognize how Casimir/Van der Waal’s force is measured in experiments, that when energy interacts back and forth between structures a potential is measured. (The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. from wiki)….. This is caused by the energy (em) upon the structures.

So as the little gecko uses ‘van der waals’ to abuse the laws of gravity, the reality is, the mass is exchanging energy (entangled) between the structures.

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/parsegian1/pdf/Parsegian_KITP.pdf


The difference is, how the descriptions are represented. Entangled structures can increase the ‘attractive’ potential based on the resonant force, ‘oscillations’ or simply the ‘f’ of the energy upon the mass. Then realize all them stars are sharing energy all night long. So as mass is thought of as the cause of gravitational potential, the best way to begin is to recognize each and every atom associated is only combined by energy (light) upon that mass. And like us, we are all from mother earth, and most every molecule was combined upon this globe. We consume food but most every bit of energy came from the sun.

Each molecule can only hold certain wavelengths and why each protein is a wee bit different, it is the energy upon them structures that we utilize.

Where an easy proof can be found in by observing the amount of work a person can accomplish in regards to the amount of fuel (food) intake. Living forms convert energy better than any ‘thing’ described. Basically because there not electrical systems.

Think in the lines of evolution. One wave associates with another to increase the total potential of the sum of the individuals. And then think of all the associated cells to keep the body alive. So all the associations combine; over and above the ‘weight’ of gravity (we stand up and move); abusing entropy (living longer than dead weight, absorbing from the environment by intent), all because of the energy (light) upon the structures; life!

 

[Tao_Equus]

Bishadi,

Ty, Ty very much indeed. For showing me my "precious" has already been postulated with the maths to back it up. While I had read about about particular routes in the evolution of Black Hole Thermodynamics I had not before today seen the Bekenstein–Hawking Entropy theory and Holographic Principle merge the interactions of black holes, superstrings and branes. To be honest I am not disappointed to find I did not get there first but puffed up with pride in the realisation that I did understand the pieces of the jigsaw well enough to reach independently the same conclusion as geniuses like Hawking.

Last month I had read about a new set of computational data that confirms Hawkings Radiation predictions meaning that the universe is full of entangled particles where one of the pair is within a black hole. Does this mean that measurement of the internal conditions of a black hole is possible? Or is the superdense matter incapable of allowing entanglement to continue and the 'lost' one of the pair reduced to a potential of any of the information that was consumed by the BH. (Which would be a really amazing thing to 'play' with in itself). I think real experimental data on this cannot be far off by firing an entangled partner into a BEC.

I would never say that a living body is solely an electrical system and that energy production in particular is a chemical process. The electrical current produced by and harnessed by the body is produced like a dynamo, as is a Galaxy for that matter. When a body dies the constant molecular friction of the many movements is lost and the electrical energy is no longer produced. But in a living body there can be no denial that the electrical energy is utilised as an efficient internal communication system.

To the Light fantastic. I have read with interest across several threads now your return to the idea that light, the photon, is a key to understanding everything. Would you mind expanding on this a bit and for you does it have any, what I might call, metaphysical ramifications in your set of beliefs?


Tao

 

[Bishadi]

, Ty very much indeed. For showing me my "precious" has already been postulated with the maths to back it up. While I had read about about particular routes in the evolution of Black Hole Thermodynamics I had not before today seen the Bekenstein–Hawking Entropy theory and Holographic Principlemerge the interactions of black holes, superstrings and branes. To be honest I am not disappointed to find I did not get there first but puffed up with pride in the realisation that I did understand the pieces of the jigsaw well enough to reach independently the same conclusion as geniuses like Hawking.

Hawking is not the best example to follow…. He abused most of his life, and even now, still is only concerned with his position at Cambridge. Ever notice he back tracts at each new meeting?

Last month I had read about a new set of computational data that confirms Hawkings Radiation predictions meaning that the universe is full of entangled particles

First if everything is a ‘string,’ (Hawking) then point particles do not exists.

where one of the pair is within a black hole. Does this mean that measurement of the internal conditions of a black hole is possible?

Gravity does not cause matter to implode into a super dense… black hole.

Or is the superdense matter incapable of allowing entanglement to continue and the 'lost' one of the pair reduced to a potential of any of the information that was consumed by the BH. (Which would be a really amazing thing to 'play' with in itself). I think real experimental data on this cannot be far off by firing an entangled partner into a BEC.

BEC? Now your talking real life experimental work……

Black holes are fignewton’s of the imagination….. :>:>

I would never say that a living body is solely an electrical system and that energy production in particular is a chemical process. The electrical current produced by and harnessed by the body is produced like a dynamo, as is a Galaxy for that matter.

Sorry to read that…. As it appears, maybe when you realize, no electricity interacts between galaxies, that maybe you will find that ‘electricity’ is not how living mass associates.

When a body dies the constant molecular friction of the many movements is lost and the electrical energy is no longer produced.

WOW…… what a bad taste that one left

But in a living body there can be no denial that the electrical energy is utilised as an efficient internal communication system.

maybe be a little more throrough………

Jell-O TriviaMarch 17, 1993, technicians at St. Jerome hospital in Batavia test a bowl of lime Jell-O with an EEG machine and confirm the earlier testing by Dr. Adrian Upton that a bowl of wiggly Jell-O has brain waves identical to those of adult men and women.

http://www.jellomuseum.com/index.html

To the Light fantastic. I have read with interest across several threads now your return to the idea that light, the photon, is a key to understanding everything. Would you mind expanding on this a bit and for you does it have any, what I might call, metaphysical ramifications in your set of beliefs?

That to comprehend energy as light and remain true to knowledge than each person can know exactly how life works, how each choice is what governs your ‘ever-lasting-life’……. etc.....

And every physical phenomenon known to exist can be described…………….

all that magic, and omnipotence and the fibs of theological 'creation' will no longer be what the next generations have to wake up too...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hawking is not the best example to follow…. He abused most of his life, and even now, still is only concerned with his position at [/color]Cambridge. Ever notice he back tracts at each new meeting?

I find that a tad unfair. He had the courage to say he was wrong, you can call it a backtrack, or you can call it honest.

First if everything is a ‘string,’ (Hawking) then point particles do not exists.

Ok, string ends work for you?

"Gravity does not cause matter to implode into a super dense… black hole. "

I have never said that it does. There are two observable types of black hole, the standard stellar type that uses the immense energy of an exploding star to be created, and the galactic core or supermassive black hole. I think personally that these giants came first and that the matter we observe poured out of them.

Sorry to read that…. As it appears, maybe when you realize, no electricity interacts between galaxies, that maybe you will find that ‘electricity’ is not how living mass associates.

Again I never said that it does. What I said is galaxies create electricity by dynamo action. Every galaxy has a weak electromagnetic signature and thus field. And when two galaxies collide then they would interact.

WOW…… what a bad taste that one left

that is of no help without explanation.

maybe be a little more throrough………

http://www.jellomuseum.com/index.html

That to comprehend energy as light and remain true to knowledge than each person can know exactly how life works, how each choice is what governs your ‘ever-lasting-life’……. etc.....

And every physical phenomenon known to exist can be described…………….

all that magic, and omnipotence and the fibs of theological 'creation' will no longer be what the next generations have to wake up too...

So you believe that our thoughts are the sunbeams? That our true selves is not individual but a part of everything and are carried on the photon? Hardly fair to claim you have great insight without imparting a clear definition of it when asked... or am i just impatient?

tao

 

[Bishadi]

Sorry but if what Stephen was doing was purely mathematical, maybe he should have checked his work.

So you believe that our thoughts are the sunbeams?

COme on, now that is not fair....

Think in the real world, if every single atom that is associated to make a molecule must be coupled by energy (light), then is seems like basic common sense that the cause to all 'life' upon a structure is light.

That our true selves is not individual but a part of everything and are carried on the photon?

Or do you prefer the 01010101010 of binary inpulses of the electrical frame. on off on off on off.......

Hardly fair to claim you have great insight without imparting a clear definition of it when asked... or am i just impatient?

I answer as many questions as I can but these tangents on man created phenomenon is a waste of time.

Why not check into real world application for example; what on/off format retains the phospholipid bilayers to retain its structural integrity?

Or what is the force that holds the 'nuclear plug' in place at the envelope?

Or maybe: why are the catylist that read dna/rna physical structures at right angles to the thread as well the physical protein itself is set at perpendicular planes?

In each case if you recognize the energy upon the structures as em upon mass (light), then each of these 'phenomenon' regarding something that is physically real to all living forms on earth can be understood......

rather than use observations of galaxies in its trillion dollar industry and still not a clear cut answer from the one of them, regarding what makes us alive.

I mean in hawkin;s last address, he said life is out there in space.....but to comprehend how mass and energy associate at the molecular level makes that basic common sense.