Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
Like most scientists I believe in something for a reason. In this case, call it a "hunch," but for any form of paranormal activity, such as a premonition, to occur, an image composed of a photon matrix had to be able to travel backwards in time. For that to happen, the future must already be there, developed around what we do in our current present that in turn was developed around what happened in our past. This means time does exist as more than an artificial means to do bookkeeping. It means absolute time exists in the form of frames. The frames must be connected by something just as the frames of a movie are connected by the clear celluloid film. A time machine must be able to vibrate at the frequency of the "celluloid" or what most who believe in it call flux.
|
On first reading, I couldn’t articulate my intuitive discomfort of this “like film frames” idea (which we might neatly term “quantatized time”) into an objection I liked. Reading
Lee Smolin’s 2007 pop physics book “The Trouble with Physics”, then rereading Dr. C’s post, it jumped out at me: using a term of which Smolin appears very fond, Dr. C’s theory is “background dependant”.
In short, naively described, the theory predicts that it should be possible to detect a preferred inertial frame, in violation the “no preferred frames” postulate of
Special Relativity, as follows:
- Measure the frame rate
- Accelerate the lab
- Measure the frame rate again
- The frame rate, which is naively described as universal, should change when the lab’s velocity changes
- By measuring for different lab velocities, it should be possible to determines the preferred inertial frame of the “universal movie projector”. When the measured frame rate is minimized, the lab’s inertial frame coincides with the preferred frame
SR is an empirical, not a fundamental theory. Described quantum mechanically, the “unchanged laws of physics” described in its postulates can be considered to only involve the fundamental particles (eg: the speed of massless bosons, c, is constant), so a background-dependent theory doesn’t directly contradict it. However, as I’ve long intuited and Smolin states in his book, background-dependent theories are “aesthetically” unsettling, suggesting that they’re best avoided.
Nonetheless, that the theory appears experimentally testable is a good thing, even if it turns out to be wrong. A wrong theory is better than one that can’t be tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
A vacuum leak would very likely be detected and the collider would automatically shut down.
|
Just to be clear, by vacuum leak, you mean a leak of outside atmosphere or other gases, such as cryogenic He, into the beam chambers, which are kept at a high vacuum?
The main consequence of this, according to
this paper, would be loss of superconductivity in some of its magnets –
magnet quench. I’m unable to determine clearly from the article if this would result in catastrophe, or merely result in a loss of performance, but suspect the latter.
Given all the talk of cosmic-scale disasters like triggering hyperinflation of space or earth-consuming mini black holes, a phrase like “vacuum leak” brings to mind something more exotic and dire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
My theory, of 40 years now, shows an emerging quality where neutrinos are potentially the outbound twin of the graviton. …
|
I don’t know the term “outbound twin”. Are they the same thing as
superpartner? If so, what’s the difference between outbound and inbound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
Ever listened to an old Firesign Theater album about "Mark Time?" In the end the earth was consumed by a black hole and the computer says "Beep!... You are in black hole.... You are okay..."
|
I’ve not heard that Fireside Theatre episode, but must add that no list of super-physics-gone-horribly-wrong SF would be complete without a mention of Hogan’s “
Thrice Upon a Time”, Egan’s “
Schild's Ladder”, or a host of other’s I can’t bring to mind, or (perish the thought) haven’t read. I’m a big proponent of the philosophy of mingling science and SF as much as possible without becoming entirely demented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
Time travel machines are fascinating, but the T.A.R.D.I.S. is, IMO, the most gnarley of them all. I was thinking how could you make the interior larger than the outside.
|
No fan, even as peripheral a one as me, could fail to add to this that not only was the
TARDIS depicted in the original series as room-size on the inside, but at least estate size, and possibly greater than planet or even infinite size. This was an under-exploited idea, developed only in some of the weirder and wilder episodes, which showed lots of rooms full of clothing at least one swimming pool, some formal gardens, and other stuff that only an over-the-edge fan would attempt to exhaustively catalog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7DSUSYstrings
As I mentioned in that other thread, a helium layer is a must for a star. That's my original doctorate thesis. Now the post doc work involves what's in the convection zone and the chromosphere. If I'm correct, the chromosphere is something akin to nanodots, only on a larger scale. This means stars are artificial...  |
So, to get it strait, what you’re proposing is that simply amassing a sufficient concentration of hydrogen and letting it gravitationally collapse will not a star make? Or that some, but not all stars are artificial.
It’s an intriguing idea, and one I’ve not heard before. God-like super-space-engineers fiddling with the fundamental physical constants to make stars possible at all, I’ve heard of, dark matter animal life causing stars to collapse before their time, old hat, but quantum dotting to make a star is news to me.
Thanks, Dr. C, for the mind candy!
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
The "esthetic" problems of background-dependency, and other fun stuff
)
