Well there are a lot of other methods to approaching a TOE other than String Theory. For example I'm playing around with Minimal Quantum Surfaces in De Sitter Space as a renormalization technique for quantum gravity (it's a mouthful but I'll do my best to explain). A minimal surface is a geometrical object embedded into space that minimizes its area given some boundary, formally a minimal surface is defined if and only if it's mean curvature is zero at every point on the surface. Soap films are naturally occurring minimal surfaces. The Mean Curvature of a surface is an extrinsic measure of curvature and is half the sum of the two principle curvatures where the principle curvatures are the eigenvectors of the shape operator. The appeal of minimal surfaces is that they are solutions to the Lagrangian Equation which describes the dynamics of a system and is time-invariant and thus from Noether's Theorem all Lagrangians conserve energy. So from a Quantum Field Theory perspective specifically perturbation theory it may be possible to represent Feynman Diagrams as minimal surfaces where at every point on this surfaces there exists a vertex, a creation and annihilation operator. This would allow you to replace the interior lines of Feynman diagrams otherwise coined "virtual particles" (which don't really exist beyond being mathematical approximations in perturbation theory) with a local geometry compensating for missing energy-momentum due to the the very curvature of spacetime on quantum scales. Finally, if one integrates over all these minimal surfaces over all space you still have flat spacetime on cosmological levels precisely because minimal surfaces have zero mean curvature.
period so let me quote Add . BToE: Benowitz's Theory of Everything. Posted by Jarod Phillip Benowitz on July 21, 2012 at 7:56pm in Physics View Discussions . There are a lot of other methods to approaching a TOE other than String Theory. For example I'm playing around with Minimal Quantum Surfaces in De Sitter Space as a renormalization technique for quantum gravity (it's a mouthful but I'll do my best to explain). A minimal surface is a geometrical object embedded into space that minimizes its area given some boundary, formally a minimal surface is defined as if and only if it's mean curvature is zero at every point on the surface. Soap films are naturally occurring minimal surfaces. The Mean Curvature of a surface is an extrinsic measure of curvature and is half the sum of the two principle curvatures where the principle curvatures are the eigenvectors of the shape operator. The appeal of minimal surfaces is that they are solutions to the Lagrangian Equation which describes the dynamics of a system and is time-invariant and thus from Noether's Theorem all Lagrangians conserve energy. So from a Quantum Field Theory perspective specifically perturbation theory it may be possible to represent Feynman Diagrams as minimal surfaces where at every point on this surfaces there exists a vertex, a creation and annihilation operator. This would allow you to replace the interior lines of Feynman diagrams otherwise coined "virtual particles" (which don't really exist beyond being mathematical approximations in perturbation theory) with a local geometry compensating for missing energy-momentum due to the the very curvature of spacetime on quantum scales. Finally, if one integrates over all these minimal surfaces over all space you still have flat spacetime on cosmological levels precisely because minimal surfaces have zero mean curvature. The idea is to replace virtual particles with local spacetime curvatures and thus the problem with gravitons simply go away due to their unnecessary existence. These surfaces will be embedded in a De Sitter Space not Minkwoski Space. De Sitter Space is a solution to Einstein's Field Equations with a positive cosmological constant and allows spacetime to be curved without the presence of energy or mass. This is appealing because "virtual particles", again mathematical artifacts are off mass-shell meaning they violate E^2=M^2 + P^2 the energy-momentum relation. It would be like rolling a ball on a curved surface rather than a flat one, obviously the ball on the curved surface will have more momentum than the one on the flat surface. http://ipowerproject.com/forum/topi...Id=2057690:Comment:1014214&xg_source=activity Permalink Reply by Jarod Phillip Benowitz 14 hours ago Yea I'll have to work on some analogies but at the moment it is just a raw idea from pure mathematics and most likely is horribly wrong lol. just exposing the bs
What BS might be that Bishadi? Why don't you comment on the actual idea of using minimal surfaces in quantum field theory with de sitter space? You do know what I am talking about right? If you know so much about physics you also should know the calculations done in perturbation theory otherwise known as "virtual particles" right?
the cosmological constant is for morons. what's the positive potential on a 680nm wavelength (surface and collective)? a galaxie is a virtual particle, techincally you are out of your league kid!
What would you use in its place? The CC has allowed discoveries that would have been impossible without it. So the CC was valuable to make mathematical calculations work, something like the imaginary numbers that Hawking uses to make his big bang-less universe calculations pan out. Also after the 1998 discovery of cosmic acceleration interest in the cosmological constant been renewed. Not enough information to answer. What does the first question that is meaningless i.e. having not enough information to answer, have to do with the last (false) statement? The closest thing to your claim (I suppose its your baby) is from fringe theory, that is taken from another not accepted theory, which is that inflation of virtual particles led to the big bang and the heavy matter that make up our galaxies. Ha, ha!~ that is sarcasm, right? reva
that's hilarious. Didn't I already share the absolute of proof; when the hubble telescope became operable, they looked at galaxies. They found out that the galaxies DO NOT ROTATE as the math (theorem) predicted. The framework is WRONG, not just the CC. i came back after the post and was going to add the missing part (the environment), but then realized that AT isnt the type to do much of anything. The point was point out the he like the 'out there' physics, when real world application is what is important. basically, i could give a hoot about black holes and such, when that p680 is the wavelength/stucture involved in the process of photosynthesis (of mankinds concern) i already know you dont look up information suggested. i aint a banger but you dont read enough here in the science section to realize that. that is what he does, when asked to think...
OK - the quoted post was a month ago and they weren't really sure yet (in spite of the press hype). Now it looks as if the finding is for real. See - Higgs Boson finding
Sorry for the whacked out quote tags I didnt have time to edit my reply correctly. I will clarify anything ASAP. The history of the CC may be funny to you, however that you find Einstines invention silly is no suprise to me What exactly does that have to do with me asking you "What would you use in its (CC)place? " By that I meant if you were Albert E what would you use if your caculations would not work without the CC? Really Bishadi, you have a knack for replying with information that dont have anything to do with my claims. I said the CC was and is valuable. BTW Galaxies rotate, however your claim is so void of information its not possible to agree or disagree. Information emerges every day so to agree or disagree with your off topic claims you must be far more inclusive and specific ie precisely what math and which (theorem) are you referencing. Exactly and precisely what framework are you referencing, that could mean many things. Please rephrase (above) with all due respect, it appears you had a brain fart in the middle of writing that reply. Well thats a bit better but taken as a whole it has little to do with the your first reply. I can't look up that vague statement/claim without more information, it too is meaningless as written.
I tried to post the quote bracket correct version but the server froze and I lost it off in virtual land somewhere, of course the truly dumb 20 min limit expired, however I did save the version edited only for grammar and spelling. Note to mod; delete the unedited version (above) if you want to. The history of the CC may be funny to you, however that you find Einstein’s invention silly is no surprise to me What exactly does that have to do with me asking you "What would you use in its (CC)place? " By that I meant if you were Albert E what would you use if your calculations would not work without the CC? Really Bishadi, you have a knack for replying with information that don’t have anything to do with my claims. I said the CC was and is valuable. BTW Galaxies rotate, however your claim is so void of information its not possible to agree or disagree. Information emerges every day so to agree or disagree with your off topic claims you must be far more inclusive and specific ie precisely what math and which (theorem) are you referencing. Exactly and precisely what framework are you referencing, that could mean many things. Please rephrase (above) with all due respect, it appears you had a brain fart in the middle of writing that reply. Well thats a bit better but taken as a whole it has little to do with the your first reply. I can't look up that vague statement/claim without more information, it too is meaningless as written. You ain't? ha ha...ahhh' Anyway, you are correct, I usually do not read general science section, I like hard science. However if you do not accept the accepted theory of how the universe began which theory (exactly) do you believe is true. reva
i bet you've never even seen the math. A cosmological model obtained from the field equations and a running of the effective gravitational coupling constant G can also explain the growth of large scale structure formation without invoking cold dark matter. The running of the cosmological constant would produce a quintessence-like dark energy that could account for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (Perlmutter et al. 1997; Riess et al. 1998, 2004; Garnavich et al. 1998; Spergel et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003). James T. Dwyer Page 1 Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem James T. Dwyer jtdwyer@rocketmail.com May 1, 2010 The Galaxy Rotation Problem can be simply resolved by reconsidering its underlying presumptions. It had been expected that the centralized mass distribution model applied to spiral galaxies and the Keplerian rotational curve would fit their orbital velocities. They dont. That stars do not independently orbit a central galactic mass like planets orbit the Sun does not infer existence to unidentified, undetectable mass. It was all a dark matter of academic denial. them are references on the matter in a currrent form the hubble evidence proved the 'math' was wrong. These guys see it too, as well as Carl Sagan himself... but you dont do the actual research, you just post a bunch of accepted media garbage rev just stop posting.....
You would lose the bet, if you are talking about the formula for the CC. Or inflationary theory, or the math involved in the so called first three min. No I didn’t invent it but I do understand the basics of it. Trust me YOU would not understand it if you saw it. I remember trying to teach you the difference between T and t, ie the letters physicists use to denote intuitive time and space time. You never got it. Do you mean ‘current’ form? Those cut and pastes helped me not you. Have you conveniently forgot my original rebuttal? You don’t even know the question from the answer, the Hubble ie the HST DID NOT PROVE THE MATH wrong. You have the HST mixed up with Ed Hubble and his observations which the HST was named after, It was HIS observations not the so called math that proved our universe was expanding and not static like Einstein thought. Your comments are beyond silly and so wrong that I have doubts you understand the rank basics of cosmology. Lastly you are entirely correct I asteroid hunt, look for M objects muddle around with mirrors tubes and lenses, I am not a professional astronomer or cosmologist so no I do not do advanced research, I am however an serious amateur astronomer. I am sure you would like that. Being proved wrong isn’t as bad as you make it out to be. Just admit you are and have been wrong. You see, when you attempt to belittle the person that is correcting you, thinking no one will notice your ignorance* well that is not a admirable thing. Grow up. * ( ignorance= not knowing the subject, not ignorant about everything), reva
that is another logged LIE! if you can produce the post, about you explaining time to me, you can have an apology. Otherwise, moderation needs to ban your butt for a few for LYING! (a direct insult by claiming the LIE, that YOU posted) THE hubble is a telescope. You actually have no idea what i was pointing out do you? The rotation curve of a galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is the plot of the orbital speed (in km/s) of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis. A general observation of galaxy rotation can be stated as: galaxies with a central bulge in their disk have a rotation curve which is flat from near the centre to the edge (line B in illustration), i.e. stars are observed to revolve around the centre of these galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the centre of the galaxy. However, it was expected that these galaxies would have a rotation curve that slopes down from the centre to the edge (dotted line A in illustration), in the same way as other systems with most of their mass in the centre, such as the Solar System of planets or the Jovian System of moons following the prediction of Kepler's Laws. Something else is needed to account for the dynamics of galaxies besides a simple application of the laws of gravity to the observed matter. It is also observed that galaxies with a uniform distribution of luminous matter have a rotation curve sloping up from center to edge. Most low surface brightness galaxies (LSB galaxies) rotate with a rotation curve that slopes up from the center, indicating little core bulge. The galaxy rotation problem is the discrepancy between observed galaxy rotation curves and the ones predicted assuming a centrally-dominated mass that follows the luminous material observed. If masses of galaxies are derived solely from the luminosities and the mass-to-light ratios in the disk and core portions of spiral galaxies are assumed to be close to that of stars, the masses derived from the kinematics of the observed rotation do not match. This discrepancy can be accounted for if there exists a large amount of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo. Though dark matter is by far the most accepted explanation for the resolution to the galaxy rotation problem, other proposals have been offered with varying degrees of success. One of the most famous possible alternatives, one alternative explanation involves modifying the laws of gravity which was named "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" or "MOND" by the proposer,[2] but other lines of evidence for dark matter have not been successfully explained by MOND theories That is basic wiki.................. you really have no idea how dark matter/energy was born or that the current math does not meet the description of what is observed in space. wow! you are further behind, than i thought
I've "seen" the math. In fact I had to work through vector and tensor analysis to be able to "see" them - or least, get a decent glimpse. The field equations can entertain any of the possible spacetime dynamics. It's all a matter (excuse the pun) of the ACTUAL mass-energy distribution and currents. I happen to find the dark matter and dark energy curiously contrived. But "contrive" is precisely what you do in order to "fit" an observed phenomena into an otherwise respectable theoretical model which can accommodate many possibilities.
Now that is a post from someone who makes sense. Cool. Question(s): have you ever wondered if that 'observed phenomena' could be a 'potential' between points over and above just a gravitational? For example: if them stars are exchanging additional layers of energy, could they have an increased 'entanglement'? Do they shine at each other? Some getting a greater exchange rate? Does each star (system), have a magnetosphere? Is there really any such thing as a higgs boson as the base building block of natures particles?
Please do tell specifically and in detail in your own words why you find dark matter and energy 'curiously contrived', and please elaborate what exactly you mean by contrived? Also please show how you arrived at that conclusion and why you even mentioned that? After we get everything clear (which will take more questions I am sure) and make sure we are discussing exactly the same thing, we should agree on the terminology and whether we want to discuss this in a popular layperson format or a more academic professional discipline in a specific style, I will discuss your calculations and the methods you used to arrive at your conclusions (of your analysis, even then I am sure I will have to ask even more questions about the field equations you glimpsed, just to give less wiggle room). Lastly, before we get into a serious convo' would you be so kind as to tell me in your own words exactly what you think Mr. Bishadi was referencing when he said he doubted if I have seen the math? I am asking because he did not even understand the question and posted a cut and paste pile of unrelated crap to my original question and rebuttal. In addition Mr Bishadi has a very short memory it seems, the T & t thing, I am looking for the t&T post as I type this. The reason I asked about 'have I seen the math thingie' is because his cut and paste post had nothing to do with my question. AS for the latter part of your answer , you state the obvious, why even bother? Please answer each request so this will not be a repeat of My and Bushi’s entirely ineffectual unproductive discussion. With all due respect; reva
* Sigh * The exposed complains and the conspirator is silent, which in this case is golden, well not really, I enjoy productive debate and even casual conversation. Nevertheless silence is better than pseudo-debate with fake material and members masquerading as someone acquainted with more than basic knowledge of the subject at hand.
Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson? Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree. Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently. If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light). If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0. But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history. Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything. If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error. I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.
I am so freaking happy that someone other than I realizes that! I was beginning to worry that this thread had morphed into the nets version of the twilight zone. So much thanks for your opinion. Additionally, your comment is no insult, simply a statement of fact. If member Bishadi had admitted that he was mistaken way back and was wrong to criticize at least several of my opinions (of which I backed up with sources etc) it would have saved a lot of hurt feelings and a great deal of wasted posting. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, I have been so wrong and embarrassed so many times its not funny! There is, however a lot wrong with continuing to defend the indefensible. reva
Great post, however I do not know enough to discuss the intricate mathematical nature of Higgs with you. Maybe another member will engage your comments. I am aware of only the rank basics of Higgs and the standard model of physics, and what Higgs the discovery of Higgs means for the standard model of physics. reva
at least someone comprehends. SO i will keep it simple, the fields are everywhere. "electromagnetic"................... faraday/maxwell the speed of a particle is not the energy of the em (see spectrum). What the above is about is quantifying energy upon mass. note the size at the wavelength (em)/4pir2. fixed. to get a better grasp, look up lavoisiers work
There is a need for a Higg's Mechanism because mass cannot be explained in the Lagrangian of the standard model. In fact mass does not appear in the Lagrangian for QED or QCD but it does for QFD, namely the W and Z boson. The Higg's Mechanism explains why the weak force gauge bosons have mass. The Higg's Lagrangian: http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/comphep_old/tutorial/node106.html
