Indeed, I have almost forgotten about this blog in the past few months. Here’s the animation I meant to post for some time now:
This one is, by far, my favorite documentary among all that I’ve seen so far. It tries to explain a true intricacy and subtlety of mathematics and physics and gives the intuition behind the concept of uncertainty in, what seem, a very certain world of science.
Indeed, my favorite part is where they argue that the logic it self has the limits and can not, per say, explain everything in the natural world. Very peculiar.
The Dangerous Knowledge – 2 parts, 90 minutes
object – the field
condition – force in the contained space
This is something that baffles many people to this day, a century since relativity was introduced.
In relativity we know there are two known speeds in the universe from 0 to ‘c‘, where ‘c’ is the speed of light, and from infinity to ‘c‘. We know that photons are the only particles which are able to fly at speed of light, where as any matter that has mass has to have infinite force applied to it in order to get to the speed of light.
We also know about particles such as tachyons can only travel at the speed faster than ‘c‘. In fact, it takes them infinite amount of energy to slow down to the speed of light.
So what we get is a graph with y for the energy intake and x for the particles *other than photons* moving at certain speeds. Right at the ‘c’ we see the vertical asymptote which shows that both sides can never get to c from either side of the spectrum.
What is significant is that we understand that the energy transfer between objects happens at ‘c’, we also understand that only objects with no mass can travel at ‘c’ and no other speed. You can’t slow down photon.
Now, in order to understand why we can’t go faster than ‘c’ lets think the following thought experiment:
Imagine there’s closed tube that looks like a donut and there’s no gravity or any other external forces affecting this tube. In this tube we have a fly that is stationary in the air in front of the huge ventilator, lets also imagine that the maximum output of air from the ventilator would be 10m/s. When we turn the ventilator on, the fastest the fly can go around the tube is a fraction less than 10m/s.
Why? Lets look closer: when we apply a force on the object we convert this force into the energy, and as we don’t live in the closed system, some portion of this energy instead of being all kinetic actually terns into a heat and thus fraction is lost. In our thought experiment, though we were able to stay clear of gravity we can’t preserve all energy in our donut.
The point of this post, however, is to show you that as the kinetic energy it self travels at ‘c’ – we can’t move faster than ‘c’, since kinetic energy is our ‘agent‘. If energy is ventilator and we are that stationary fly, we can’t move faster than ventilator in the tube.
Of course, some would say: hey, well fly can.. FLY ! Duh. And it will thus acquire greater momentum !!!11one
That would be wrong for a simple reason: any energy momentum you apply of any sort would be transferred in form of kinetic energy, which only transfers momentum at ‘c’.
Of course, others would say: but how (HOW?!) do you know that energy moves at ‘c’?! – The simplest way to think about it, without sending you to read about relativity and the nature of electromagnetism, is the following:
Imagine the nuclear bomb exploding – BOOM! – what happened ? That’s called nuclear fission – when mass is lost in the object – mass terns into the pure energy according to E=MC2. And in which form is that energy coming out ? In form of gamma rays. Gamma Rays, as we know, the most intense version of electromagnetic fluctuation, which travel at ‘c’.
By all means, however, if you read this blog, don’t trust me, go and explore:
Some other reads:
This is an open letter to the lands of the interwebses and those who has randomly happened to be looking through “physics” or “Higgs field” tags and has, surprisingly, found this piece of splendid writing.
Dear interwebses. Today I’d like to ask you a pretty straight forward question. Do you think it’s possible to actually create a working model of geocentric universe ?
It would obviously contradict some basic forces we know of, however, from the humanistic point of view, relatively everything is revolving around us.
We are human and what the hell, it’s not like we can do much about it. But I beg to differ, this old way of thinking runs so deep in our minds, we can hardly change. But lets try, shell we ?
Today, in fact, I wanted to talk about the Higgs field. Simply put: it’s geocentric.
Our current physics is still matter based, even after a century worth of understanding that at it’s core the world is not composed of stuff and more than 20 years since the introduction of the M theory. We try to think of matter as the quantum entanglements and collaborating forces of energy, we understand that it is energy at its base, but still look at it as a certain form of matter, not the entangled energy on the plane of energy.
More importantly, we try to explain stuff, not the energy. We like stuff. Stuff – that we can understand. Stuff make sense. It’s what our human minds observe.
And after so many experiments with photonic waves and proton collision and study of quarks we still had to create a zoo!
Literally a zoo of particles. Here:
Deep down inside we understand that the hell with the zoo we need an object and a condition to get to complexity, not the zoo ! Especially on this level.
When I entered university last year to study physics I thought, I’ll be smart, I’m not gonna tell anyone what I’m gonna do for my PhD, and get the full credit.
The hell with credit.
We all know that the fluctuations of energy at a certain volume create particles. We see it in lesser fluctuations, such as photonic waves, those are in fact both, as they are fluctuation which create particles.
…should I write that again ?
When nuclear reaction takes place and the mass is lost – it loses it in form of gamma rays, the most intense photonic fluctuation known to men.
That would obviously mean that fluctuations of higher rate give birth to heavier particles and capable to acquire little mass.
The further we go, the heavier we get.
So here you go, extend the spectrum, it’s all there, and you have the world of energy fluctuations producing world around us, not stuff communicating with stuff through electromagnetic, gravitational strong or weak forces.
Imagine, you just need an object and a condition.
So, hello Higgs field ! Great concept, right track, almost there.. but.. hang on, are we talking about particles creating field again ? Hello square one.
For a century brilliant men tried to implement some sort of theory which would undermine the field, at which everything would exist. Though, highly unsuccessfully, as we still need damn stuff to make it work.
We just don’t have the right physics yet !
So lets think about it for a second:
you have a pretty stream of light. It goes from some energy source in a trajectory, disturbing the objects it encounters in the form of heat.
Now, I hate to say it, but current physics would say – it’s a beam of energy and matter going through space.
BUT !
We don’t look at it as if it’s the energy field that is fluctuating, communicating the disturbance so to speak. No. Current physics suggests we don’t need the field to describe a phenomena. It could just as well be some sort of stream of stuff and when there’s no stream of stuff, there’s nothing there.
And all that thinking after the discovery of microwave background radiation(over 50 years ago), the aftermath of the big bang.
The whole things still fluctuates, yet we consider that light needs no ground to communicate its presence.
And this is even further humiliating, as we know for a fact that light bends when it encounters strong gravitation, and gravity “bends space”, yet we still disregard space as the object or the field.
We need the field and we need it now. We should stop inventing super heavy particles which create the field in order for the matter to acquire its mass. Some crazy heavy particles might just as well be there, because what the hell, if you go to incredible extremes you can have some insane stuff popping out. That’s not, however, what gives matter its mass.
The true answer it right there with photons. The are massless as they are the lighter fluctuation, and as fluctuation loses space to fluctuate on, it starts overlapping, entangling and going out of allowed dimensions into another level. That’s where your mass comes in. The higher fluctuation rate > gamma rays, the higher the mass, as more and more fluctuations happen at the higher dimension.
There’s another trap in giving our field a particle nature: if all particles need field in order to exist and possess mass thus leaving out the particles which create the field it self. So we have particles which have no innate mass yet allow mass to the matter which passes through it. Yet, Higgs boson needs some awesome mass, some crazy immense mass, and it was just changed again:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.1931v1.pdf
No, it obviously kinda works with their observations. Almost.. Well, maybe in a year.
On the other hand, think about it, if the theory was not developed based on the observations, it wouldn’t work with observations.
However, you really put your self in the position of still searching what exactly gives higgs field its mass. And, maybe I didn’t read enough on the subject, but it sound like we need the field again. I say, lets call the next field “the field where higgs boson can haz !”, and it just might, one day.
wow… I had that idea ! Same frequency of the sender and the recipient, electricity to the point source magnetic field, magnetic field into electricity recipient.. I remember few years back assuming I’ll never be able to conduct it on my own and was upset that no one has done it yet ! So I say…
Bravo and Finally !!
ladies and gentlemen
I give you…
the mayhem button !
this is the new generation of stupidity in UI, and no, you can not turn it off.
First, google would like you to wait a while for 30000 images to load in JS and clatter your cache,
Then they would like to screw with your head with those random page numbers. I love it. Scroll down a nudge and it’s Page 21 ! lol
Plus ! You’ll have to roll-over every single image to get some basic info like name or URL. This just beautiful example of the epic failure.
And, whoever came up with it, I can just hear them saying:
“We introduce a new era in the standard UI. This is a turn point in the history !”
I can’t wait for the next Google UI jewel
This bit of documentary got me thinking regarding the medium of time and how matter interacts with it. There’s a concept of the uncertainty principle, which suggests that matter, in it’s most basic form, exists in the number of places at the same time. There are few things that you could potentially conclude out of this:
- since the matter is at the few places simultaneously, the simplest blocks of our universe, in fact, may not be dependent on the time principle all together and may just as well disregard the space dimension for a good measure;
- The matter at that level might be just “not intelligent enough”, thus operating on less dimensional plane. For instance, the smaller we go the less dimensions are required to sustain matter. So, for instance, electrons are, in fact, operate on a 2 dimensional plane.
- If that is true, that makes us operate at some number of dimensions * the size relationship constant, so probably more than 4.
But anyhow, what intrigued me regarding the phenomenon, described in the documentary, is the fact that they suggest that we are capable to perceive our very near future. They give the figure of 3 seconds, which is interesting by it self.
I have a feeling that it could do something with the uncertainty principle and the way we evolved from the matter that, in fact, on some level does not consider time/space continuum, or is capable of breaking it. You’d think that we’ve kept some properties of that.
I believe that there’s a constant that suggests the relationship of complexity of a structure and it’s properties correlated to, for instance, it’s size. There also should be a constant that predicts the natural potential in matter for the evolution. For instance, it is very intriguing that we strive to evolve and to survive ! I really can’t imagine how would we acquire that property, but what that suggests is that even on the simplest level there’s a constant of potential.
In fact, anything that we strive to achieve and to create as a population suggests this future evolutionary potential. We dream of going to the space, to explore more planets to be smarter, to survive as a kind and to protect all kinds of other forms of life. And imagine – all that comes directly from that potential constant of evolution. Life strives for more life. Life strives to evolve. Life strives to survive no matter what.
It’s quite crazy, if you think of it as a potential given to us from the very beginning.
I think that every single pattern we see in our-self’s and in the world on every single level shows the overall trend. It shows the potential of the universe and every piece of it. We strive for intelligence, thus making universe potentially a highly intelligent place; we strive to evolve thus making universe highly evolved place; we form complex structures thus making universe highly complex structure and so on. It almost looks like any form the matter takes it ultimately strives to copy the big universe.
So back to the documentary, they say that there’s this curious 3 seconds leap, and what stroke me is that possibly we evolved not to exist at to be strictly present at one space time constant but rather being like a continuous potential of formed matter that is in fact NOT bound time the time/space principle, however our cognitive abilities did not evolve as far as to perceive period longer than 3 seconds at a time. But look at the overall trend of evolution !
We are also far from being evolved to break the space boundary, and I believe that when we do.. well we become part of that fluctuating energy.
It always strikes me when people assume something that narrow-minded:
The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That’s significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.
Because of that assumption, researchers didn’t spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this “watery world” helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.
Honestly, it’s like assuming that life is a random and rare occurrence rather than an unavoidable event. Hurts my head.
Most of us luck the full picture of the current state of the Earth’s ecology and a population. We hear bits and pieces of information, overpopulation in China and India, coil crisis, water crisis, pollution, starvation etc. We are being promoted for the next big cause yet still unable to put it all together.
If you, like me, did not fully comprehend the current Earth crisis, watch “How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?”, the most important documentary.
we gather images around,
what have we found ?
interrogating minds,
we’re blindly posting blinds
without knowing rules.
we’re all confused
and losing dozens,
hundreds,
millions of chips.
unlucky coin flips,
but still it fits
to greater plans of gods.
the world runs fast
never slows down.
it sounds profound
and dogmatic. Yet,
there’s a solid ground
for a doubt
whether it does so.
forward and faster,
it seems like we are
running out of time.
the nature is declined.
how we oppressed her ?
Not that we really care.
We’re all immortal !
How can you know
that you’re dead ?
Falling apart
all cold and empty ?
Of course,
you would assume that threat.
But no one witnessed yet
their own death.
So we keep on,
pursuing our happiness,
We search for it,
we think we know the sight.
But happiness’ illusive,
feather light,
and once approached
it fades away like rainbow.
And that a great flaw
in our understanding.
We’re scared to be scattered.
surrendering to the illusive plans,
to those illusive dreams..
But really do they matter?
Can we accomplish something ?
Would you really think we can ?
Now please look up
in depth of space and stars.
Then look down,
witness depth of matter.
You really think that your achievements matter ?
You think there’s something can be done ?
Invent a time machine,
create in-planetary transit
and you’d think
you’ve change a whole lot !
Now think as if you’re cold
and brainless.
Small particle that just goes
round and round.
Emotionless.
What then would matter most ?
Are you a ghost
of someone else’s psyche,
a spec of dust at most ?
The process is the only
crucial key of life.
Thing only matters
when it’s brought to action.
Inventing airplanes
is not the satisfaction.
And winning Nobel prize
is simply not enough.
So we do what we like,
achieving happiness
in the act of doing,
whether it’s creating art,
or knowledge we pursuing.
Giving a birth to child
and growing by their side.
Enjoying images
and feelings in our mind,
through time and space
we simply moving.
by io, 2010
Just stumbled upon this and I’m oh-so-pleased !
MIT’s graciousness is overwhelming.
If you have no access to 30 grand/year – here’s a solution for you. Open learning with Massachusetts Institute of Technology gives it all, be it Math, Physics, Chemistry or anything else. And it gives it free. Thank you MIT.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm
Well, that’s just hilarious. As soon as I thought I’m oh so smart and determined that there’s no infinity in the universe, meaning that it has some sort of limit, brought me to the following thoughts:
- anything can’t exist in nothing.. I think.. For instance if – yes, our universe has a limit, it should be in something. Lets assume it’s some sort of energy bubble that started the whole thing. There’s sufficient prove that that bubble
- is not alone (!) due to..
- is getting disturbed (how else would it get disturbed if there’s nothing else !),
- is in something.
And that 3 pisses me off, because if it’s in something, there’s something else, and that something else should be in something as well.
So limitation of objects in space and their existence doesn’t make any sense.
And ok, whatever it started from – exists somewhere too. Or else how could it start ??
So we got 2 rhetorical dilemmas:
- ether nature found a way to be infinite while consisting of limited objects (which don’t address any qualities of proper infinity 1 , 2 !)
- or nature found a way to spring into being on some levels without existing on the other (which is just plain weird), in which case I’m gonna visit some churches and become a zealous believer of the intelligent design !
Seriously, plain concepts of time and space need not apply, we are dealing with something way beyond that !
UPD: Very nice !!! [From here]
The cosmological argument
Because the Hilbert’s paradox is so counterintuitive, it has often been used as an argument against the existence of an actual infinity, for instance an argument for the existence of God posed by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig is roughly as follows;
Although there is nothing mathematically impossible about the existence of such a hotel (or any other infinite object), intuitively no such object could ever exist, and this intuition is a specific case of the broader intuition that no actual infinite could exist. Since a temporal sequence receding infinitely into the past would constitute such an actual infinite, time must have “started” at some point. Since “time” cannot be started by any temporal thing, and every action must have a cause, this cause must be God.
Saint Thomas Aquinas made a well-known argument for the existence of God through infinite regressions in his Summa Theologica.
that’s ironic
it doesn’t really prove the existence of God (whatever the heck that means !), but it certainly proves the fact that infinity is not the way to address the question. And, in fact, we don’t know what exactly is. Although, a dude up in the skies, all full of ideas, certainly sounds appealing.. Could that be that the whole thing kinda limits it’s existence in it self ? And energy decided to create a particle on it’s own ? And then BAM ! But I still have troubles understanding the physical aspects of it. Can anything exist inside it self ? Are we all only exist inside our selfs, not in an environment ?
It’s also kinda cool to find one logical dude on “their side” ! Will go and read more on the guy and update you after.
lol. I was very excited about this invention in my head how energy transforms into matter and matter into energy. And how world is a random occurrences of those matter glimpses.
And then i stumbled upon this
The full presentation @Fora.tv by Frank Wilczek can be found here
so, i’m not the first to think that up, apparently
this is beyond me, seriously !
As a developer and a programmer I always think of things in the form of steps of their procedure. Now a simple tiny winy piece like this would take a lot of code to execute ! It’s incredible how complex simplest things can be.
Here’s an example of deadly HIV getting into the white cells. It’s a little bacteria, but certainly a very smart one.
Is universe infinite ? It sure sounds poetic, but in order to guess we can look at the semantics.
First, infinity is something that doesn’t have an end, in which case if infinity exist it is everywhere, moreover, nothing can exist but that infinite matter.
Second, infinity does not have a beginning nor does it have the end. Therefore nothing that can be altered or collaborate in any way can be infinite. For instance if it’s infinite amount of particles in space, if they collaborate, create new particles or alter/limited in size, weight, consistence, time or affected in any way whatsoever, they can not be infinite.
Now, as infinity can not have a beginning nor an end, it does not start anywhere. If the universe is developing, expanding, moving, changing it should not be infinite.
Lastly, infinity can not be made of limited things. So you can say that universe is, in fact, limited as it made of objects that have limited properties.
Now, the only thing that could be unlimited/infinite is the energy. I mentioned it in my last blog. I have a theory that any object possesses the energy value and in fact made of pure raw energy. That energy is a plane for physical objects to exist. Any physical object, for instance, crashing into another physical object releases energy. In Swiss collider there were number of particles disappearing after collision took place. No one can say why, could be because those particles could not exist on their own. But even if that’s the case then where would they disappear ? It appears like they dissolved back into the pure energy. So if that translation takes place – it’s only logical to assume reverse takes place as well. That’s where, I think, when number of random energy collaborations happen, the flashes of matter appear, and in the right circumstance a simplest physical body may occur. That could explain the existence of the universe to some extent. Now it could be that energy in fact is infinite, but then it does 2 things that contradicts this theory.
One – it collaborates. Nothing infinite can collaborate as anything altering differs with time, and nothing that is affected by time or space is infinite.
Second it alters it’s state.. well. Maybe it doesn’t. When a conversion from energy to particle and particle to energy takes place, does energy really changes it’s state or it simply stays the same in it’s value. Maybe being altered physically does not mean being altered for a constance like energy.
But it just doesn’t seem right that anything unlimited would find time and space to collaborate in order to produce something.
I am not gonna propose that universe is limited nor that it’s unlimited. But I am guessing that it is limited after all.
life is a random collaboration of particles created from the pure energy. When energy collaborates – it creates random glimpses of physical matter. The infinite number of those collaborations may result in creation of bodies in space. I just don’t understand how come those particles have properties ? why would anything have properties ? why would a random bell shaped curve come to THIS – to the world as we know it ?
also if anything is infinite, it would mean that it fills everything, nothing would exist but that. Nothing that has a limit of any sort (time or space) is infinite.
If energy is infinite, could that mean that simplest physical matter is infinite too ?
How deep does it go ?
The opinion expressers