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

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:

• Special relativity
• Electromagnetism
• Speed of Light

Some other reads:

• Can anything travel faster than the speed of light?
• Tachyons – what are they?
• More on tachyons

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 !!

http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

Enron designed it ?

These guys ? Are they mad ?!

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:

1. 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;
2. 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.
3. 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.