Pages

Sunday, January 31, 2016

3D is not enough

The Electric part of the wave is energy of one directional time. The magnetic parts are the other 2 direction. 
Time it the hight, increasing from times below. Time grows. That's 2 out of 6. 
From the arrow of time, space is spread out in 4 direction. That's the full 6. 
Thinking of space as 3D is believing we're living in a triangular cone or something. 

All of this is in plain sight if you look at an EM-wave. 

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The possible Pi of C

It might just be that all the possible speeds below the 3 of C equals all the possible fractions over the 3 of Pi. 

What an infinity of possibilities. It might just be this infinity. 

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Why arguing with experts gets me nowhere

The title "Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant" seemed interesting enough to read the article by Dyson, Kleban & Susskind. I will agree that the whole idea of constants is to be handled with care. In a universe that seems to be in constant change, I assume few constants beside change itself. Pretty soon I, again, realize that my thinking and the common sense of science doesn't play well together. From my perspective, this article, just like all credible articles, is based on assumptions that are highly questionable. The following examples will not do justice to the article as a presentation of an idea. To criticize the authors position is not my point, but to show some examples of how differently we can apply logic and reasoning.

Present cosmological evidence points to an inflationary beginning and an accelerated de Sitter end. Most cosmologists accept these assumptions, but there are still major unresolved debates concerning them. For example, there is no consensus about initial conditions.
I do not agree. There is an absolute consensus in that, whatever the initial conditions, they cannot allow for energy to be generated within the constraints of this condition. One way or the other, Everything we have today must have been here/there all along, albeit in a totally different configuration, as vacuum, virtual, potential etc. The consensus is that the universe expands by inflation of what is, not by a "what is"-process generating what becomes next.

Another problem involves so-called transplanckian modes. The quantum fluctuations which seed the density perturbations at the end of inflation appear to have originated from modes of exponentially short wave length. This of course conflicts with everything we have learned about quantum gravity from string theory. The same problem occurs when studying black holes. In the naive free field theory of Hawking radiation, late photons appear to come from exponentially small wavelength transplanckian modes
This is no problem at all if there wasn't such consensus about the initial conditions. If the universe is self-generated from a point of singularity, the transplanckian modes comes naturally from the first series of exponential growth. That would have occured at the speed of light, so there was probably a bang-ish event, but if you ask me, it wasn't big as we normally assume. It became big at lightning speed, it grew bigger at an exponential rate. The rate in question is of course the frequency of energy emission.

In our opinion both the transplanckian and the late time problems have a common origin. They occur because we try to build a quantum mechanics of the entire global spacetime–including regions which have no operational meaning to a given observer, because they are out of causal contact with that observer. The remedy suggested by the black hole analogue is obvious; restrict all attention to a single causal patch [28, 8, 9]. As in the case of black holes, the quantum description of such a region should satisfy the usual principles of quantum mechanics [2]. In other words, the theory describes a closed isolated box bounded by the observer’s horizon, and makes reference to no other region. Furthermore, as in the case of black holes, the mathematical description of this box should satisfy the conventional principles of linear unitary quantum evolution.
This is saying a QM of Everything should better disregard some things that have no relation to the observer. Well, then it is not a theory of Everything, but of Empiricism. To manipulate reality, we are advised to put it in a box, enclosed by the observers point of view. Then we are told that this should satisfy the usual and conventional principles. Of course it will, and if that is the point of science, have a nice day. I prefer to think of these questions  in unusual and unconventional ways. Experience tells me that the conventional ways usually don't lead to an answer in this case. In fact, they never do.

The essential point can be illustrated with an analogy. Instead of the universe, let’s consider a sealed box full of gas molecules. Start with a particular low entropy initial condition with all the molecules in a very small volume in one corner of the box. The molecules are so dense that they form a fluid. When released the molecules flow out from the corner and eventually fill the box uniformly with gas. For some time the system is far from equilibrium. During this time, the second law insures that the entropy is increasing and interesting things can happen. For example, complex “dissipative structures” such as eddy flows, vortices, or even life can form. Eventually the system reaches equilibrium, and all structures disappear. The system dies an entropy death. This is the classical hydrodynamic description of the evolution of a “universe”. But this description is only correct for time intervals which are not too long.
No we're at this darn box again. This analogy is almost too dense to comment on. What in this scenario requires the density of molecules to be "in one corner of the box" and not some other, or why not in the absolute center? What is the actual state of the interior of the box, apart from housing a tiny singularity of gas molecules; is it a vacuum, has it any kind of energy or charge, what material is it made of, has it inherent velocity relative to an outside the box, is "force" applied to maintain the molecules being inside etc. We are just assuming a particular situation without questioning its relevance or inherent logic. How can the molecules be "released" if nothing is there to release them (assuming we do not consider divine intervention), how can a closed system in extremely low entropy have one part (gravity/potential/contraction) sitting in a corner doing nothing, while the other part would be kinetic and run like hell to that corner. Or it is not kinetic, but then one might wonder what makes the system entropy "low". The flaw is not the applied time interval, but that the whole scenario is totally irrelevant in relation to reality. It violates about everything we otherwise consider "true" or law-like. It breaks existing principles in order to produce new principles. Ignoring this problem, authors focus attention to time intervals insted.

The implication of such a description, as we have suggested in Section (1), is that Poincare recurrences are inevitable. Starting in a high entropy, “dead” configuration, if we wait long enough, a fluctuation will eventually occur in which the inflaton will wander up to the top of its potential, thus starting a cycle of inflation, re–heating, conventional cosmology and heat death. The frequency of such events is very low.
No, starting in a dead configuration, the system will remain dead, no matter how long we wait. This is where science always turn to religion and mysticism and I will not follow that path. If truely dead, it will not resurrect in any physical sense. That is absolutely true, and no elaborate equations or statistical magic wands can change that. They can be true to scientific convention and usual thinking, but the universe couldn't care less, nor can I. What is possible on the other hand is that what seems to be dead is in fact alive and kicking, but we regard it as dead because we cannot observe this by empirical means. That is the flaw mentioned earlier, to disregard what is not in contact with the observer. If you avoid that, the symmetry breaking of the initial singularity can be understood naturally, without need for mysticism and wierd phenomena like infinite density, by means of "fluctuations" in a "vacuum space" suddenly exploding out into empty space.. The frequency of such events is indeed low, as they are of life being born from death.

Enough for now. I will go back to imagining the Planck length as the least distance of nothing, as opposed to something. I believe that is the interface of interaction /fusion, where quantum systems functionally are facing each other.

But then again, I'm just a crackpot with a foile hat. Everyone know there cannot be a measure of "nothing". That's just stupid.








Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Running a singularity

I run/walk a lot, so I know energy produced by contraction and expansion when our bodies move greatly exceeds what comes out as actual movement or "work". 
The surplus radiates as heat and is usually seen as a "waste" of work done. But in the bigger picture, nothing is a waste. All heat you sweat out, expire is cared for in the universal well of energy. 
We get hot running only because energy generation by an objects internal dynamics is so extremely efficient. I fear that if less of this dynamic output came as heat, we would probably burn out from within. 
Can you understand how this is relevant when we look at a singularity? 
Can you imagine how it is forced to emission of kinetic energy not to be fumed by internal heat?
To know why jumps in energy levels are a neccesity for the atom, perhaps you must convert to crackpottery?

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Spacetime Energy relation

Since spacetime is caused by the inherent property of waveparticle duality and resides within all quantified microsystems, spacetime and energy are one. As energy increases, so does spacetime. It's probably a very straightforward correlation if you were to do the math. 
Nuff for today. 

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The demonic system of systemized demons - this is hot suff

The evidence of energy being generated throughout the universe is actually popping up here and there. Of course, the scientists providing it believes the opposite, that they are confirming the laws prohibiting energy to grow from interaction. That is because they keep ignoring/refuting a basic fact - universe is not a closed system, but open, and inside the one open system, there are no closed systems.

If you fail to recognize the ultimate openness of a relatively closed reality, you end up with data being relatively true to nature. That's ok in applied science where pragmatism rules, but in search for the fundamentals of reality, the ultimate ground on which the relative stands, then we have a huge problem. The second law of thermodynamics is such a fundamental law, saying energy is not to be generated in a closed system, and therefore, reality must come to an end when kinetic energy and potential energy outpowers each other so that universal expansion comes to a halt.

I reject that idea completely, suggesting the universe indeed grows as the one and only possible structure/field of perpetual motion. If true, that requires the total amount of energy to increase as to avoid a massive density loss in the system. Realizing energy grows would in fact answer all of our questions about reality. But as long as we're ruled by the 2:d law, questions will remain unanswered.

On-chip Maxwell’s demon as an information-powered refrigerator is a paper that supposedly argues in favour of the 2:d law. But if you read it right, there's good stuff pointing in the opposite direction. If you read it assuming:
- Universe is an open system, but never the less a solitaire
- Information, heat and energy are essentially of same qualities
- The papers "system" and "demon" are not separate, but two interacting aspects of the same system
- Low entropy equals high polarization of local energies (kinetic vs. potential)

You will note that the results all point towards energy/heat/information increasing in the overall system. Also note that "Constant external control parameters ng and Ng govern the System current and the coupling of the Demon to the System, respectively" p.1, is not what happens in non-experimental reality where Demon/System are functionally intertwined, and "constant external control" is impossible.





 
 
 


Friday, January 8, 2016

All I know

All I know is that I do naught. 
All I find is searching in vain. 
All I learn is to fail in a million ways

Doing nothing
Finding nothing
Achieving nothing
I am soon done

When I am done 
there is this -
Action Knowing Action
Truthful Action

This is That of
Doing myself in

Done over and over
again
And yet again done
over and over

Thursday, January 7, 2016

The origin of the universe will grow upon us

If you search the internet for answers to the question - how did the universe begin, you will end up with a myriad of answers. Many will be contradicting each other. I have always found it strange that so many brilliant thinkers, having worked the problem for so many years, are still far from telling us a coherent and believable story. As soon as one prominent professor suggests an answer, two of his/her peers disagree, and everyone can back up arguments with scientific data. Everyone seems to be just as right and wrong.

That leads me to the conclusion that all theories probably share a common flaw. Imagine a building with a slightly skewed foundation. Everything you add upon it will have this basic skewedness, no matter what you build or how you decorate it, as long as it rests on a fundamental flaw it will be flawed. It’s not that you cannot utilize the rooms built, or that they are flawed in and of themselves. They may be fully functional and “correct”, while some are more pleasant than others, some are in disarray while other are tidy. No matter how different, they will all share a common property - there is something wrong with them. Any part of the building you visit, there is a slight lack of stability. It’s very weird because all rooms seem to be ok, and yet, something is wrong. Thing is, to discover what’s wrong, you must leave the building and look at it from the outside. You must abandon the comfort of staying inside, in your favorite room, trying to find the answer from inside.

That’s the way I picture theories of the universe, and physics in general. They are rooms in our tower of knowledge, and they are all a few degrees from being straight. That is why the professor who discovers a new room immediately is pushed out of balance, and is shown to be skewed, just as all the other roomies. So what is the fundamental flaw that makes a stable Theory of Everything seemingly impossible to build?

I suggest it is failing to recognize that the universe grows. What we believe to be expansion of a finite amount of energy might in reality be energy in increasing amounts. I suggest the universe grows in and by itself, and that this growth is the effect caused by force interaction. You might say this is a extraordinary stupid idea since not one single scientist would agree with a self generating universe. Everyone knows that energy and momentum are conserved at best, and no way is there anything supporting the idea that energy and momentum are globally increasing properties of the universe. Fair enough, I say that is good news for my idea.

If all existing theories indeed share a common flaw, it has to be found in a very basic premise made by all of them. Whatever this failed assumption turns out to be, if you find it and put it on the table, all of todays experts must dismiss it as irrelevant, foolish and flat out wrong. They must also have a wealth of well established arguments to back up their position. If not, there would probably be a ToE out there already. Whatever the share flaw is, it prevents them all from getting it straight.

Now, proposing energy to be continuously generated as to globally increase is very much a statement about universal fundamentals. It doesn’t get more basic that that. And since it violates some of the more well established truths in science, it is naturally rejected or ignored by everyone working the problem. Therefore, it might possibly be true. Being refuted and ignored is no guarantee for a statement to be correct, but neither does it prove the statement to be false. All I’m doing is to create some space for creativity to play in. To reach higher, we must get rid of whatever is holding us down.
We do not need more time to crack this. We need to realize "more time" is the answer. 
When it comes to explaining the origin of our universe, the initial state of affairs pre Big Bang, I doubt we’re making any significant progress.  I think we’re going sideways. Or rather, we’re building more stories upon a skewed foundation, and the higher we build the more off target we end up.

I believe the universe to be way simpler than usually expected. I’m pretty sure that whatever principle is guiding the process, it can be observed right here and now. If there is such a chief principle, it must be observable everywhere and all the time. There cannot be a local exception to such a universal law, so no matter how far or close you look, it has to manifest right there, right here. And what will appear an exception or anamoly will, when zooming in/out, fit perfectly in the overall process. 

Wherever and wherever I look, all I see is growth. I see energy grow into particular forms, and then they deform to energy which then reforms. All I see is generation of reality, but never degeneration. I see creation, but I have never seen a creator. I have never seen neither time, nor space. All my observations are of energetic forms changing internally and in relation to other forms. You will object that "growth" is just displacement as energy flows and charges. I say the flow is contraction in time and expansion in space. I say it is particle and wave doing the inside job of creation. I say we will never see that because it is concealed inside the discrete quanta of reality. I say that this is the qualia of quamta, to create energy. And then, we are that, and that is all we can ever experience. Experience/consciousness is of that. 

Assuming force interaction generates surplus energy for global growth, the Theory of Everything seems less mysterious and far fetched. Let the universe grow and most of the quantum weirdness of reality dissolves.

The quantum of action is a seed.  It grows time and space by generating new energy. Celebrate the leap year as the manifestation of increased time, increased frequency of energy emission.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Leap year – a big leap for mind

So why do we consistently add time to our calendars and clocks? As with everything real, this is a one way deal where nothing is lost, nothing subtracted. When looking for an answer, all I get is references to earths rotation and orbit around the sun and what affects that. I kind of get that, but a questionable mind wants to know why all the variables consistently end up producing more time. There’s nothing random or unpredictable about this, but a persistent and reliable pattern of time addition based on observable physical facts.
Finding no answer to my question why, I’ll provide my own answer. Having a simple Theory of Everything helps a lot, and luckily for me – I have just that!


ToE basics: Reality is the energy caused by interaction of forces contraction and expansion. Forces are within quantum systems of wave/particle duality where wavelength is wave quality and frequency is particle quality. Wave quality is expanding/radiation and thus space. Particle quality is contracting/gravity and thus time. In a quantum system of wave/particle there is energy produced for the formation (contraction) and distribution (radiation) of mass. The ”inflation” and increased ”complexity” of the universe is actually universal growth. The growth factor is within the energy surplus produced in force interactions. As energy increases, time and space follows naturally.
Ergo, time and space are caused by energy, and energy is caused by force. The ultimate cause as being pure force cannot be measured in itself. Measurement can only be of and by effected energy.


Now, the continous addition of time is caused by the continous addition of surplus energy from force interaction in the universal system as a whole. Increased time indicates an increase of universal frequency, and frequency is from rate of energy emission. As energy increases, in time, space will of course seem to expand, as if inflated. But there is no space apart from the increasing amount of energy. Universe does not expand/grow ”within” space, but space expands in time with energy.

The specifics of the forced generation of energy/mass are beyond me, but I guess they will be confirmed somewhere in the works of Szilard, Casimir and van der Waal, and the study of energy as in-formation changing by principles of least action.

Happy New Years