Of Hubbard, Quantum Mechanics and ESP

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Maybe the ammonia ice in the upper atmosphere of Saturn gives it a hard edge?

Pretty good Mimsey - better'n anything I've been able to come up with. :thumbsup:

I know you aren't much for watching videos but there's a series called the primer fields series, and they are maddeningly slow to watch, but he shows how the double slit works, I think in video 2 or 3. Maybe you could watch them at a computer cafe where they have a faster internet. If you like this stuff - they are quite amazing.

Oh, I have a spanking new computer now that eats videos for breakfast, so no worries there.

I don't think I've got anything to gain from watching another video on the double slit experiment. Whatever understanding of it I have I've had for twenty years now, and to improve on it I'd have to understand the maths. :(

Why bother with ESP and things that go bump in the night Mimsey? Quantum physics is weird enough as it is. :biggrin:
 
Pretty good Mimsey - better'n anything I've been able to come up with. :thumbsup:



Oh, I have a spanking new computer now that eats videos for breakfast, so no worries there.

I don't think I've got anything to gain from watching another video on the double slit experiment. Whatever understanding of it I have I've had for twenty years now, and to improve on it I'd have to understand the maths. :(

Why bother with ESP and things that go bump in the night Mimsey? Quantum physics is weird enough as it is. :biggrin:
Sure is weird. Congrats on the spiffy 'puter. The videos have to do with bowl shaped magnetic fields. Le Point did a bunch of research to find the properties of a magnetic field in that shape and then found corresponding shapes in outer space. He then describes how photons have that same shape fields and as the photon or electron approaches the slit, or an edge of an object, or prism, the magnetic field hits the edge of the slit, or glass prism first, before the particle does,and the field causes it to deflect. He has all sorts of animations, pictures of these shapes in outer space, video clips of his lab experiments showing how the magnetic bowls work.

Mimsey

bm50ffcd26.png

001ZhSstzy6RSALRR5yf4&690

bug-nebula.jpeg
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I own and have read scores of books on the subject. Unfortunately for me I'm not particularly clever, and the equations, what with all the calculus and stuff, is beyond me. The only way to truly grok what all this is about is through the maths.

Nevertheless, I'm enthralled by quantum/particle physics and I have more trust in scientists than I do in bankers and politicians. Our computers are dependent on quantum physics, and mine seems to be working alright, unlike the economy and the world order, which is a complete dog's dinner.

There is one thing that puzzles me as a matter of fact. Whenever we see photographs of the outer planets of the solar system they appear to be perfectly spherical and seem to have a clearly defined perimeter. I can understand the inner four planets looking that way since their surfaces are solid and there is a clear boundary between the surface and the atmosphere, but the outer planets are made of gas and I'd expect their surfaces to look more diffuse owing to the inverse square law and all that. I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory, I just can't explain it, that's all.

Its probably the effect of gravity. Gas would be more susceptible
to gravitational forces
 
Look Mimsey, I'm not a physicist, but...... snip

Finally, as I understand it, both gravity waves and electromagnetic waves move at the speed of light, and are not 'instantaneous.'

As far as I know the reason that gravity is instantaneous has to do with Newton's formula. The formula is a simple algebraic formula comparing body A and body B over the constant for mass. It has no allowance for the velocity of the two bodies. The Sun for instance is going one direction and the earth is going another direction and the formula does not taken account those different velocities. The formula is perfectly accurate and can be used to predict where two bodies are in space et cetera, if you consider that gravity is instantaneous. If for instance you add in the distance between the Sun and the Earth which is approximately eight minutes at the speed of light, and also, the sun is no longer in the same position nor is the earth as when you made the calculation, due to their different velocities ergo gravity has to be instantaneous.
Sort of a weird self proving proposition.

What's even weirder is gravity an attraction or pressure like by an ether that's composed of neutrinos or something similar. No one's quite figured that one out either.
Mimsey
Edit: the article that I read went on to say that if gravity did work at the speed of light then it would actually cause the planet to accelerate instead of remain where it is. All in all gravity's really strange. For instance, they don't know how gravity works on Saturn's rings to keep them in place or in that shape with the "spokes" in them. It just doesn't fit the laws.
Mimsey
 
Last edited:

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
As far as I know the reason that gravity is instantaneous has to do with Newton's formula. The formula is a simple algebraic formula comparing body A and body B over the constant for mass. It has no allowance for the velocity of the two bodies. The Sun for instance is going one direction and the earth is going another direction and the formula does not taken account those different velocities. The formula is perfectly accurate and can be used to predict where two bodies are in space et cetera, if you consider that gravity is instantaneous. If for instance you add in the distance between the Sun and the Earth which is approximately eight minutes at the speed of light, and also, the sun is no longer in the same position nor is the earth as when you made the calculation, due to their different velocities ergo gravity has to be instantaneous.
Sort of a weird self proving proposition.

Most of that is just making my head spin. I'd really like to know what Student of Trinity would make of what you've just written.

What's even weirder is gravity an attraction or pressure like by an ether that's composed of neutrinos or something similar. No one's quite figured that one out either.
Mimsey

Only in Newtonian physics is gravity referred to as a 'force of attraction'. This has long been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Gravitation in which gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Just about every physicist agrees with this, so why on earth you are saying 'no one has figured it out' is a mystery.
 
Most of that is just making my head spin. I'd really like to know what Student of Trinity would make of what you've just written.



Only in Newtonian physics is gravity referred to as a 'force of attraction'. This has long been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Gravitation in which gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Just about every physicist agrees with this, so why on earth you are saying 'no one has figured it out' is a mystery.
Because the warped space idea is a theory? If space is warped, wouldn't it bend light passing through it? I don't recall anyone saying it had been proven, but I haven't read everything on the subject either. (Edit - I was looking on the net and found someone who observed the bending of light in an eclipse, much to my chagrin - see below)

However, in the book that I'm reading, which is discussing different aspects of gravity etc, I'm not up to the part where he talks about Einstein. I'm just describing, poorly I guess, the stuff that he's written about Newtonian gravity stuff.

That said, what confuses me about Einstein's warped space concept is how it would apply to the planet Saturn.

Is there some sort of special aspect in his theory that makes those rings occur? Those are a big mystery to everybody. Nobody knows how the hell those things came to be, or how they continue to exist.

Mimsey

Following Eddington's lead, the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society organized expeditions to the tropics of Brazil and to the island of Principe, off the west coast of Africa, where the total eclipse would be visible. It just so happened that the period of totality (the length of time that the moon blocks out all of the sun's surface) for the 1919 eclipse was one of the longest of the 20th century, spanning around 6 minutes. This proved to be ample time for astronomers to measure the relative locations of stars in the Hyades cluster that was usefully located near the solar limb at the time.

Although the warped space-time deflected the starlight by a minuscule amount (invisible to the naked eye), the observations from Brazil and Principe were analyzed by Eddington and the general relativity predictions agreed with the observation. The warping of space-time by the sun's mass was real and Newton's inert space had been superseded by a new theory. When the New York Times published the news on Nov. 7, 1919, Einstein became known not only to scientists, but to non-scientists as well.

Since "the most important" eclipse 98 years ago, general relativity has been tested in many other ways, each time proving that Einstein’s warped view of space-time is very much the universe we live in.

https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html


Modern form[edit]

In modern language, the law states the following:

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[2]
Diagram of two masses attracting one another
200px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitation.svg.png



where:
F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
wiki
 
Last edited:

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
So far I haven't referred to Google or any other source of information to continue this conversation, I'm just repeating what I understand to be the current thinking on this particular subject. However, since I am a bear of very little brain, soon this reservoir of knowledge is going to run out, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.

Just to add that light is bent by passing through the warped space around a massive object, in fact the apparent vs the actual position of stars made visible during a solar eclipse was how how Einstein's General Theory was vindicated initially I believe.

Of course, the most extreme case is a black hole, where the space is so warped no light at all can escape.
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
... light is bent by passing through the warped space around a massive object, in fact the apparent vs the actual position of stars made visible during a solar eclipse was how how Einstein's General Theory was vindicated initially I believe.

Of course, the most extreme case is a black hole, where the space is so warped no light at all can escape.


Kinda like trying to grasp Scientology en masse.

Too much gravity. :ohmy:




:)
 
So far I haven't referred to Google or any other source of information to continue this conversation, I'm just repeating what I understand to be the current thinking on this particular subject. However, since I am a bear of very little brain, soon this reservoir of knowledge is going to run out, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.

Just to add that light is bent by passing through the warped space around a massive object, in fact the apparent vs the actual position of stars made visible during a solar eclipse was how how Einstein's General Theory was vindicated initially I believe.

Of course, the most extreme case is a black hole, where the space is so warped no light at all can escape.
Yes, I agreed with you in my post, it was proven in a total eclipse, and has been verified multiple time since. At first I believed the opposite to be true, but found I was in error.

I guess I was unable to communicate that in my previous post.

Let's not talk black holes - there are many fundamental problems with them, beyond the fact one has never been actually seen, that cast into doubt their existence. See below for instance.

https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/black_hole/#.WarG6rKGPRZ

Black hole models contradicted by hands-on tests at Sandia’s Z machine
155
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A long-standing but unproven assumption about the X-ray spectra of black holes in space has been contradicted by hands-on experiments performed at Sandia National Laboratories’ Z machine.

Z, the most energetic laboratory X-ray source on Earth, can duplicate the X-rays surrounding black holes that otherwise can be watched only from a great distance and then theorized about.

“Of course, emission directly from black holes cannot be observed,” said Sandia researcher and lead author Guillaume Loisel, lead author for a paper on the experimental results, published in August in Physical Review Letters. “We see emission from surrounding matter just before it is consumed by the black hole. This surrounding matter is forced into the shape of a disk, called an accretion disk.”

The results suggest revisions are needed to models previously used to interpret emissions from matter just before it is consumed by black holes, and also the related rate of growth of mass within the black holes. A black hole is a region of outer space from which no material and no radiation (that is, X-rays, visible light, and so on) can escape because the gravitational field of the black hole is so intense.

“Our research suggests it will be necessary to rework many scientific papers published over the last 20 years,” Loisel said. “Our results challenge models used to infer how fast black holes swallow matter from their companion star. We are optimistic that astrophysicists will implement whatever changes are found to be needed.”

Most researchers agree a great way to learn about black holes is to use satellite-based instruments to collect X-ray spectra, said Sandia co-author Jim Bailey. “The catch is that the plasmas that emit the X-rays are exotic, and models used to interpret their spectra have never been tested in the laboratory till now,” he said.

NASA astrophysicist Tim Kallman, one of the co-authors, said, “The Sandia experiment is exciting because it’s the closest anyone has ever come to creating an environment that’s a re-creation of what’s going on near a black hole.”

Theory leaves reality behind

The divergence between theory and reality began 20 years ago, when physicists declared that certain ionization stages of iron (or ions) were present in a black hole’s accretion disk — the matter surrounding a black hole — even when no spectral lines indicated their existence.

The complicated theoretical explanation was that under a black hole’s immense gravity and intense radiation, highly energized iron electrons did not drop back to lower energy states by emitting photons — the common quantum explanation of why energized materials emit light. Instead, the electrons were liberated from their atoms and slunk off as lone wolves in relative darkness. The general process is known as Auger decay, after the French physicist who discovered it in the early 20th century. The absence of photons in the black-hole case is termed Auger destruction, or more formally, the Resonant Auger Destruction assumption.

However, Z researchers, by duplicating X-ray energies surrounding black holes and applying them to a dime-size film of silicon at the proper densities, showed that if no photons appear, then the generating element simply isn’t there. Silicon is an abundant element in the universe and experiences the Auger effect more frequently than iron. Therefore, if Resonant Auger Destruction happens in iron then it should happen in silicon too.

“If Resonant Auger Destruction is a factor, it should have happened in our experiment because we had the same conditions, the same column density, the same temperature,” said Loisel. “Our results show that if the photons aren’t there, the ions must be not there either.”

That deceptively simple finding, after five years of experiments, calls into question the many astrophysical papers based on the Resonant Auger Destruction assumption.

The Z experiment mimicked the conditions found in accretion disks surrounding black holes, which have densities many orders of magnitude lower than Earth’s atmosphere.

“Even though black holes are extremely compact objects, their accretion disks ­— the large plasmas in space that surround them — are relatively diffuse,” said Loisel. “On Z, we expanded silicon 50,000 times. It’s very low density, five orders of magnitude lower than solid silicon.”
more at link.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Yes, I agreed with you in my post, it was proven in a total eclipse, and has been verified multiple time since. At first I believed the opposite to be true, but found I was in error.

I guess I was unable to communicate that in my previous post.

Let's not talk black holes - there are many fundamental problems with them, beyond the fact one has never been actually seen, that cast into doubt their existence. See below for instance.

more at link.

Look Mimsey, I don't want to argue with you about whether or not black holes really exist. Obviously you can't see them, the only reason you can see anything is because it reflects light from its surface into your eyes, and black holes...

There are compact objects at the centre of galaxies that are sending jets of plasma millions of parsecs into space. It takes something pretty fucking extraordinary to do that. Their existence (the jets) is not questioned and their source is explained by black holes. I'm happy to go along with that at present.
 
Look Mimsey, I don't want to argue with you about whether or not black holes really exist. Obviously you can't see them, the only reason you can see anything is because it reflects light from its surface into your eyes, and black holes...

There are compact objects at the center of galaxies that are sending jets of plasma millions of parsecs into space. It takes something pretty fucking extraordinary to do that. Their existence (the jets) is not questioned and their source is explained by black holes. I'm happy to go along with that at present.
I agree the jets exist and there's something at the middle that's causing these jets. But whether it's a black hole or a giant plasmoid or something else - who knows? Black holes were posited to explain how a galaxy holds together along with dark energy / matter, but galaxies are strange beasts, for instance, I read that the stars close to the hub of the galaxy and the ones far out move at the same speed, which is not what you'd expect.

That's my problem with Einstein's theory - wasn't it written to explain some of these inconsistencies in gravity? I read there hasn't been a lot of proof of it. Newton's laws, on the other hand have lots of proof, but are not unassailable either. I wonder if they (Einstein's theories) are another sacred cow, that is considered unassailable, as global warming / man made climate change are now. Science has a long history of adopting some concept and denying evidence to the contrary. For example, the Greeks didn't believe the Phoenicians that England and other countries north of there existed. It would have cast their theories asunder.

Mimsey

physics and the physical universe p 682 "Of all of our basic theories, General Relativity makes the fewest predictions regarding physical effects and has therefore received the least experimental confirmation. None of the experimental tests has yet been made in a definitive way - the certainty in each of the measurements is disconcertingly large.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
I agree the jets exist and there's something at the middle that's causing these jets. But whether it's a black hole or a giant plasmoid or something else - who knows? Black holes were posited to explain how a galaxy holds together along with dark energy / matter, but galaxies are strange beasts, for instance, I read that the stars close to the hub of the galaxy and the ones far out move at the same speed, which is not what you'd expect.

That's my problem with Einstein's theory - wasn't it written to explain some of these inconsistencies in gravity? I read there hasn't been a lot of proof of it. Newton's laws, on the other hand have lots of proof, but are not unassailable either. I wonder if they (Einstein's theories) are another sacred cow, that is considered unassailable, as global warming / man made climate change are now. Science has a long history of adopting some concept and denying evidence to the contrary. For example, the Greeks didn't believe the Phoenicians that England and other countries north of there existed. It would have cast their theories asunder.

Mimsey
Current concepts in physics are a work in progress. There is no quantum theory of gravity for example, so there is still plenty of work to be done.

There is no room in science for 'sacred cows', and new theories are subjected to relentless examination, which is why I have more faith in science than I have in new-age psychobabble.
 
Current concepts in physics are a work in progress. There is no quantum theory of gravity for example, so there is still plenty of work to be done.

There is no room in science for 'sacred cows', and new theories are subjected to relentless examination, which is why I have more faith in science than I have in new-age psychobabble.

I only wish your second sentence were true.

It is always an uphill battle to get funding for research projects that don't hew to accepted theories. Take Halton Arp for example - they cut off his funding and telescope time as soon as he questioned red shift with examples of galaxies with bridges to quasars that exhibited different red shifts though they were part of the same object. You see acres of press coverage about global warming & climate change and almost none of the upcoming solar minimum, which re-occurs like clockwork every couple hundred years. If we have one like the Maunder Minimum, when the Thames froze over, and millions died of starvation - sometimes referred to as the mini ice age, we could be really screwed.

I have read accounts where scientists will get funding for projects only if they link them to climate change, though their research has zip to do with it.

But, the general public believes the opposite, science is open to change. :hide:

Mimsey

The last time that there was a prolonged solar minimum, it led to a ‘mini ice-age’, scientifically known as the Maunder minimum.
The Maunder minimum began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, where sunspots were exceedingly rare.
During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees celsius.
Although it seems insignificant, it led to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Because the warped space idea is a theory? If space is warped, wouldn't it bend light passing through it? I don't recall anyone saying it had been proven, but I haven't read everything on the subject either. (Edit - I was looking on the net and found someone who observed the bending of light in an eclipse, much to my chagrin - see below)

However, in the book that I'm reading, which is discussing different aspects of gravity etc, I'm not up to the part where he talks about Einstein. I'm just describing, poorly I guess, the stuff that he's written about Newtonian gravity stuff.

That said, what confuses me about Einstein's warped space concept is how it would apply to the planet Saturn.

Is there some sort of special aspect in his theory that makes those rings occur? Those are a big mystery to everybody. Nobody knows how the hell those things came to be, or how they continue to exist.

Mimsey



https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html


wiki

Well Mimsey,,

I've never really been a fan of Einstein o_O

Indeed, the Russians, not being followers of the crowd and thinking for themselves, have actually carried out experiments in the real world to demonstrate some of his propositions to be false . . .

As to the "bending of space/time" proposition??? It is a rather nutty and unnecessary notion, and in my view, was NOT "proven" by Eddington and his solar eclipse observation . . . I mean, let us look at the underlying facts . . . light photons have mass :D their mass is attracted by any gravitational body such as the Sun, Moon and the Stars etc.

One does not need to invent the notion of warped space to explain why light from a distant star gets bent around our Sun. :D

Looking at the history of the development of the notion of "relativity" . . . if you go to the texts on the history of science, we see that "relativity" as a notion in science was created/invented to explain the "failure" of the Michelson/Morley experiment designed to test and measure the presence of "the aether." Yet, science, following that experiment, eventually accepted that there was/is no aether . . . . but, incredibly, hung onto the notions that derived from putative existence!!!

Also, going into the history, one sees that two guys (theoretical physicists) came up with the notion that the spatial dimension of the measuring instrument "must have been compressed and shrunken" in the direction of the instrument's movement through the aether that was considered absolutely to exist at that time. Einstein pinched their idea, and turned it into his "bent space/time" thing . . . the two guys involved? Lorenz and Fitzgerald . . . and depending on whether you are Irish or European, their contribution to science is refer to as either the "Fitzgerald-Lorenz contraction" or the "Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction" :)

It's all in the texts dealing with the actual history and development of science in respect to this issue.

Based on the Russian experiments to test Einstein's "think" . . . and that is all it is, is "think" and rather wild ideas . . . his nonsense really has been disproven.

I did post on this data more fully on ESMB some years ago. The above written here from memory and without reference to materials.

Rog
 
I was just reading a comparison between Newtonian physics and Einstein's, and of the two - his predicts less phenomena than Newton's. I also just read before his death in a letter written 28 mar, 1949, he said: "You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether in general I am on the right track." I read in that last article that the above mentioned aether - consists of neutrinos. It answers the question - how does energy propagate through space without a medium? The neutrino is electrically neutral but is polarizable, and has almost zero mass, so it allows transverse waves ( like waving a rope) that take time, and push pull waves (like pulling on a rope) that are nearly instantaneous. Those are the properties that explain the speed of light vs. the instantaneous nature of gravity per Newton.

What I don't understand is if this neutrino aether is uniform or not, if the spacing between them affects their alleged action, if they are denser around stars as compared to inter stellar or inter galactic space, and if that modifies their effects. If the neutrino cloud around the sun allows for the instantaneous gravity effect, is it also responsible for the formation of galaxies? And causing them to in some cases crash into each other if it is more tenuous in inter galactic space?

I feel like a ping pong ball sometimes. I read something, write a post about it, find out I was misinformed, repost to correct it, and then find my repost was also wrong. Gahhh. Mimsey

battle-rope-workouts.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top