This week, we're discussing the end of the world. My world, of course, left with you. You're world, when I read the papers, seems anything by static. Nevertheless, while discussing something that sounds very dramatic, in a static universe, it actually is not.
I woke up today in the land of ice and snow, although there is no ice or snow today, but it is cold. I have a very busy day and though it is relatively early, I have been up for many hours working already, something that you understand I remember so well.
It is cloudy and while not snowy it is very cold. Fortunately, I have dressed for it and have so far enjoyed the transition. Tomorrow I head back to deal with an even busier week than the last couple which have been extremely trying. This pattern should ease up a little after Thursday, but that hasn't happened yet. At least most of the projects are in a "usable" format or have other people doing the finish work, but especially between today and Wednesday evening it looks pretty overwhelming even from this distance. Today when I'm not traveling hopefully I can make some headway, its the plan anyway.
Physics of mightwares, radical transitions in a static universe
The haunting idea that physics as we require it might suddenly end (one quantum instant (defined earlier with some specificity) we are rocking along, the next we cease to exist except as data which is changing in a radically different way) is fairly easy to understand conceptually, but traditional (that is to say wrong) physics has a harder time with such radical transitions. In NLC, it is no more different than a record (cd) play of a song ending and another coming on in its place. The last note plays, the break between songs starts instantaneously then the next song begins. On an adequately eclectic recording, these transitions could be severe and we see no problem with these. The fact that such a change is possible over the course of a universe, large as it is, sounds much more extreme, but if the universe is a fixed, that is to say static, entity, there is no great transition from one point to the next just as there is no great transition in the drawing of a box even though right angles radically change the direction. The proof that the universe is static is given in prior posts and the linear spiral model (non-curved spirals) given here is one of two fairly well adapted models, the other being the curved spiral model which works about as well. The problem with the curved spiral is that it eliminates the harsh transitions present in the linear spiral (see the drawings). These 90 degree transitions seem out of place, but actually work fairly well with the model concept allowing for matter transitions (using intersecting linear spirals running in mirror image) followed by periods of expansion and compression as are observed but without the requirement of being tied to traditional physics throughout the cycle. That is traditional physics changes at certain points in the cycle. This is a point change with curved spirals and is unlikely to change physics except at those transition "points". This works well with a "big bang" point concept, but seems to lose steam in terms of measured gravity meaning we are part of an ever expanding universe (an outward spiral without an inward spiral, for example) or there is missing gravity (where did I put that 90% of the gravity that's missing?). There is plenty of room for missing gravity in NLC, of course. All you have to look for is higher compression states past the 5 or 6 that we observe in the universe. What's more, as the transition speeds for each coordinate increase (from 4 to 5 in black holes which are pretty invisible to 5 or 6 in super massive black holes which should be hard yet to spot except for their gravity) the ability to observe them seems to change. Remember that EHT (early version of NLC) followed the collapsing universe model. The reasons for the transition were not so much that it didn't work, because it modeled fairly well) but because all the black holes falling towards a common point should have stopped moving with the universe. Their coordinates continued to change with the rest of the universe, so it was felt that a pure coordinate model of increasing numbers past the 5 shown for black holes made more sense. This increased with concepts related to what happens at the transition (surface in pre NLC math) of black holes. Black holes, of course, have no surface in NLC. Instead, there are quantum black holes of exponential size that have gaps between them just as matter has gaps between quantum units of matter. Information at a higher rate of change (space, photons, energy) fill these gaps in matter and presumably do the same between quantum units of black holes. The idea of a surface is only a model much like saying the digital music discussed earlier has a surface. It's displayed as a surface (at least waves) but it has no surface except as quantum points.
There are some issues with speed that need to be addressed and next time we'll talk about the problem that we see in speed which is only a problem at the photon/wave transition.
Photons and waves are viewed as different versions of the same thing (energy has two forms, photonic and wave). The problem that NLC raises is why isn't wave energy moving at half the speed of photons. They both move at the speed of light.
NLC suggests several answers to this problem:
1) NLC is wrong as a theory. That's ok since it covers all other phenomena, why not fail with one?
2) The transition is exponential, but it's only 1 to 2, it's the easy exponential change so that the transition happens so easily and so rapidly that the speed is averaged between the two. The common speed would indicate that traveling waves break into photons to move. While the amount of informational manipulation to allow this to happen is relatively small, it is a concept fraught with problems, but the second most likely outcome (note that NLC being partially incorrect is the highest probability, even though that opens a much bigger can of worms for the universe)
3) There are two different speeds but we somehow fail to observe them. This is actually more possible than you might thing, but will have to wait for a further discussion, my day begins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4HY1vc4c38
No comments:
Post a Comment