"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended ... thus the concept of particles cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density are particularly high."
(Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."
(Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)
Note (Jan, 2008) This forum is currently locked. You are welcome to browse and read posts.
Forum will re-open in 2008 when work at our main
philosophy / physics site is completed. Thanks. Geoff Haselhurst
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
milo
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: Inter-relation in Cosmology |
 |
|
The WSM Equation of the Cosmos has many implications:
r^2 = R^2/N
r = effective radius of an electron wave-center
R = radius of the Hubble Universe.
N = number of particles in the Universe.
I believe it shows one way in which all matter is related. It implies that all objects, say on the Earth, are dependent on the entire Universe. Isn't this the meaning of Mach's Principle?
Who can see more?
Milo Wolff |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Philippe
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 20
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: Mach's Principle |
|
|
Interesting, but what exactly does it mean?
r^2, I understand.
But what is R^2? Is there a specific definition of a "Hubble Universe" which limits the size? Otherwise, if for example the universe is infinite which it may well be for what we know, then R^2 is infinite and not very useful as a term.
As for N, what is your definition of a "particule"? They come in many "shapes" and "flavors", which one can be considered "basic" and therefore meaningful for this equation? The electron? What about Neutrinos and other "light" leptons?
The Mach's Principle is fascinating but it relates to which universe? The one we can observe? The whole one whatever its size?
Another question of physics which I find extraordinary and on which we simply do not find much explanation but for the fact that it exists and is not forbidden by the laws of physics (of course, otherwise we would need to change the laws rightaway!) is the Casimir Effect.
What do you think about it? In other words, what does the WSM has to say about this effect?
Philippe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:13 am Post subject: Cosmology: Equation of Cosmos |
|
|
Hi Philippe,
I assume that you have not read the page on Cosmology. See;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm#equation.cosmos
which should take you to the Equation of the Cosmos (determining the size of our finite spherical universe within an Infinite Eternal Space).
The Wave Structure of Matter explains most empirical facts of Cosmology in a very simple sensible way (unlike Big Bang!).
Would love you to read it then reply to your own comments above.
Cosmos,
Geoff
PS - Will put up another page on Casimir effect. If it is true then it is likely due to different wavelengths of light energy (thus momentum) being absorbed by different sides of mirror (when mirrors are close this limits longer wavelength interactions between mirrors). But there are other explanations too, gets a bit complex / difficult due to lack of knowledge of causes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
galaxy*19
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Clouds
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:41 am Post subject: Re: Inter-relation in Cosmology |
|
|
| milo wrote: | The WSM Equation of the Cosmos has many implications:
r^2 = R^2/N
r = effective radius of an electron wave-center
R = radius of the Hubble Universe.
N = number of particles in the Universe.
I believe it shows one way in which all matter is related. It implies that all objects, say on the Earth, are dependent on the entire Universe. Isn't this the meaning of Mach's Principle?
Who can see more?
Milo Wolff |
I was just reading about Mach today.
Modern Partice Physics has followed string theory into brane theory and I think it relates to WSM because it describes the branes as possibly being as large as the entire universe. And then goes onto mention how gravity waves travel through the branes. But unlike how normal particles travel through the branes (which I'm also imagining overlaps with spacetime) the gravity waves, are actual waving of the branes themselves. and since string theory ties (no pun intended) into those branes, the strings themselves could be the underlying structure of the waves WSM describes.
To relate this to the equations, I would say, that the normal three dimensions on scales we are used to, can be estimated as describing the r ^ 2 side of the equation. Then when you throw string theories other six or seven dimensions into the mix, more factors are involved: mainly, those that would represent a slightly more complex R and also requires the divide by N. => R ^2 / N where the N is representing those smaller dimensional equations.
The thing i find so interesting about the current popular cosmological model (p-branes, strings, etc) of the universe is that, though light cannot escape our brane, it seems that gravity can. And though light travels on strings through the fabric of our universe, the matter makes waves in it, and can even exit our brane (which of course gets me thinking about Black Holes). So to me this implies another Layer of our universe, where Matter throws some of its weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Costas
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 98
Location: Sydney Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello All
Galaxy19 said
| Quote: | | The thing i find so interesting about the current popular cosmological model (p-branes, strings, etc) of the universe is that, though light cannot escape our brane, it seems that gravity can. And though light travels on strings through the fabric of our universe, the matter makes waves in it, and can even exit our brane (which of course gets me thinking about Black Holes). So to me this implies another Layer of our universe, where Matter throws some of its weight. |
As a lovely lady in the land of ooooooozzzzzzzzzz says
"Please explain"
Brane and gravity and blackholes?????????????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Simple Science Forum - Dynamic Unity of Reality
FAQ
Search Forum
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
