Responses to the OPERA results are interesting, and a BBC TV documentary on Tuesday 18th Oct 2011 summarised that opinion is finely balanced between systematic errors and the results being correct. My course leader however told me that errors is the very probable explanation - think this is too conservative an interim conclusion. The doco said over 100 papers have been published to discuss/review, well I have no time to find or read them, but have seen some blogs which indicate that neutrinos have a licence to behave oddly, and we should keep an open mind. Hardly any mass, very weakly interacting with baryons, very limited info about them so far.
Views have been expressed that they could be taking shortcuts through a universe with more than 4 dimensions, however these seem to relate to string theory with its 6 miniature dimensions, and reference to a 5th large dimension is only vague. Talk of violating Special Relativity, yet isn't General Relativity itself an extension (hence "violation") of SR?
Talk of crossing cause and effect relationship, and time travel - but we are talking neutrinos here, they have a free pass. Most intriuging to me (in the doco) is the recognition that in the Big Bang there was no speed limit, the laws of physics had not settled, and there is a scenario for laws to be broken. And a plaintive question from a lone blog responder "the biggest question is the existence of existence". Too right mate.
It is beginning to fit, not only that cause and effect may have been / are being confused, but that they have to be. As I said months ago, existence is the result of the conflict between the impossibility of existence and the impossibility of non-existence. Let us take as read that for the Big Bang to happen our known rules and frames of reference are suspended. The timescale of the Big Bang is such that only a logarithmic scale makes sense (on a linear scale, too much is happening to too much material & energy in too short a time), the implication of this being that t=0 does not exist, the start is always further back. More work needed on how logs and exponents relate to the real world (after my career with dBs!).
So there is credibility among some professionals for the idea of a 5th large dimension, though I have not yet seen anyone ascribe a "shape" to it. Why are they not seeing the bendiness of spacetime found in GR as evidence for a full 5thD?
I did some calculations to see if the 60ns / 16m lead of the neutrinos could be explained by gravitational lensing by the earth's mass, and neutrinos taking the "straight line" across curved spacetime. But this would only account for 8mm, much less than the experimental error (position accuracy 20cm over 733km, time accuracy 2ns over I think 2ms). And leads nicely to the spacetime curve being much larger than the tiny bump caused by the earth. My thoughts from Cuba were that the gravitional attraction between masses is but a symptom or artifact of the real force of gravity, which is many times larger. Let's take another look at G. Funny that the reciprocal of the Hubble Constant gives us an estimate of the age of the Universe, how elegant if 1/G had a comparable real result.
My limited or focussed reading/study has so far isolated me from other views confirming my suspicion of the toroidal 5th dimension, its properties including: all gravitational energy stored in its rotation, yet still powers the universe (formed in the Big Bang like a big smoke ring); it is expanding as cosmologists observe (but being a toroid can expand in its big R and its little r); in this model is the explanation for dark energy, and dark mass whereby galaxies stick together due to the spacetime curvature on the galactic scale; the toroid "surface" has both positive and negative curvature. I am also thinking that the phenomenon of inflation (instantaneous expansion shortly after the BB) could relate to the formation of the shape of the toroid, ie the start of the "hole". Study required of how doughnuts are made.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Negative progress?
I need to make an occasional progress report. Near-completion of a tough Astrophysics module ought to qualify, but instead I feel less in touch with my thoughts from the start of this blog, and barely scratching the surface of the formal subject.
However, my course has now broadened to include more basics of physics, more formal maths, and so it is more realistic that I can take on the ability to understand, calculate and articulate the issues. And though a Masters or higher is far too soon to contemplate, it is clearly the only route towards tackling my objectives.
I am still puzzled that the identification of space-time as a four-dimensional world defined by Special Relativity has not developed into the acceptance of perturbed/folded space-time as the five-dimensional world defined by General Relativity. The evidence for this model is clear, taking the view of the ant walking the surface of an orange, that the surface indentations are the clue to the existence of the third dimension (up-down).
But in two years of formal study so far I am not yet in a position to ask the question of my peers or tutors. I prefer first to have some answers, or further questions to follow-up initial answers. Also of course I am concerned that the question may be ridiculous. The answer of course is that I need to be able to understand the answers, and with several specific modules including maths, QP, EM to go, it will take some time yet.
Meanwhile all this formal study is squeezing the original naive ideas out, well maybe that is the "right thing", but I owe it to myself to maintain and develop them, if only to have something to identify and formally bury when the time comes.
Meantime I have just read some module material that is disturbing for physics, and encouraging for the side view, regarding the "end of physics". The idea that a unified theory may not get us much further forward is very sad. Having spent pages explaining the non-determinism of QP, it then rues the fact that a theory will not enable us to predict the exact starrting condition or eventual outcome of the world. How banal! The question of knowing the shape of the universe, and all relating to its existence, origin, insight into its raison d'etre appears irrelevant to teaching the formal subject. We'll see about that . .
However, my course has now broadened to include more basics of physics, more formal maths, and so it is more realistic that I can take on the ability to understand, calculate and articulate the issues. And though a Masters or higher is far too soon to contemplate, it is clearly the only route towards tackling my objectives.
I am still puzzled that the identification of space-time as a four-dimensional world defined by Special Relativity has not developed into the acceptance of perturbed/folded space-time as the five-dimensional world defined by General Relativity. The evidence for this model is clear, taking the view of the ant walking the surface of an orange, that the surface indentations are the clue to the existence of the third dimension (up-down).
But in two years of formal study so far I am not yet in a position to ask the question of my peers or tutors. I prefer first to have some answers, or further questions to follow-up initial answers. Also of course I am concerned that the question may be ridiculous. The answer of course is that I need to be able to understand the answers, and with several specific modules including maths, QP, EM to go, it will take some time yet.
Meanwhile all this formal study is squeezing the original naive ideas out, well maybe that is the "right thing", but I owe it to myself to maintain and develop them, if only to have something to identify and formally bury when the time comes.
Meantime I have just read some module material that is disturbing for physics, and encouraging for the side view, regarding the "end of physics". The idea that a unified theory may not get us much further forward is very sad. Having spent pages explaining the non-determinism of QP, it then rues the fact that a theory will not enable us to predict the exact starrting condition or eventual outcome of the world. How banal! The question of knowing the shape of the universe, and all relating to its existence, origin, insight into its raison d'etre appears irrelevant to teaching the formal subject. We'll see about that . .
Friday, 18 February 2011
Slow but steady progress
Engaged now in 3rd-year undergraduate study of astrophysics, feeling daunted not by the concepts of high-energy large-scale or quantum physics, but by the complexity of the maths needed to explain observed phenomena and to predict scenarios.
Of course, to understand quantum physics it is essential to know the maths, as the subject is so counter-intuitive. As is gravitation. Ah, something these subjects have in common then . . .
It is going to take me some years to cover key material ie electromagnetism, quantum physics, cosmology, and the maths needed just to keep up. The idea of making a contribution to the subject of the number of dimensions seems completely unrealistic. Yet the intractable problems of dark energy, dark matter, inflation and the cause of gravitation will be unsolved for a while yet. An intuitive non-mathematical model works for me so far, I don’t see why study should reduce my ability to think that way, but it should let me narrow down options and find the relevant questions to ask.
My current thought is the corollary to M-theory. There is nothing elegant about 10^500 universes of which we happen to be in one where the physical constants are “just right”. Elegance is supposed to be an objective for scientific process, and to say “spontaneous creation is proven by the fact that we are here, so everything is possible and everything is true” is just a cop-out.
But the corollary is that we are in the only universe, its physical constants are “just right” for matter to coagulate, heat up and make energy and materials available for it for long enough to become alive and aware of itself. And to enable the question “Why?” to be asked. It obviously begs the question not just of a master designer, but an extremely accomplished one.
Thursday, 2 December 2010
The more you learn, the less you know . .
Having recently completed a 2nd-year higher–ed module in astronomy and cosmology, awaiting my score with eagerness but little confidence, I have a much better understanding of the big things in the universe (from stars upwards) – how they are born, live and die, interact with each other, and are used to learn more about the big picture. I have also covered special and general relativity, scaling, the event history of the big bang and various models of the expansion and the likely outcome of the universe. But I can’t say I have yet understood much of that part. The algebra at this level is linear and straightforward – (1/Hubble constant) gives the age of the universe. The next level requires much more maths, so to me it means that the study is moving away from an intuitive understanding, and more an interpretation of the algebra.
It is as if some cosmologists live in the real world (the ones who don’t “do” dimensions) and others manipulate maths in an attempt to explain the so-far inexplicable.
The most interesting outcome of the module for me was the summary of ongoing mysteries. The nature of dark energy and dark matter; why, after the big bang and the annihilation of matter with antimatter, was some matter left over; the process of inflation in which the universe expanded many orders of magnitude in a minute space of time, in order to explain the horizon problem; and the failure to reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces (there were more, I am writing this from memory). Another is the ‘pressure waves’ which cause galactic spiral arms to ‘orbit’ the centre in an unexplained way.
I have also read Prof Hawking’s book The Grand Design, very illuminating and from which I took two key points. The first is the credibility he gives to the possibility of 10^500 universes being created each with different laws, those that survive any length of time being the ones whose laws of physics are mutually sustainable. The figure of 10^500 is as near infinity without saying infinity. One feature of a good theory is elegance, but this is as elegant as a blunderbus (in my respectful opinion). Come back God, all is forgiven! (That will be a prayer, then . .)
The second is his sudden diversion to explain that there are only four big dimensions, three in space and one in time (3s+t) – there cannot be a fifth (4s+t), otherwise gravity would exert a smaller pull than it does (instead of the inverse square law, the inverse cube law would apply). This is where I feel that, in my present naivety, I can make a challenge. I think:
- General relatively says that there is a fifth large dimension (total 4s+t) in the observation of the curvature of space-time. Just like the bobbles on the surface of an orange may suggest to an ant walking on it that there may be an up-down dimension to add to forward back and left-right. And its infinite surface is not so infinite after all
- Dimensions can depend on scale. Not just their perception/measurement, but their existence, depends on size
- The discovery of dark matter on the galactic scale (some 90% of the mass of a large galaxy like our own as measured by its gravitational effects on its own stars and neighbouring galaxies is dark, ie unexplained, matter) suggests that, instead, there is a phenomenon that known matter on the galactic scale exerts less force than the 3s+t model allows
- The discovery of dark or “missing” energy looks to me like the kind of balanced rotation (in the 4s+t toroid concept) that is continuously accelerating all masses in the ‘medium’ of space, and giving the observed mutual attraction of gravity.
So I think I have made some progress in 2010, but have yet to find out how much.
It is as if some cosmologists live in the real world (the ones who don’t “do” dimensions) and others manipulate maths in an attempt to explain the so-far inexplicable.
The most interesting outcome of the module for me was the summary of ongoing mysteries. The nature of dark energy and dark matter; why, after the big bang and the annihilation of matter with antimatter, was some matter left over; the process of inflation in which the universe expanded many orders of magnitude in a minute space of time, in order to explain the horizon problem; and the failure to reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces (there were more, I am writing this from memory). Another is the ‘pressure waves’ which cause galactic spiral arms to ‘orbit’ the centre in an unexplained way.
I have also read Prof Hawking’s book The Grand Design, very illuminating and from which I took two key points. The first is the credibility he gives to the possibility of 10^500 universes being created each with different laws, those that survive any length of time being the ones whose laws of physics are mutually sustainable. The figure of 10^500 is as near infinity without saying infinity. One feature of a good theory is elegance, but this is as elegant as a blunderbus (in my respectful opinion). Come back God, all is forgiven! (That will be a prayer, then . .)
The second is his sudden diversion to explain that there are only four big dimensions, three in space and one in time (3s+t) – there cannot be a fifth (4s+t), otherwise gravity would exert a smaller pull than it does (instead of the inverse square law, the inverse cube law would apply). This is where I feel that, in my present naivety, I can make a challenge. I think:
- General relatively says that there is a fifth large dimension (total 4s+t) in the observation of the curvature of space-time. Just like the bobbles on the surface of an orange may suggest to an ant walking on it that there may be an up-down dimension to add to forward back and left-right. And its infinite surface is not so infinite after all
- Dimensions can depend on scale. Not just their perception/measurement, but their existence, depends on size
- The discovery of dark matter on the galactic scale (some 90% of the mass of a large galaxy like our own as measured by its gravitational effects on its own stars and neighbouring galaxies is dark, ie unexplained, matter) suggests that, instead, there is a phenomenon that known matter on the galactic scale exerts less force than the 3s+t model allows
- The discovery of dark or “missing” energy looks to me like the kind of balanced rotation (in the 4s+t toroid concept) that is continuously accelerating all masses in the ‘medium’ of space, and giving the observed mutual attraction of gravity.
So I think I have made some progress in 2010, but have yet to find out how much.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
As a matter of fact, it's all dark . . .
Just a fill-in update, I realise these posts are very idiosyncratic and apparently disjointed. As might be expected from an amateur's attempt to make sense of an apparently intractable problem.
In fact it is as if every attempt to find a simple core to the answer results in the exposure of another layer of complexity. Having got a good handle on the nature of matter, the normal or baryonic kind, it turns out that 90% of it, including our own Galaxy, comprises dark matter. It can't be detected directly at any wavelength, the only evidence for it is the gravitational effect it has on observed galactic dynamics.
As if the suspected black hole at the centre of each galaxy is a lot more massive than thought. But the unseen mass is distributed in an oblate (80%) spheroid encompassing the visible and detectable material. It "is" all around us.
Plenty of scope for surmising that the mystery of dark matter is a feature of gravitation. Just as a mass distorts local space causing other masses nearby moving or being moved through it to appear to attract each other, a large accumulation of mass (as a galaxy) further significantly distorts the space it occupies with the effect of making it seem 10 times more massive than its baryonic material.
My surmise is to do with the relationship between the size/dimension of galaxies compared with the universe as a whole - galaxies are macro scale. In what sense is the gravitational constant a variable after all?
I always had an intuitive problem with the big bang, preferring a continuum to be more elegant, but realise the evidence for the big bang is irrefutable. Well I am also sceptical about the existence of dark matter, and will be betting the solution lies in the measurement method and theory rather than in some new and totally undetectable form of matter.
Why does nature have to be so intractably complicated? At what point in human investigation will it start to become simpler? Answers on a postcard please . .
In fact it is as if every attempt to find a simple core to the answer results in the exposure of another layer of complexity. Having got a good handle on the nature of matter, the normal or baryonic kind, it turns out that 90% of it, including our own Galaxy, comprises dark matter. It can't be detected directly at any wavelength, the only evidence for it is the gravitational effect it has on observed galactic dynamics.
As if the suspected black hole at the centre of each galaxy is a lot more massive than thought. But the unseen mass is distributed in an oblate (80%) spheroid encompassing the visible and detectable material. It "is" all around us.
Plenty of scope for surmising that the mystery of dark matter is a feature of gravitation. Just as a mass distorts local space causing other masses nearby moving or being moved through it to appear to attract each other, a large accumulation of mass (as a galaxy) further significantly distorts the space it occupies with the effect of making it seem 10 times more massive than its baryonic material.
My surmise is to do with the relationship between the size/dimension of galaxies compared with the universe as a whole - galaxies are macro scale. In what sense is the gravitational constant a variable after all?
I always had an intuitive problem with the big bang, preferring a continuum to be more elegant, but realise the evidence for the big bang is irrefutable. Well I am also sceptical about the existence of dark matter, and will be betting the solution lies in the measurement method and theory rather than in some new and totally undetectable form of matter.
Why does nature have to be so intractably complicated? At what point in human investigation will it start to become simpler? Answers on a postcard please . .
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
In the beginning . .
Not the beginning of time, we have to get away from the flat or linear concept. Rather, the conditions that simply are. I am convinced, to the extent that I know, that the universe is finite. Infinity is just a mathematical symbol, an expression of 1/0, where zero really is zero in context.
Similarly, there can be no real nothing, from the evidence that we are here and we can see a universe with properties at the minutest level everywhere. However, the sum total of the universe must be zero. The term "sum" being defined as the process to add everything there is resulting in the answer zero. Yes it is a circular argument and illogical, but where to start is a fundamental part of the problem, it is what we are trying to find.
Whatever there is, is the reconciliation of two intractable and contradictory conditions, namely (a) the sum of everything is nothing, and (b) there can't be nothing. And what we see with our developing intelligence, scientific data and analysis, is a universe which is pretty much all positive (where is the antimatter?), with a significant part comprising the same stuff as us (hadrons) but a greater proportion is dark and non-hadron. Its matter is stuck together by a few fundamental forces, the weakest of which (gravity) amounts to a constant acceleration imparted to all matter, which I can only explain by assuming that the medium is spinning. This forces matter to clump together in masses which get so hot and dense that they spontaneously combust in a continuous hydrogen bomb, and lead to creation of other elements, and emission of energy which eventually allows life, and intelligence. Through us the universe becomes aware of itself.
Don't know where to go next, but sometimes you just have to summarise the story so far.
Similarly, there can be no real nothing, from the evidence that we are here and we can see a universe with properties at the minutest level everywhere. However, the sum total of the universe must be zero. The term "sum" being defined as the process to add everything there is resulting in the answer zero. Yes it is a circular argument and illogical, but where to start is a fundamental part of the problem, it is what we are trying to find.
Whatever there is, is the reconciliation of two intractable and contradictory conditions, namely (a) the sum of everything is nothing, and (b) there can't be nothing. And what we see with our developing intelligence, scientific data and analysis, is a universe which is pretty much all positive (where is the antimatter?), with a significant part comprising the same stuff as us (hadrons) but a greater proportion is dark and non-hadron. Its matter is stuck together by a few fundamental forces, the weakest of which (gravity) amounts to a constant acceleration imparted to all matter, which I can only explain by assuming that the medium is spinning. This forces matter to clump together in masses which get so hot and dense that they spontaneously combust in a continuous hydrogen bomb, and lead to creation of other elements, and emission of energy which eventually allows life, and intelligence. Through us the universe becomes aware of itself.
Don't know where to go next, but sometimes you just have to summarise the story so far.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
It's not infinite
A recent UK TV programme discussed the possibility that the Universe is infinite, and visualised scenarios where there are copies of ourselves doing what we are doing. Yes this is what there would be, alongside every other possibility as well. And the moon is made of green cheese.
Infinity is a word bandied about as if it were a real value, but it is not. It is just a mathematical expression of 1/0, or the distance at which two parallel lines intersect. Well the expression would need a real value of zero, and there can be no reality to parallel bars extending to infinity.
Infinity is a convenient expression for those who can't imagine the boundary (if it's not infinite, then where is the edge - and what is beyond the edge?) It is a cop-out of course, but in fact the existence of real infinity is far harder to contemplate than the alternative(s). I can explain why an infinite universe is impossible, it is tedious, but I expect I will have to.
We know the surface of an orange is finite but unbounded, same for any real object in our three-dimensional world. You can trace a path in the same direction all around it, get back to the starting point, and there is nothing stop this journey continuing on. I don't see any reason why this model should not be applied to the universe in communication to the general public by scientists and the media. (It is usually only expressed in the terms "scientists believe . . ")
I agree there is glibness in the assertion that the universe is finite but unbounded. The surface of an orange is flat in its local two-dimensional world (forward-back and left-right). Up-down exists locally, but it is only the larger view of the third dimension that reveals the solid object of the orange. (Replace 'orange' with 'earth' to see the dilemma of our ancient forebears.)
But if the third dimension is also curved in the larger view, in the fourth dimension, then is the fourth dimension also flat locally but curved in a fifth? This has to stop somewhere to retain finiteness. We understand the fourth dimension to be time, and the model has to work for no more dimensions. I think a key to this is the concept of half-dimensions, ie the ant on the orange is aware of up-down but not the curvature to the orange's horizon. Identify and solve the equation whereby each dimension comes in two parts, but the expression for the third-and-a-half dimension is equal to that for the fourth.
Infinity is a word bandied about as if it were a real value, but it is not. It is just a mathematical expression of 1/0, or the distance at which two parallel lines intersect. Well the expression would need a real value of zero, and there can be no reality to parallel bars extending to infinity.
Infinity is a convenient expression for those who can't imagine the boundary (if it's not infinite, then where is the edge - and what is beyond the edge?) It is a cop-out of course, but in fact the existence of real infinity is far harder to contemplate than the alternative(s). I can explain why an infinite universe is impossible, it is tedious, but I expect I will have to.
We know the surface of an orange is finite but unbounded, same for any real object in our three-dimensional world. You can trace a path in the same direction all around it, get back to the starting point, and there is nothing stop this journey continuing on. I don't see any reason why this model should not be applied to the universe in communication to the general public by scientists and the media. (It is usually only expressed in the terms "scientists believe . . ")
I agree there is glibness in the assertion that the universe is finite but unbounded. The surface of an orange is flat in its local two-dimensional world (forward-back and left-right). Up-down exists locally, but it is only the larger view of the third dimension that reveals the solid object of the orange. (Replace 'orange' with 'earth' to see the dilemma of our ancient forebears.)
But if the third dimension is also curved in the larger view, in the fourth dimension, then is the fourth dimension also flat locally but curved in a fifth? This has to stop somewhere to retain finiteness. We understand the fourth dimension to be time, and the model has to work for no more dimensions. I think a key to this is the concept of half-dimensions, ie the ant on the orange is aware of up-down but not the curvature to the orange's horizon. Identify and solve the equation whereby each dimension comes in two parts, but the expression for the third-and-a-half dimension is equal to that for the fourth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
