I have other ideas - and suspect the cat is out of Pat's bag as a stray has just been rummaging in our kitchen and spilt dry cat food all over our kitchen floor.
On 11 May, 23:50, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > That's the problem with ideas: they can be stolen. Whereas knowledge > can be shared. I'm glad I don't have to fight with your demons and > don't have to wait for some external paradigm shift to communicate > with people in time. > > On 11 Mai, 16:47, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 11 May, 13:29, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "I'm still hoping to have it > > > published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected > > > 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe."-Pat > > > > Well I hope you have it published on the first of the month, I would > > > like to have a week to read it and the remaining five days to > > > medidtate on the concepts. LOL! > > > Nope! The idea is to publish it ON 21-Dec-2012, in order to disprove > > that silly 'end-of-the-world' scenario that people think would occur > > at the end of the Mayan Long Calendar. I strongly suspect that any > > Mayan would laugh at such a thought and remind us that worrying about > > the end of that calendar system is much like thinking that December > > 31st of ANY year would be the end of the world; rather, the calendar > > system starts again at January 1st. The OTHER school of thought is > > that THAT day will mark the beginning of a paradigm shift that will > > make us re-think how we view the world...and THAT I want to be my > > book. > > > On another note, this afternoon, I finally sorted out one of the big > > problems that comes with depending on the 26-D string theory-- > > tachyons. Today, I finally figured out how to solve for tachyons and > > explain why we don't see them, why we won't see them and how that > > relates to the Higgs boson and why we don't see them/it either. But, > > I can't give too much away on this public forum without copyrighting > > what I write, as this idea would be stolen VERY quickly. > > Nevertheless, I have come up with a solution and it explains perfectly > > that tachyons WERE produced; but they've already done their job. Any > > more information and I let the cat out of the bag. Sorry! > > > > On May 11, 7:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 11 May, 02:04, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I would have to agree archy that your illusion of a "perfectly" > > > > > connected machine is premature at best, there are just too many > > > > > unanswered variables concerning quantum mesh theories. I know you have > > > > > connected some serious dots but when I see your surname amidst the > > > > > list of notable physicists a change in perception may be in order, in > > > > > other words, how is the book coming along? > > > > > Yeah, not badly. I just need to put all the data into a logically > > > > flowing format that nicely leads from one topic to the next. Plus, > > > > carefully word things so as to avoid fatwas. This latter bit is what > > > > I'm researching now. It seems that Islam forbids the discussion of > > > > God's 'essence' (based on an hadith rather than any quote from the > > > > Qur'an) and, as that is exactly what I do, I need to word my arguments > > > > carefully by qualifications. I think the key point is that, whilst I > > > > equate God's essence with energy, physics/science doesn't have a > > > > 'clear' idea of what energy looks like and THAT'S my way out. > > > > Certainly, potential energy has no appearance (just lift a pencil and > > > > note the changes in the appearance of the pencil) and there are so > > > > many forms of kinetic energy (and with that, I include thermal, > > > > gravitational, sound, elastic and everything that isn't 'potential') > > > > that it seems to have no 'single apearance' at the quantum level; so, > > > > there's my way out THERE. My reliance on the original 26-dimensional > > > > string theory also allows me to discuss energy in terms of 'forces' > > > > and these forces seem to have no real appearance either. And, of > > > > course, there's the plain fact that, if you ask a string theorist, > > > > "what, exactly, does a string look like?" the response would be..."I > > > > dunno. We can't see them." So, by pointing all that out, I should be > > > > fairly safe. Although, I KNOW there's no way to please everybody, at > > > > least I can put the concept out there. I'm still hoping to have it > > > > published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected > > > > 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe. > > > > > > On May 10, 8:03 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 9 May, 00:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Entanglement is the idea that particles can be linked in such a > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > that changing the quantum state of one instantaneously affects the > > > > > > > other, even if they are light years apart. I'm always interested > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > "spooky action at a distance", or any serious blow to our > > > > > > > conception > > > > > > > of how the world works. In 1964, physicist John Bell calculated a > > > > > > > mathematical inequality that encapsulated the maximum correlation > > > > > > > between the states of remote particles in experiments in which > > > > > > > three > > > > > > > "reasonable" conditions hold: that experimenters have free will in > > > > > > > setting things up as they want; that the particle properties being > > > > > > > measured are real and pre-existing, not just popping up at the > > > > > > > time of > > > > > > > measurement; and that no influence travels faster than the speed > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > light, the cosmic speed limit. Many experiments since have shown > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > quantum mechanics regularly violates Bell's inequality, yielding > > > > > > > levels of correlation way above those possible if his conditions > > > > > > > hold. > > > > > > > That pitches us into a philosophical dilemma. Do we not have free > > > > > > > will, meaning something, somehow predetermines what measurements > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > take? That is not anyone's first choice. Are the properties of > > > > > > > quantum > > > > > > > particles not real - implying that nothing is real at all, but > > > > > > > exists > > > > > > > merely as a result of our perception? That's a more popular > > > > > > > position, > > > > > > > but it hardly leaves us any the wiser. Or is there really an > > > > > > > influence that travels faster than light? In 2008 physicist > > > > > > > Nicolas > > > > > > > Gisin and his colleagues at the University of Geneva showed that, > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > reality and free will hold, the speed of transfer of quantum > > > > > > > states > > > > > > > between entangled photons held in two villages 18 kilometres > > > > > > > apart was > > > > > > > somewhere above 10 million times the speed of light (Nature, vol > > > > > > > 454, > > > > > > > p 861). > > > > > > > This is not the science that lets us build stuff, but I do feel > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > kind of buzz about not being quite so trapped by the rather crude > > > > > > > inevitability of being stuck with the limitations of the speed of > > > > > > > light. > > > > > > > Isn't it far simpler to just accept that the two photons are tied > > > > > > together in a dimension outside our line of sight? That's my > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > via string theory and, if true, makes the speed actually > > > > > > instantaneous > > > > > > rather thna some multiple of C that, for all intents and purposes > > > > > > SEEMS instantaneous. In fact, as you know, I propose that ALL > > > > > > quanta > > > > > > are constantly entangled and, whilst we only see entanglement when > > > > > > we > > > > > > isolate specific quanta, entanglement is the natural state of all > > > > > > quanta and is what ties all the universe into one completely > > > > > > interactive and interdependent 'thing'. It seems that science keeps > > > > > > trying to contrive around entanglement when, in my opinion, it > > > > > > should > > > > > > accept that it is the natural and normal state of affairs and that > > > > > > the > > > > > > state of entanglement is a constant feature of quanta--the one that > > > > > > joins them into one perfectly connected machine.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
