Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My problem with his idea is energy is one thing but to say mass as well. We know energy can convert to mass but in empty space this isnt occurring. We could make the argument that virtual particles indeed contain mass for a fleating moment but the problem is if it ever created more mass than we currently have the Quantum fluctuations would tear the universe apart.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Paper has three dimensions. I'm looking at a stack of it now. If a piece of paper had two dimensions there wouldn't be a stack.

Lol, I said for all practical purposes means a gross approximation. To be exact fold only the flat surface of your flat screen tv in the middle at right angles and you have 3d

No you wouldnt there is no 2 dimensional object any where else other than math. And if an object were 2 D it cant be made into a 3 D object because to do so there would have to be added dimensions making it no longer 2 D.

So now I would ask, and you can ask this too; How can there be a smallest finite 3d quantity of space?

If its 3d, can it not always be halved, or the planck length is about 'the smallest possible area point'? The point between 2d and 3d.

Like imagine units of measurement we use for a spheres area. And then divide it by 2. And then divide that by 2. And then divide that by 2. And keep doing it. Because you will never reach 0, does this only have something to say about math and the abstract nature of infinite potential decimal spaces, or does it say something about reality? Does it maybe mean the nothingness of space is not quantizable, and any quantization of 'space' or smallest length, is merely a quantization used to measure the physicality of particles and energy? That is to say, the planck length isnt about a piece of matter or a particle. Well this is so hard to think about... There must be a finite limit to 'stuff', energy, matter, particles, physical, real, stuff.

Ok... As ive stated many times before, I believe it is a fact stuff exists, I believe its a fact stuff as always exists, therefore I believe this stuff is limited by its nature of existing (which can mean multiple things), therefore I believe this stuff is always 'a way'. The way of the stuff that exists must have a limit in the way of even hypothetically and beyond theoretically, not being about to be divided past a certain point. That is to say you know a vast amount of stuff exists, you know you can look and poke at and touch and move different parts of the total stuff here and there and there and there, each part is a different part that takes up a different place, so if you just take a little bit of it, and hypothetically have the ability to shave it and scrape it the tiniest possible unit of energy/matter off of it as you can, eventually you should reach a point where you have two of the smallest possible units of energy/matter remaining in your hypothetical god hand, then you remove one, and you have the smallest possible. What would it mean to divide this...I dont think a finite quanta of stuff can be infinitely divisible. I suppose this is how radiation fits in actually... its like as the matter is divided...or subtracted from a quanta, the radiation is given off surrounding it.

So like in that abstract example of a sphere, continually dividing its area, imagine a sphere the size of a baseball, and you have god powers to do and see and think anyway that is possible and do anything imaginable... so you take your hands and wrap them around the ball and start to squeeze it smaller, incrementally with each of your compression of the sphere, I imagine energy being released beyond...some similarity or relation to this concept must be the relation between energy and matter.

Back to not being able to quantize a space of nothingness... Yes you can make a ruler, based on matter. An inch, centimeter, feet, yards. You can take a ruler and place it over an area of nothingness and say this area of nothingness is a foot long, because this ruler is a foot long, but if its nothingness there is nothing you are measuring... so perhaps this is how the planck length is, it is not quantizing space, so much as it is quantizing energy and matter, and not energy and matter it self, though it very well may be related to the most fundamental and microest constituents of physical reality, so it is the smallest common denominator of energy and matter. It is the smallest unit associated to physical finite quanta, I suppose it is suggesting physical quanta could never exist smaller then that unit? If there was an eternal and absolute number line that was represented by what the physical nature of energy and matter is, the planck length would also be the closest value to the right of 0, maybe.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My problem with his idea is energy is one thing but to say mass as well. We know energy can convert to mass but in empty space this isnt occurring. We could make the argument that virtual particles indeed contain mass for a fleating moment but the problem is if it ever created more mass than we currently have the Quantum fluctuations would tear the universe apart.

Where do virtual particles come from? Are they fundamental, or are they the decay of other particles? Could what virtual particles decay into relate to dark energy or matter?

a reply to: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: Nochzwei

Not that I think your comments are wrong, but Nochzwei did try to qualify the statement about a piece of paper, though maybe a better qualifier could have been used. Anyway here's an exercise for using sheets of paper to construct representations of 2D and 3D objects so it's not way out in left field for Nochzwei to suggest paper can represent 2D (even though it's not actually 2D) and folded paper can represent 3D.

2-D and 3-D Paper Folding Activity_(Word_document)


I'm not sure I'd agree with anything else Nochzwei says, but I'd give him a break on this.

However I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread topic.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My problem with his idea is energy is one thing but to say mass as well.

If he said mass, then I wouldn't agree with that either, since it's not an appropriate characterization for dark energy. But I'd have to hear exactly what he said in context to make a final judgement on whether I agree or disagree with him about that. Most of the stuff he said made sense to me until he got to the point where he said he was speculating and in those speculative areas I have no strong opinions like ImaFungi about him being right or wrong, but if his track record is as bad as he admits it is, then statistically speaking the chances of him being right are low (below 50% based on his own statements about his track record).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So now I would ask, and you can ask this too; How can there be a smallest finite 3d quantity of space?

I'm not sure there is a smallest finite space. I can conceive of Planck length/2, the problem is that no such quantity can be measured because a photon energetic enough to measure it would collapse into a black hole.

Planck Length

Simple dimensional analysis shows that the measurement of the position of physical objects with precision to the Planck length is problematic. Indeed, we will discuss the following thought experiment. Suppose we want to determine the position of an object using electromagnetic radiation, i.e., photons. The greater the energy of photons, the shorter their wavelength and the more accurate the measurement. If the photon has enough energy to measure objects the size of the Planck length, it would collapse into a black hole and the measurement would be impossible. Thus, the Planck length sets the fundamental limits on the accuracy of length measurement.

So I don't see the benefit of trying to think about dimensions smaller than a Planck length, if I can't ever prove whether smaller dimensions do or don't exist. It might be a fun topic to discuss over a beer, but I don't see the practical or scientific value.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My problem with his idea is energy is one thing but to say mass as well. We know energy can convert to mass but in empty space this isnt occurring. We could make the argument that virtual particles indeed contain mass for a fleating moment but the problem is if it ever created more mass than we currently have the Quantum fluctuations would tear the universe apart.

Where do virtual particles come from? Are they fundamental, or are they the decay of other particles? Could what virtual particles decay into relate to dark energy or matter?

That goes into Lambda baryons and scalar fields. This is a very complicated process in physics meaning you need a strong background. Ill give you an idea but you have to understand Feynman sums and the math involved. Ok hear is a start its a lecture by Hawking he will show you how a universe can be created without a violation of physics.



Ps this lecture leads to some interesting areas including the fact of how energy is created at an event horizon. Which can lead tosome interesting possibilities for black holes one being they could literally have no mass.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Planck Length

Simple dimensional analysis shows that the measurement of the position of physical objects with precision to the Planck length is problematic. Indeed, we will discuss the following thought experiment. Suppose we want to determine the position of an object using electromagnetic radiation, i.e., photons. The greater the energy of photons, the shorter their wavelength and the more accurate the measurement. If the photon has enough energy to measure objects the size of the Planck length, it would collapse into a black hole and the measurement would be impossible. Thus, the Planck length sets the fundamental limits on the accuracy of length measurement.

So I don't see the benefit of trying to think about dimensions smaller than a Planck length, if I can't ever prove whether smaller dimensions do or don't exist. It might be a fun topic to discuss over a beer, but I don't see the practical or scientific value.

No practical or scientific value now, but this is the kind of stuff they will be talking about in 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, maybe beyond, and the kind of stuff theyve been talking about for 1000s. And yes, these conversations are things science should be aware of regardless.

When they say 'it would collapse into a black hole'... do they mean the photon itself will? Do they mean what the photon is trying to measure will? do they mean the product of the photon and the object the photon is trying to measure will? Do they mean both and/or all three?

Assuming the answer is one of those...what is meant, or, how does, 'that which collapses into a black hole in that scenario, do so'?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My problem with his idea is energy is one thing but to say mass as well. We know energy can convert to mass but in empty space this isnt occurring. We could make the argument that virtual particles indeed contain mass for a fleating moment but the problem is if it ever created more mass than we currently have the Quantum fluctuations would tear the universe apart.

Where do virtual particles come from? Are they fundamental, or are they the decay of other particles? Could what virtual particles decay into relate to dark energy or matter?

That goes into Lambda baryons and scalar fields. This is a very complicated process in physics meaning you need a strong background. Ill give you an idea but you have to understand Feynman sums and the math involved. Ok hear is a start its a lecture by Hawking he will show you how a universe can be created without a violation of physics.

Ps this lecture leads to some interesting areas including the fact of how energy is created at an event horizon. Which can lead tosome interesting possibilities for black holes one being they could literally have no mass.

Im not listening to anything that suggests the universe can come from nothing, just as I would not listen to a pastors sermon.

If you cannot answer the questions I posed, I will assume you do not know the answers. If you cannot put them into words, you dont understand it. I can understand anything if its told to me, im not going to waste my time learning volumes of math, just to grasp a simple concept, like the answers to these questions ; Where do virtual particles come from? Are they fundamental, or are they the decay of other particles? Could what virtual particles decay into relate to dark energy or matter?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
When they say 'it would collapse into a black hole'... do they mean the photon itself will?

Yes. How does it collapse? It's a thought experiment. It's probably not possible to make such an energetic photon outside of something like big bang conditions, but the idea is simple, the more energy a photon has, the more gravitational attraction it has, and when the gravitational attraction becomes so great that light can't escape, it's a black hole. The math proof is given at the link.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
When they say 'it would collapse into a black hole'... do they mean the photon itself will?

Yes. How does it collapse? It's a thought experiment. It's probably not possible to make such an energetic photon outside of something like big bang conditions, but the idea is simple, the more energy a photon has, the more gravitational attraction it has, and when the gravitational attraction becomes so great that light can't escape, it's a black hole. The math proof is given at the link.

So a photon in this case, must create a black hole, with a diameter larger then the photon, and also that diameter, would contain the photon and not let it out. What is the black hole portion where the photon is not, made of? Because in the case of super massive black holes, there is the non photon/radiation part (which 'is the blackhole'), which contains the photon/radiation parts, so in this case with a single photon creating a black hole, what 'is it using' to create the black hole?

a reply to: dragonridr

The energy(/matter/stuffness) of reality/universe has existed forever.

This means 'a beginning of the universe', is either a big crunch from the previous universe, the point of most crunch being the 'singularity'.

Or, a pocket in a multi verse. Which would still mean the multi verse, as reality, is stuff that has always existed, and this universe would be a result of the greater shifting of that, and so that would be its beginning (but it probably wouldnt look like everything that is the universe coming out of or inflating from a 1d point).

Or, there is a greater reality, and within it intelligent entities created the universe, and 'the singularity' in your equations, is the point at which they turned on their device.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

The energy(/matter/stuffness) of reality/universe has existed forever.

This means 'a beginning of the universe', is either a big crunch from the previous universe, the point of most crunch being the 'singularity'.

Or, a pocket in a multi verse. Which would still mean the multi verse, as reality, is stuff that has always existed, and this universe would be a result of the greater shifting of that, and so that would be its beginning (but it probably wouldnt look like everything that is the universe coming out of or inflating from a 1d point).

Or, there is a greater reality, and within it intelligent entities created the universe, and 'the singularity' in your equations, is the point at which they turned on their device.

Could be any of the above or none all physics showed us is that the universe could start from nothing doesnt mean thats the answer. Hopefully as we look at smaller and smaller particles we cqn figure it out.

a reply to: dragonridr

No, it did not tell us that. If you define nothing as nothing in your example, your answer is wrong. Please stop lying to yourself and us.

But you dont define nothing as nothing do you.

You define nothing as; Something. This is you - "The definition of nothing, is something, in my equation the word nothing means something; Nothing + Nothing = Something .....Duh!

I can do this too!

The definition of the word red, means blue. The definition of the word purple, means yellow.

red + purple = green.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Quantum mechanics tells us you can never have zero energy but merely a fluctuation or wave which when averaged equals zero. So something having a zero average can indeed be considered nothing but also since we know it fluctuates also means its something. Now you can argue semantics or definitions all you like doesnt truly matter. In the end we discovered you dont need an outside force to create matter in the universe just the very nature of empty space is all we need.

Physicists use the term nothing but this is to dumb it down because explaining quantum fluctuations is well beyond most peoples understanding.

a reply to: dragonridr

You are wrong.

The reason you are wrong is because a wave function you are using an arbitrary plane, for example 'sea level', and then saying there is water +1 above sea level and there is water -1 below sea level, therefore there is no water!

a reply to: ImaFungi

Every analogy fails at some point. The lack of correlation in that case between the model and the analogy is a failure of the analogy. Of course the model has its own failures like the vacuum catastrophe, but what you stated isn't a failure of the model. It's really not like sea level.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

You are wrong.

The reason you are wrong is because a wave function you are using an arbitrary plane, for example 'sea level', and then saying there is water +1 above sea level and there is water -1 below sea level, therefore there is no water!

Anything can be arbitrary if you have no understanding of it. You want to discount math because you dont understand Feynman diagrams or the math involved. Without understanding anything becomes arbitrary until you understand zero point energy youll never understand this. In other words to argue against something you need to understand it. first thing you need to realize is all energy in the universe is always trying to reach its lowest energy states.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its exactly like that.

a reply to: dragonridr

You dont understand reality.

Why do you like saying wrong things?

The only thing that can ever be false is a sentence!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The universe is true. It is tautological. It equals itself always.

The universe is objective.

A human exists as an objective part of the universe.

A humans conscious experience of itself and the universe is subjective.

A human uses instruments to try and 'know' the objective nature of the universe, eliminating the subjectivity of his perspective/understanding/awareness.

A human is born ignorant. A human can make infinite statements about the universe. A worm is bigger then the sun. A sun is bigger then a worm. Some can be false. Some can be true.

Something = something.

Nothing = nothing.

You lose.

a reply to: dragonridr

Just dont say something can come from nothing...if thats not what you mean.

I think that might not be what you mean.

I think you mean to say, order can come from chaos.

I think you mean to say from a state of 100% entropy came 0.0000001% entropy

I think you mean to say, from an amount of regular sand just sitting there, can be made a sandcastle. Same amount of sand, just a different order.

I think thats what you mean. The same amount of energy existed, always, just in a different form.

All the energy didnt come from nothing. But you predict, that it didnt used to be so clumped up and organized as it is now.

Dont argue that energy came from nothing... Its wrong, its embaressing, I cant take you serious at all as an adult, or thinker, or teacher, or scientest, or baby, if you say everything came from nothing. Its wrong. If language and math is right, you and it are wrong. It is a bad statement. Dont say it. Say it. Say it a lot. I dont care, say it all the time, please, it just hurts you. God would not be impressed with your thinking.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Just dont say something can come from nothing...if thats not what you mean.

I think that might not be what you mean.

I think you mean to say, order can come from chaos.

I think you mean to say from a state of 100% entropy came 0.0000001% entropy

I think you mean to say, from an amount of regular sand just sitting there, can be made a sandcastle. Same amount of sand, just a different order.

I think thats what you mean. The same amount of energy existed, always, just in a different form.

All the energy didnt come from nothing. But you predict, that it didnt used to be so clumped up and organized as it is now.

Dont argue that energy came from nothing... Its wrong, its embaressing, I cant take you serious at all as an adult, or thinker, or teacher, or scientest, or baby, if you say everything came from nothing. Its wrong. If language and math is right, you and it are wrong. It is a bad statement. Dont say it. Say it. Say it a lot. I dont care, say it all the time, please, it just hurts you. God would not be impressed with your thinking.

Your getting the idea you just have it backwards entropy means nothing can have order. And nothing is perfect order.