This is about three threads I’ve started on the Unaboard that I’d like answered to:
1: Hawking said man-made worm holes are possible with a magnet of infinite mass rotating, right? But as something speeds up to near the speed of light, it’s mass becomes infinite. So would a magnet rotating at the speed of light behave as if it’s mass were infinite and then be used like Hawkings postulated? Found here
2:
from Introduction to Superfluid Helium
So does this mean that superfluid helium could be used as a perfect lubricant and a perfect coolant? Found here
3: At high enough temperatures and pressures, single atoms ‘glob’ together and act and react as if they were a singlular particle, right? So what would happen if hydrogen atoms were compressed into a bose-einstein condensate and then anti-matter were released into the chamber? How much expansion would we see vs. heat created? Would this even work? Found here
Please feel free to answer these questions in this forum or that, it doesn’t really matter where. If you’re afraid you’re going too deep for me to understand, just lay out the lay-man’s version then dive into the deep one. Thanks for any help provided.
No, infinite mass requires infinite energy, so I’m fairly certain Hawking said nothing of the sort. Infinite energy isn’t possible. On the other hand, infinite density is, in the form of a black hole. It’s also theoretically possible to form a black ring from mass spinning at relativistic speeds- which may be what you’re referring to.
As to whether or not this would work, it’s clearly not experimentally testable at the moment. It seems to work in the context of general theories which explain other things we can test, but is on the more speculative end of physics theory, as it involves both quantum mechanics and relativity, which are imperfectly unified at the moment.
2. [nitpick] Never trust a publication in which the author doesn’t know the difference between the words ‘loses’ and ‘looses’ [/nitpick]
The phrase ‘by their rapid motion which is due to Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle’ is very wrong. I don’t know where you got this quote, but don’t trust that source.
Anyhow enough ripping on the quote. Cold liquid helium is a superfluid, but why do you think that makes it a perfect lubricant? Usability at room temperature is one of my criteria for lubricants, but you need to define what you mean by ‘perfect’. Same for ‘perfect coolant’, although I think you’d want a superconductor, not a superfluid; fluidity isn’t the same as heat transfer ability.
From what I’ve heard, superfluids can be problematic to work with. It’s hard to contain a liquid that climbs the walls of the container it’s in, and is composed of very small helium atoms which can go directly through many materials which are otherwise solid.
Bose-Einstein condensates have been formed, but they were quite close to absolute zero. If I recall correctly, they were in the nanokelvin range, were not at high pressure, and at least the first one used a heavy metal (Platinum?).
The other ‘one big particle’ that comes to mind are neutron stars, which also act like one big particle at high pressure (and often temperature, although this is incidental) for very different reasons. You wouldn’t be likely to put one of those into a chamber, though.
I think that mixing a Bose-Einstein condensate with antimatter would work just like any other mixture of matter and antimatter- 100% conversion into energy. In a 1:1 mixture, that means no mass left. What do you mean by expansion?
Let’s ignore energy consumption for a moment. Assume we can create infinite energy.* What would the effects of a magnetic ring rotating and facing a similar magnetic ring at near the speed of light be? Assume infinite energy is being created and applied towards this feat. What would the interaction of the rings be? What would magnetism’s characteristics as one of the four forces be (mag, grav, strong, weak)? Kind of a magnetic ‘sinkhole’?
Right, we’re going theoretical. I won’t pretend I can tell you how to achieve this, but I have some good ideas and I’d like you to disprove them for me so I can be sure I’m not crazy.
I think he means it’s too rapid to detect because of the uncertainty principle, in that you don’t know exactly where they are and they’re moving fast enough that their blurs meld into one.
But anyway, this guy as a source is admittedly a bad one. I just grabbed the first one that looked like what I remembered from an old Scientific American article.
Perfect lubricant in that it will cushion parts from contact with zero friction, and perfect coolant in that it will wick heat away nearly instantly from moving parts and friction points.
What about superdense metals, or some sort of field? What can contain it?
Okay then, what I mean is if you compress or heat, not freeze, atomic particles under such pressure that they begin to react as one. Has this been done or am I imagining things?
*For the sake of argument, let’s say that infinite power is created by capturing photons and slowing them until they form a bose-einstein condensate and then mixing an equal portion of anti-photons in a bose-einstein condensate. Upon detonation, the energy released is somehow turned into usable power.
Anyway, can anyone else tell me what’s wrong with this stuff? I’m honestly interested. Thanks.
Why should a superfluid be a perfect lubricant? Besides the fact that it’s extremely difficult and expensive to maintain near-absolute-zero temperatures, a lubricant needs to coat and adhere to the parts it’s supposed to protect (if they aren’t perfectly horizontal). A superfluid, by definition, wouldn’t coat and adhere to anything.
It’d be a good lubricant because it would remove all points of friction from the equation. A normal lubricant only lubricates between the oil, and bonds to the metal. A super-lubricant wouldn’t bond, coat, or stick to anything nor would it need to if the entire system were sealed because there would be no gas pockets where the friction points would be exposed from the lubricant.
Okay, assume you create infinite energy. Everything else in the universe instantly travels at c toward it due to its infinitely powerful gravitational attraction. In the reference frame of any mass existing in the universe, no time elapses. This includes rings, magnetic or otherwise.
Not very interesting. Why must these rings be infinitely massive?
I’m curious what your ideas are. Are you familiar with the possible time travel implications of such wormholes?
The colder things get, the slower they move. Rapid motion has nothing directly to do with Uncertainty.
Well, if you want the lubricant itself to cause no friction, you could just use a vacuum as your ‘lubricant’. Anywhere there’s friction the superliquid would just flow out of the way. The hard surfaces would interact directly just as if there were no superliquid present. It’s the anti-lubricant.
As for temperature, as I said I think you want a superconductor. Electrical superconductors are (often? always? I’m not sure) thermal superconductors. The entire mass of thermal superconductor maintains itself at the same temperature. Heat a part and you evenly heat the whole thing. In addition, you’d probably want it to have a high specific heat, so that it would take more energy to change the temperature.
Superfluid helium isn’t incredibly difficult to contain, a lot of fairly normal materials can potentially contain it. It just has to be sealed better than most other things. A hole a few nanometers wide isn’t a big deal for holding other liquids, but all the helium will leave through it… even if the hole’s at the top of the container.
‘act as one’ sounds just like a layman’s description of a Bose-Einstein condensate, and those are extremely cold. I strongly suspect that that’s what you’re thinking of.
The only compression possibility I’m aware of that vaguely matches the ‘act as one’ description is neutronium, which I’m certain has not been made by humans.
Ah, well, perhaps we need a real physicist. Any takers?
First a disclaimer: While I have a MSc in theoretical physics, and used to work at CERN (european centre of particle physics) , it is no longer my profesion.
Now let’s look at the questions:
The stuff about rotating magnets could be interesting, but now I approach areas which I have not thought about since university. I remember that magnetic and electric field are one and the same at speeds approaching c. (But now I’m out of my depth.)
On a related subject: I attended a seminar on time travel at CERN. This was a speach by a very prominent physicist, whose name momentarily escapes me, about how the general theory of relativity does indeed allow for time travel. It’s been a few years, but I’ll try to recollect what he said.You will need a few props, but his recipe was simple:
[ul]
[li]Take a infinit rod of near-infinite density.[/li][li]Rotate along the axis, so that the surface moves at a speed close to c.[/li][li]Now if you were to approach this rod, travel at a speed close to c, and start circling it; when you leave, you can return to your original inertial frame, before starting![/li][/ul]
(I can’t even remember if you’re supposed to circle the rod in the same direction as itself, or counter rotating, so it’s possible that I have forgotten other details as well…)
There are practical problems with this of course, like the rods having to be infinite. (otherwise it would collaps to a black hole) And the gravitational gradient would be monstruous.
He ended his talk by saying that practical use of this would probably be impossible for mechanical objects, but maybe it would be possible for quantum fields…
About superfluids… Another interesting subject. They do indeed have very good thermal conductivity (just like most superconductors). Superconducting He4 will be used in parts of CERNs new accelerator, LHC, to transport waste heat. As to its lubrifying properties, I have to agree with (Tim). When you lubrify something you want a thin film of the oily stuff to stay between the rubbing parts. Low (or non-existing) viscosity has nothing to do with it. Water has a much lower viscosity than (most) oil, but guess what I put in my car
I believe that what you’re thinking of when you say ‘bose-einstein condensate at high temperature’ etc is something similiar to what they’re trying to do at RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) at Brookhaven, what was done at NA49 (boring name: North Area experiment no 49) at CERN, and what will be done at ALICE (A Large Ion Colision Experiment) at CERNs new LHC. The idea is to smash two heavy nuclei together to form a so-called Quark-Gluon-Plasma, but this is by no means anything stable, under laboratory conditions. If you want to see it, and play with it, I suggest you go to the center of a neutron star, where theories predict its presence.
With that I leave the floor to Chronos.
You have a point. We cannot achieve infinite energy. We can, however, achieve zero energy and then ‘push’ them over the edge, maybe. Since we don’t have infinite mass and infinite energy, we can use zero mass and zero power to create the same thing. Infinity is zero. We can make the most powerful thing in the very universe, the photon, exist in a state of zero energy. That’s infinite reduced to zero. Think about this. Everything has a yin and a yang. Black and white, negative and positive, north and south (magnetic poles), matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy. The interesting thing about these extremes is that they reside both on different faces of the same coin. Once you get to one of them, you can either stop and go back, or exceed and return to nothing. As something achieves infinite mass, it’s mass becomes the mass of everything which means that it’s mass becomes meaningless because nothing else has mass, so it’s mass returns to zero again. As something becomes as cold as it can possibly become, it’s simultaneously nearing the point which is the hottest it can become and returning again. This is why regular engines consume fuel instead of becoming self-sustaining, they approach their optimum efficiency (100%), but never breach it, wherein it’s net sum gain is again zero, but in pure energy form instead of matter, or possibly even energy without consumption or being consumed? Maybe magnetism is such a weak force because it’s optimum is easily bridged, leading to it’s natural state of existing in both states at once, north and south, positive and negative. Sorry, I’ve gotten off track and have begun rambling. ::ahem::
Maybe then electricity is the strong force, because it exists naturally with a powerful distraction between the two. Only when man tinkers, or nature stirs, do the opposites begin to gain enough strength to oppose. This is why thunderstorms have so much power, and nuclear power creates so much electricity. The strong force. Maybe this is why superconductors work when they are cold. They near a state of zero energy and therefore approach a state of infinite energy, and this makes them superconductive of the anticipated power. We make them superconductors instead of super energy sources because energy and consumption are the same? Go hot, energy, go cold, consumption? But go the very coldest and consumption becomes energy. That’s a blackhole! That’s what a black hole does! It becomes so energetic that its attraction is so great that it becomes consumptive of itself. At entropy, the consumption becomes so great that it explodes in pure energy, and the big bang begins again. But I’m rambling again.
Yes. I have two ideas now. Freeze a person so cold that they become completely consumptive and then become pure energy and then oscillate between the temperatures rapidly to move to a certain point in time. I’ll talk more about this later. The second is more of an instantaneous transfer idea. Get two massive magnets and spin them at near the speed of light to create gravitational fields so massive they warp the fabric of space to meet each other. To fuel the near-light speed rotation of the rings, you could capture protons from a laser in a bose-einstein condensate and cool the protons until they too form bose-einstein condensates. Then introduce anti-protons cooled to condensate to the protons. The resultant reaction should be able to fuel an engine to near light speed. That’s more for transfer than warp, though. Smaller fields could oscillate in frequency to transmit information instantaneously.
I realize this, but reading the above should make sense.
Well, I’m sure a superfluid superconductor would be a perfect coolant, anyway. Maybe not lubricant.
I’m just warming up! PLEASE someone make me wrong and tell me I’m crazy and none of this makes sense.
What if the thing is magnetism at low levels of power is strong and at high levels of power it is weak. Maybe electricity at low levels of power is weak but high levels of power is strong. Power is magnetic at low levels of power but electric at high levels of power, and power is gravity at high levels of mass and radiation at low levels of mass. Maybe power at low levels of concentration is cold and power at high levels of concentration is hot. Perhaps power at high concentration and high heat is pressure, and power at low levels of heat and low concentration is vacuum. I think that’s about it?
Can’t say much about 1 and 3, but I read a good bit about superfluid helium once upon a time.
It would not lubricate, for the reasons stated. A lubricant needs to bear some weight, in order to keep the parts separated. A superfluid cannot impart force at all. I read once that if you were able to pump superfluid helium through a fire hose (not sure how you could do that, either), the spray could not so much as knock over a coin balanced on edge. It just flows around anything that would involve force or pressure.
Superfluid helium is also a superconductor of heat. This means that there can be no hot or cold spots in it, any temperature gradients are smoothed out in practically no time. So, it would be a near-perfect coolant (in fact, experiments that need to operate at fractions of a Kelvin above absolute zero do use it that way). The problem is it only acts this way while it is below its transition point (2.2 K, if I recall correctly). Since it conducts heat so well, any heat in the system is quickly applied to raising the temperature of the helium, and it loses its superfluid properties. In other words, it is a great coolant, but not for long. Just a couple of joules could push it above the transition point.
To take a stab at 3, my last point applies there as well. Even if you could create the starting conditions, the first time you tried to use the system to generate power, the conditions would collapse.
Get two massive magnets and spin them at near the speed of light to create gravitational fields so massive they warp the fabric of space to meet each other. To fuel the near-light speed rotation of the rings, you could capture protons from a laser in a bose-einstein condensate and cool the protons until they too form bose-einstein condensates. Then introduce anti-protons cooled to condensate to the protons. The resultant reaction should be able to fuel an engine to near light speed.
[quote]
Except the intense gravitational fields would probably crush the ship itself. (not to mention the humans inside…WAY before the ship)
I would think that if the faster you go, the more massive you become, that lightspeed travel would be impossible from an engineering prospective. What kind of ship would you need to build that could stand the pressures of densities closing in on near-infinite?
See, the idea isn’t to exceed the speed of light, because if you exceeded the speed of light you’d be back where you started from. Energy equals the speed of light squared. The idea is to use the magnetic fields to curve space upon itself so the two ends of the U are connected. An alternate theory is that if you exceeded the speed of light, infinity and zero being one, you’ll begin slowing down again. So the point isn’t to exceed the speed of light, it’s to match it. Light speed is the fastest speed anything with mass can attain because to go faster requires infinite mass and infinite energy. Protons can reach light speed because they have no mass and therefore require no energy to accelerate.
If the fields were created with magnets, perhaps the reaction would be self-contained. The positive ends would become so attracted and the negative ends would be come so attractive that perhaps it would create a klein bottle or moebius strip of magnetism between the two points. If you could be within a shielded chamber inside the magnet upon the initial acceleration, then the magnet at point b were turned on, then when a connection was made, the magnet at point a were turned off and the magnet at point b were turned off, is it possible that the chamber at point a would be drawn to point b and remain once the force at point a were removed?
Alternatively, if the magnets produced a klein bottle or moebius strip of magnetism it may be possible to enter the field at point a and emerge at point b.
If no one can answer these does anyone know how they can put me into contact with someone who can? Thanks.
See, a proton cooled to absolute zero would have zero potential energy because it has no kinetic energy to release. However, it would also have 100% potential energy because it has no kinetic energy to release therefore all it’s energy must be potential. So a proton brought into contact with an anti-proton while at absolute zero should begin an instant reaction wherein the proton instantly assumes light speed again. But to assume light speed instantly, it would have to exceed the speed of light.
In fact, one could say that the decay of a bose-einstein condensate wherein it loses millions of atoms worth of mass in a puff of smoke and vortexes, is the “white hole” that atomic theorists are looking for to account for the missing mass, aka dark matter in the universe. The funny thing is, the white hole would be a sink for anti-matter. Since it would be a sink for anti-matter, protons should be able to escape. Protons mean light, which means we would see them as extremely massive, brightly burning stars. See, the black hole would be the inverse of the bose-einstein condensate explosions, and the opposite of the dark-matter holes. Superfluid helium behaves without reaction to gravity because superheated helium plasma is subjected to gravity so massive that it condenses into a single-atomic cloud. Perhaps a proton is an atomic on/off switch. When a proton is emitted, there is an equal and opposite reaction in that an anti-proton is emitted in a course equal and opposite of the proton’s eventual course of travel to land in the same place the proton was emitted from originally. Inasmuch, the two become a cosmic on/off switch, the 1s and 0s of the Universe.
First things first: I’m a gravitational physicist, and still in grad school. I’m not a particle physicist or a condensed-matter physicist, and there are others on this board better qualified than I to answer those questions. With that said:
Let’s see, starting with the first question: Mass does not increase as you approach the speed of light. Energy increases, and it gets harder to cause further acceleration, but saying that that’s due to a larger mass is really just a fudge, and not one that works very well. I’m not sure about what Hawking’s said about massive rotating magnets, but magnetic forces are a type of electromagnetic force, if you’re wondering about the Four Forces. Of course, electromagnetism and the weak force are very well unified (predictions of electroweak theory match experiments to 19 decimal places), and there’s no theory of the weak force independent of the electromagnetic force. There’s also some theories that do a pretty good job uniting the strong force, and we hope to someday bring gravity into the same picture, so don’t think of the Four Forces as being some magic number.
GR does, indeed, seem to suggest that time travel might be possible, but it’s still an open question. The big whammy is that it looks like a time machine would require some weird sort of matter with negative mass, and nobody knows if that’s possible. By the way, tc, was the physicist you’re thinking of possibly Kip Thorne? He’s the biggest guy working with the possibility of time travel.
Second question: Others in this thread have already covered the lubricative properties of superfluids. Thermal superconductors were covered in great detail about a month ago.
Third question: Neutronium is, indeed, a superfluid, but to call it “high pressure” is the understatement of the year. There’s no known way, even in theory, to produce neutronium outside of a neutron star, or to shape a neutron star into anything other than a sphere or oblate spheroid (if it’s rotating). A superfluid doesn’t really behave like a single particle, but it is a single quantum entity. Call it what you like. A black hole is a single particle, but that makes them, in many ways, rather boring. If I have a black hole, I can tell you absolutely everything there is to know about it with only twelve numbers, and I can make eight of those zero just by choosing the right reference frame: Position (three components), momentum (three components), angular momentum (three components), mass, electric charge, and magnetic charge.
Antimatter annihilation works the same way for Bose-Einstein condensates as it does for any other sort of matter, and it’s not even a meaningful concept for black holes.
Now, when you get to your later posts, you’ve totally lost me. First, we can’t reduce anything to zero energy (that dang Uncertainty Principle again), and secondly, even if we could, what makes you say that zero energy is in any way equivalent to infinite energy?
Energy has multiple states, and transition points. Matter has multiple states, and transition points. Now I’m saying forces have multiple states, and transition points. All the forces you’re looking for are the same force at different states. Electricity, magnetism, gravity, pressure, vacuum, heat, cold, and radiation are all the same force, just in a different state. That’s what I’m babbling about when I speak of the forces. Low-power force when acting upon matter, high power force when acting upon anti-matter, in order: Heat, vacuum, electricity, magnetism, pressure, gravity. Gravity is the highest state of force, and is the most powerful when acting upon matter, and least powerful when acting on anti-matter. This explains why low-power forces are so easily created with matter, yet hard to obtain for anti-matter. This explains why high-power forces are too hard to create with matter, and are the main state for anti-matter to exist. Since they are the same, their effects are ringed with Vacuum > Gravity being rather easy to obtain but highly inefficient.
A proton is a point faster than anything else and has no mass. A proton is a point. The measure from the point of it’s origin to itself is a line. A plane is created with the inclusion of the HVEMPG ring. Time, the fourth and final dimension, acts upon a point of light travelling along the plane over a distance.
See, I’m not really thinking about time travel yet, but I’ll figure that out sometime soon enough. Hopefully before I’m 23! Anyway, I was just thinking of using magnetic rings accelerated to near the speed of light to twist space into itself. Instantaneous transfer. It doesn’t exceed light speed, it sidesteps it.
A superfluid is the cold equivalent of a plasma. A plasma is the hot equivalent of a superfluid. That’s why ‘super’ somethin or others are either super-hot or super-cold. To find a room temperature super-fluid, super-conductor, super-magnet, super-whatever, is the equivalent of its’ opposite reaction at the opposite temperature.
No, it makes them fascinating because it means that at massive temperatures and pressures and gravitational and magnetic forces, uncountable numbers of atoms behave as ONE ATOM, whereas at temperatures just a billionth of a degree above zero, millions of atoms behave as ONE ATOM. At both extremes, everything meets up nicely opposite. Right on either side of infinity; infinitely cold and void, and infinitely hot and dense. Infinity in the middle. Zero isn’t the middle point on a scale with no end! Zero is only one point on a square. Zero > 1,2,3, > infinity > -3, -2, -1, Zero, etc.
Mass, electric charge, and magnetic charge are all related, so those can easily be removed also.
No, with that I was talking about the opposite of black holes, BECs, being ‘sparked’ into white holes by having matter and anti-matter put together.
I realize you can’t reduce to zero because of heisenberg’s, but when you reduce close enough to zero the atoms phase into a single entity (much like a black hole), and then, when you try to go further, they EXPLODE, and lose mass! Where does this mass go!? Is it converted to energy, or is it ‘tipped’ past infinity and on back around to anti-matter? Once you stop the rotation of something to the point of complete standstill, the only way to make it continue to rotate ‘less’ in it’s original direction, you would reverse it’s rotation. A ball turning clockwise slowed to a standstill would be stopped. It would have zero motion. If it were then rotated in the opposite of it’s original direction, you could say it had ‘negative clockwise’ rotation, or, opposite rotation. Well, a particle of anti-matter has an opposite rotation of a particle of matter. It has a ‘negative clockwise’ rotation, clockwise being atomic rotation. Do you see what I mean now about that?
Consider this: If an atom is fed energy more and more and more and more, it’s rotation may be fast enough that it’s motion would create a ‘movie tire rotation’ effect so that it’s rotation captured during planck time appears opposite of it’s true rotation. If an atom is starved of energy so that its’ rotation becomes zero, then continued to be starved of energy, it would begin to rotate oppositely of it’s original rotation. These points are the two OTHER point needed for a dimensional grid of atomic interactions and curvature.
See, Chronos, it’s simple. Energy application to an atom must be a very precise thing. All elements of interaction must be cushioned to the degree of being removed. Vacuum, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravity, and pressure must all be negated. All power must be removed from the atom by reducing it to a Bose-Einstein condensate. Continue removing power from the condensate until all of it’s atomic mass is removed by dark waveform explosions. Once the mass is cooled to the point where it begins to rotate opposite it’s natural direction, begin pumping anti-matter into the chamber to speed it’s anti-rotation until it begins to plasmate and then condensate. Continue heating the matter as it approaches light speed. When it’s rotation speed exceeds the speed of light - it’s motion duration is faster than it’s sample duration (planck time is the standard sample duration) - it will begin to appear to move in the opposite of it’s true direction. It has again achieved status as matter, and has traveled back in time! At a certain point, often called ‘infinity’, the rate of motion is so fast that all points of mass exist at the same point instantaneously. At this point, it’s rate of motion becomes nonexistant. By achieving a speed higher than can be sampled, you have effectively negated any possible gains from it. Until the amount of motion squares the speed of the time sampling, you are effectively moving out of sync with time. Until your speed returns to a point coincident with shutter speed of the time sample. I believe it would be squares, in that if the shutter were 2mph and you were travelling 4, 8, 16, etc you would be within time but if you were travelling 6, 14, etc. you would usually be in sync with time but not always. One must only exceed c by squares. Otherwise, your efforts will produce a reaction opposite of your intended, in that your atom will appear to cool down as it gains energy because it is now squaring the speed of planck.
To create 100% pure energy from matter, you have two options. For matter, it must be cooled to a BEC and then reacted with anti-matter. For anti-matter, it must be heated to plasma and then reacted with matter. The two must be mixed equally to get 100% energy. Anywhere along the energy ring (energy, vacuum, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravity, pressure) except anywhere on either side of energy will result in whatever % of energy created, and whatever % of byproducts (heat, vacuum, electricity, magnetism, gravity, pressure) were present before will be present in equal, opposite amounts. Therefore 100% energy conversion must take place at absolute zero or infinity pressure, the two being the same. Interesting, eh?
Protons are one sided, numbers are two sided,
I was going to type more, but I’m tired. I’ll work this out tomorrow.
Sorry, Homer, but I’m afraid that most of your previous two posts is, frankly, wrong.
First, anti-matter has been made, stored, and studied. Some things are actually known about it. Anti-matter by itself acts like normal matter except that charges are reversed. When matter and anti-matter interact they release pure energy. ‘Vacuum’ is not a force, nor are most of the others you list by themselves. Heat is caused by thermal motion of molecules, which after several steps can be broken down into the actual four forces that Chronos mentioned.
The strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitic forces operate the same way on antimatter as on matter. Gravity is the weakest force by itself, it just aggregates better.
Protons have mass (1.67262321 x 10^-27 kg) and occupy volume (don’t have a number handy, but they do.) They are certainly not faster than everything else. No proton moves or can be accelerated to the speed of light because that would require infinite energy.
I’m unaware of any meaningful analogies between superfluids and plasma. The phrase ‘Opposite temperature’ is meaningless.
Black holes don’t behave like atoms. Atoms have volume, black holes do not. Temperature is meaningless in reference to a black hole; there is no internal motion.
Infinity is greater than 3 for any meaningful definitions of 3 and infinity.
BEC’s have nothing to do with black holes, nor would their interactions with anti-matter be as radically different than any other form of normal matter as you claim.
The last two paragraphs of your second-to-last post and your most recent post are phrased as statements of fact, but seem to be complete fantasy. This ‘rotation’ you refer to makes no sense in reference to atoms. A single atom can’t even be a BEC- what is condensing?
Sorry, but you shouldn’t phrase such… notions… as fact, and you don’t seem to be reading the responses thus far posted. Why are you making this stuff up?
I realize that the majority of what I’m postin here seems like gibberish and statements of fact that are in fact not fact, but what I was doing was asking questions about physics that I don’t understand or that haven’t been solved, and attempting to create proofs that solve them. I’m sorry I was unclear. I wish I had a 3-D CAD program and was proficient so that I could graph this all for you. That would be so much easier to understand.
Now, understanding that this is all conjecture and theorization, all created on my part. All ideas and concerns raised are my own. I am going to present hypothesis and theories that are non-congruent with the ‘standard model’ of the universe. Okay? Begin.
A basic premise in math is of the one, and the zero. The positive and the negative. However, the universe we live in is four (or more) dimensional, so two-dimensional math is not suited to the understanding of a three dimensional world. This creates a problem, then, when studying a four (or more) dimensional world-model. The dimensions recognized are: (Dimension) 1. The nothing, the zero, the point. (Dimention) 2. The shape, the plane, the line. 3. The thickness, depth, mass. The fourth dimension, which has only recently been recognized as a dimension, is 4. The change, the difference, time.
The problem, however, with conceptualizing time as a dimension is that our math is rooted in three, but recognizing time requires a fourth to calculate.
Okay. Now we have it that there are four dimensions. Because there is a single force (aka power, potential, energy, etc) there must also be two states of the force: off and on (positive/negative, plus/minus, +/-, etc).
So we have power, and two states of power, on or off. One force - energy - is split into two - present/absent - to differentiate between the forces presence and absence. Now we have two states of force. These states of force are acted upon by the four dimensions. Two, then, is doubled to four. Now we have one force - power - split between two states - present/absent - and four dimensions - point, line, plane, time - we must have a method of interaction between the energy, it’s presence or absence, and the dimension of it’s presence or absence. So we have ++, ±, -+, --.
Even if you do not agree with my premise, please follow along.
Normal math begins as such: 1*1=2. Normal math is correct in this respect. Where normal math bogs down is in it’s graphing or accurate figuring of energy potential in four dimensions. Normal math graphs any two positive variables as a vertical riser of X over a horizontal line of Y. X over Y is plotted using a straight line moving at an angle between the two other straight lines, starting at a point, zero, and ending at a point, infinity.
The problem, however, is that X over Y is a four-dimensional problem being resolved on a two-dimensional scale. There exist, as far as I know, no two dimensional possibilities in a four dimensional world. This makes two- or three- dimension based math inappropriate and inherently flawed for use in a three dimensional world.
The obvious solution to this, then, is a four dimensional graph to plot X over Y. This leads to problems, though, because we are unable to directly influence the fourth dimension, time, because we live inside and below it’s influence. We can, however, influence the other three, lower, dimensions because we exist in a higher dimension.
The solution to this problem is the recognizal of it’s basic premise: Four dimensional math cannot be plotted in less than four dimensions. To correct this problem, I have devised a four dimensional model. It is as such: A cross surrounded by a circle. This is it’s two dimensional representation. A three dimensional representation would be a four dimensional moebius strip of infinite length twisted an infinite amount of times and joined to itself in a ring. Having trouble imagining it? Think of the twisted macaroni. It’s extruded in an X shape and twisted. Imagine that twisted back upon itself at 180 degrees so that it’s first set of plains doubles back upon itself, becomes it’s second set, and then it’s third, then fourth, then back to first again. I wish I had a chart or picture to show you.
Using a graph such as this, we make zero the entirety of it’s outer edge, the circle, and infinity the middle of the graph where the two straight lines join. Alternatively, we can make infinity the outer circle and zero the inner point. It does not matter because of the duality of the two (zero and infinity) the math can be accurately and correctly done regardless of the designation of it’s inner and outer points.
Okay! Now we can plot all four dimensions on the same graph! The problem now is the straightness of the lines. Nature has shown us that even the straightest path is unspeakably curved. Straight lines exist only in two dimensions. In three dimensions, they are curved by mass, and in four dimensions, they are curved by time.
Since we can plot normally, we will orient the graph facing us and consider zero the center point of the graph. The four dimension graph, when viewed in three, can be labeled in degrees like a normal graph. 0 degrees is the horizontal, rightmost line. 90 is the upwards line, 180 the leftmost, and 270 the downwards line. Normal math can be done this way. The quad from 0* to 90* is ++. From 90*-180*, -+. From 180*-270*, --. And from 270*-0*, ±. ++ is normal numbers. -+ is a number of opposite influence (negative number) but of the same value. – is a number of negative influence and negative value. ± is of positive influence but negative value. Do we notice a correlation between this; math, and the previous set, physics, with the same characteristics?
The only problem with this is that starting at zero and plotting is that it must be done with straight lines. As we learned earlier, straight lines do not exist except in a two-dimensional world. The line we plot must be curved and straight at the same time. The reason for this is that by definition a line is straight, so it must be. But we do not live in a two dimensional world, so it cannot. This is where the ‘new’ graph comes in. As we plot the line, we plot it’s points at X, Y, and Z. This is done using the standard, three dimensional, ‘bull’s-eye’ graph. Now, to plot it’s position in the fourth dimension, we rotate the graph slightly, and using the same beginning points along the new axis, plot it’s XYZ over T. This line will look like a wave-form when plotted straight on, just as the X-Y-Z coordinates, at all points, looked straight. However, when combining the two, we gain a slowly spiraling helix along the quad-helix graph.
Proof: Choose values for X, Y, Z that result in a straight line. [X=1, Y=1, Z=1], [X=4, Y=4, Z=4], [X=6, Y=6, Z=6]. Graph the same points in all four directions (++, -+, --, ±) Now choose a sampling value for T equal to the values chosen for the other three points. Graph the points on three dimensional graphs, then graph the points in CAD using the same values for T. You now have the beginnings of a quad helix.
We don’t see this helix-structure, however, until we reach infinity and return to zero. Quite easy to do on a CAD program, simply choose any number as your final point then twist the shape into a circle and twist it 180* before connecting it back upon itself. This is impossible with standard math, because infinity continues to move away from zero like the two are the ‘endcaps’ of math. This is not true, zero/infinity is simply the rotation point of math. Instead of negative infinity decreasing to zero and then growing to positive infinity, negative infinity decreases to zero, increases to positive infinity, again reaches zero, and decreases to negative infinity again where it continues. It is hard to define zero and infinity as the same, wherein they are actually complete opposites while at the same time are completely similar. This polarity is because of their duality. Zero is at the same time the complete absence of power, yet is 100% potential, infinity is the complete absence of nothing, and represents 0% potential. Zero has 100% potential because anything can be added to it. Infinity has 0% potential because nothing can be added to it. However, Zero has 0% potential because it posesses nothing, and infinity has 100% potential because it posseses anything. These two have the same characteristics, but opposite effects. Do you see now? Zero is the complete absence of energy, it is completely off. Infinity is the complete presence of energy, it is completely on. However, zero is the complete presence of potential, it is completely off, and infinity is the complete presence of potential, it is completely on.
This is why we have Heisenberg’s principal. We cannot have all of something or we have nothing. If we have all the information gleaned from an object, there is no reason to have the object because we have all the information from it. Therefore, the presence of the object is irrelevant. However, without the presence of the object, the information about it is irrelevant. With the loss of both the object and it’s information, either of the two again become relevant. If we have the object, we can again gain the information. If we have the information, we can recreate the object. See? And again, we find the four dimensions of being. ++ (presence of the object and the information), -+ (absence of the object and presence of the information), – (absence of the object and the information), and ± (presence of the object and absence of the information).
We consume mass for energy constantly, but we do not do it at 100% efficiency. Our byproducts of creating energy are, understandably, forms of energy, otherwise known as energy’s reactions to it’s surroundings. Heat, pressure, friction, etc are all energy’s reaction to it’s surroundings. The reactions of energy to it’s surroundings are a function of the four dimensions: point, plane, object, time. Therefore, energy’s reactions to it’s surroundings creates forces that act upon it’s surroundings at all points. To act on all points, however, requires infinite energy, and infinite mass. Neither of which we have, of course, because if we somehow were able to obtain the infinite, the presence of them would become irrelevant because if we had the infinites of the required forces, we have not only expounded an infinite amount of energy to obtain them, we’ve converted them to energy and used them upon themselves in doing so. See the loop in three dimensional math?
However, in four dimensional math, we have our eight (I conjecture) forces acting upon our four dimensions. These are the result of power (initially the one single being) reacting to the
No, see, gravity is the name given to the force at the point. It’s not a ‘different’ force, it’s just the same force along a different axis than you’re used to.
I apologize for the mixup. I meant photons.
I apologize for the misunderstanding, again this was my not being clear.
I will respond to further inquiries later. I’ve run out of time and the computer lab is ready to close.
Sorry. I got interrupted by the computer lab closing.
These are forces (one force, really, just different appearances at different points) are the result of the energy reacting to the dimensions. I conjecture that they are (—), (–+), (-±), (-++), (±-), (±+), (+±), (+++). The forces are work in reverse of their opposite and are complimentary to their non-opposite, like a color-wheel. I also conjecture that the methods of transferring energy are involved somehow, radiant, convective, and conductive.
Vacuum, electricity, magnetism, gravity
Heat, friction, pressure, atomic radiation
These forces strengths are based on their position on the time/space graph in relation to the zero point of the scale. That is to say, the force presently closest to your zero point is the strongest, and the force closest to infinity on your graph is the weakest. The ‘negative’ forces farthest from your zero point are the strongest, and closest to your zero point the weakest. The ‘negative’ forces (remember, they are negative only because of their relation to the zero point, not because of an inherent negative value)
The interaction of these forces attempt to create and maintain stability but are thwarted by another dimension: information. That is, a particle posessing information about other particles. Posession of information allows for interaction and interaction leads to interference. AHH! I wish I had a CAD program to chart this all!
This means that a particle will act in a predictable manner when placed at a given point on the graph, if the value of the particle, and it’s relationship to the graph, are know. That is to say, the particle is unpredictable if we do not know either 1, it’s value (or location), or 2, where along the graph we are placing it in relation to the forces.
The juncture, or change-point, of these forces is predictable in relation to c. We must use c as infinity and the number directly below one as zero to maintain an acceptable reference. Infinity and zero are not set points, but alter dependant on the particle upon which they are acting, which means zero and infinity are different for each atomic or sub-atomic particle. HOWEVER, our scale is based on photonic speed, so we maintain c as our reference point.
We can see these junctions naturally. BEC > solid > liquid > gas > plasma; at each point between each state is the juncture of the force interaction. However, because of Heisenberg’s, we cannot exactly determine the point of transition, in fact, there may not be a point of transition but a phase, or point over time, of transition.
I mention the BEC and plasma priorly as two opposing, yet identical, states, just like zero and infinity. The reason for this is the point between BEC-cold and plasma-hot is zero/infinity for all atomic particles seen on a photonic-based scale. On different scales, different transition points may be considered zero or infinity.
Sorry, I’ve run out of time again, I’ll try to finish this at some point. Hope I don’t sound TOO crazy with all this.
Anyway, I was just thinking of using magnetic rings accelerated to near the speed of light to twist space into itself. Instantaneous transfer. It doesn’t exceed light speed, it sidesteps it.