Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site prometheus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: White Holes?
Message-ID: <167@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 06:51:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: promethe.167
Posted: Tue Aug 20 06:51:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 05:51:39 EDT
References: <3656@decwrl.UUCP> <166@prometheus.UUCP> <490@talcott.UUCP>
Organization: Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD
Lines: 98


> Modern physics has lots of theories about these questions {the 
> nature of physical universe}, some of them proven to higher degrees 
> of accuracy than others. None of them promise to be 'the final 
> theory' of the universe.

That was b. k.    (before Koloc) :-)
Precise accuracy is secondary to being comprehensive and coherent.

> Your remark about QM and discrete time strikes me as odd.
> Your remark about QM and discrete space strikes me as even odder.

By the way didn't mention Quantum Mechanics.  Matter certainly isn't
continuous, consider the atomic theory, and I believe that the theory
was "invented" before it could be directly verified by electric field
microscope.  Particles aren't points.  They have a "delta function"
over a discrete distribution width in space, and if there is an 
symmetry then there is a "delta function distribution" in time as well. 
That implies framing. Of course, if the framing rate (~10**25/sec) 
is fast enough, time "looks" very nearly continuous.   Seems 1+1=2 to me, 
therefore. not so odd :-) 

> What tells you, by the way,
> that you can't store infinite amounts of data in a limited space,

Well, I tried to print the New York times on a neutron and gave up
because I wasn't able to get my pencil sharp enough.    :-) 

> and by what means can you infer from that that space is organized
> as a lattice? Unless you have a better argument than you presented
> in your posting, I would be extremely careful in making such statements.

Huh?  I didn't say and I didn't intend to imply anything related 
to a "lattice".  In fact, quite the contrary.

> Finally, the object of physics simply cannot be to find out the
> 'cause' for the existence of the universe. By definition, the creation
> of the universe took place outside the realm of the physical laws that 
> govern our universe. Therefore, physics is just not applicable to
> what happened before the universe existed.

Nonsense! Physics will go where ever the search for the nature of matter
takes it.  What more exciting place than that state it existed in before
it was released into 3 space manifold and took on the its material form.  
My guess is that some formulations of physics could be made which would
be applicable both to the matter of three space and the herein proposed 
hypo- matter of two space.  Maybe micro chunks of hypo-matter are still 
"decaying" into matter and thereby generating the phenomena we observe as 
quasars.  That's not quite as spectacular as "the big bang" but it's still 
pretty impressive. 

> Another way of stating the above is that any physical theory must
> be testable. A theory of the creation of the universe is not
> testable or verifiable.  ..  . . physics does not give final answers

Why not??  ?  I'm sure that we could get the defense department to fund
an experiment to locally decay a micro chunk of hypo-matter but if
we did it would be hazardous to our health, as according to one theory
of Sagan, it has been for thousands of previously existing intelligent
more technologically developed life in our universe.  If hypo space 
exists and if our space is grainy and point wise not continuous, then 
it should be possible to "test" the theory in the following way.  Since 
we live one the three space "side of the tracks" we can't observe 
hypo-matter.  (this stuff doesn't have volume).  However, if our matter 
was previously hypo-matter then we might be able to cause a chunk of
"matter" to be put back into the "hypo matter" state.  

Now that would be a test, because we could demonstrate that the effected
matter would "vanish".  Of course, that's a no no.  How can this be done?
Glad you asked! Accelerate the matter to the speed of light.  But, the 
theory says that before that happens the matter will become contracted 
so much that it will "slip between the grains" and our transitioned
matter can't interact with it.  It would essentially become so "thin" 
that it would "jump" to two space.  (A quantum jump, of course!)

Now if space is point wise continuous then it can't "fall through the
fingers" and transitioned matter would not disappear.   BUT for all you 
sci-fi fans, if it DOES jump then we have a  little problem ..  . the
problem  ..  . . is   that    hypo-space   might "tear"  and dump some 
hypo-matter on us, which as it generates a "white hole" and transforms 
into matter, transforming us into a supernova fragment. 

> But physics is also not a religion or a philosophy. 
> Physics can not tell you .. . *how* the universe was created.. .

Physics is a natural philosophy (and occasionally is catachismic).  What
are they teaching you up there at Harvard??  The Bible says God made 
the world and with a little help and a lot of work physics will tell 
us how.   Gosh, you mean we're NOT the center of the universe!

                             Aw Shucks! 

       -   -   NOTE: MAIL PATH MAY DIFFER FROM HEADER  -   -
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075              | FUSION |
| Prometheus II Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222       |  this  |
|  ..umcp-cs!seismo!prometheus!pmk.UUCP                 | decade |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------+