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 | +-------------------------------------------------------+--------+