An Elephant in the Room by Don Limuti

Hello Helmut,

Thanks for your question, it is getting at core issues for physics. In my opinion the issue is the math-physics boundary

You are convinced, that velocity v = Delta_x/Delta_t is valid from v = 0 until v = oo without any exception or gaps.

This is entirely correct from the viewpoint of mathematics. Sure, make Delta_x =1 and Delta_t =0, the result will be infinity. Mathematics has no problem with this, however it is not reasonable physics. Why is it not reasonable physics? I will give you a challenge, find an event you can measure with a Delta_t = 0.

And sure you can find numbers that will make the velocity "smooth". But those numbers are mathematical and not obtained from physical measurements.

If you believe the math is the physics, you are stuck with your position (along with many members of this forum).

This is the problem I went after in "An Elephant in the Room". The equation for mass increase is "perfect" mathematically. Too bad the physical universe does not go along and shows it to be goofy. The remedy is easy once it is realized the equation has limits.

I hope this makes sense.

Let me know.

Thanks,

Don L.

Don,

What if you can somehow reduce or eliminate the mass of the medium you are traveling through?

Jim

Again read Wilczek http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361

"In the strong system of units no square roots

at all appear in [M], [L], [T ].

The philosophical significance of a complete set of units, is that it allows us to express any fundamental constant as a pure number. According to the ideal of theoretical physics expressed by Einstein

I would like to state a theorem which at present can not be based upon anything more than upon a faith in the simplicity, i.e., intelligibility, of nature: there are no arbitrary constants ... that is to say, nature is so constituted that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only rationally completely determined constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical value could be changed without destroying the theory)."

Don,

You seem to have dug up the missing math. It looks like something that should make the finals, so you get my ten.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Don,

Please don't forget please impartially evaluate my essay

John Baez? I think he left the sinking ship a few years ago:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Baez is a very cautious Einsteinian - he will tell you nothing that can threaten Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

John Baez: "You can see that I did not assert anything about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Don,

I remember "making time with pretty girls and hot stoves". With time being a particular interest of mine it had immediate relevance in my mind to my own interests. This essay I have read previously and had to come back to.

While it makes sense to me that there may well be a limit to velocity that can be achieved before getting to c ,I thought that the issue was one of inertia. IE that the resistance to acceleration would exceed the force that could be applied to give further acceleration, so preventing achievement of the theoretical limit. It makes sense to me in this way - there is environmental resistance to change of universal trajectory and the bigger the change the bigger the resistance to it. Overcoming that would be a question of altering the environment in the vicinity of the object, to decrease resistance. An analogy might be an air hockey puck which is free to move when the friction with the external environment is reduced.

I admire the very clear way in which you have set out your argument, the large type is a relief, the diagrams and tables very nice. I don't see how this explanation really solves any problems.I see you are suggesting another theoretical limitation and the clear relevance to the essay question, if it is assumed that reaching c is regarded as possible. Perhaps I am just not recognising the relevance of "the elephant" so am not bothered by it- but should be.

Good luck and kind regards Georgina.

Dear Don,

Sorry that it took so long to respond to you on the questions you posed on my thread.

We both agree that the Planck length is the minimum length in our causal universe, and in reference to "the reference of refernces" perhaps this length and time are the reference (beyond our consciousness). The length can be expressed in meters, yards of smurfs, it is the same one.

There is one problem I did not touch however, when a "unit" with a Planck length is moving at c relative to you, whet happens ? Since it is the minimum length it cannot shorten without entering the what I called Total Simultaneity, the other dimension where every possibillity is a probability available for our consciousness. So it leaves our causal reality.

Now for your photons : You indicate that they have "mass", but as far as I know they do not, thus how is that with your other formula's (ps I am bad with formula's but your text was very clear and even I understood them).

I should like to finish with the sentence of Descartes :

"COGTO ERGO SUM"

this in fact is the reference of my essay, and if the elephant in the room is thinking or has a consciousness he "IS", and then can interfere with our consciousness, the only thing the elephant has to do is grow beyond the Planck scale.

I hope to see your comments on my thread again.

best regards

Wilhelmus

PS I gave you a high rating, it is a good essay.

sorry it is :

COGITO ERGO SUM

Dear Don ;

"What is a thought that a man may know it"

experience = awareness = conscious

to know can be divided in :

a. understand and being aware

b. not understand but being aware

c. almost understand with all the grades inbetween and being aware

d. believe

A thought is:

1. the result of data received (experiences) in the past on your SSS.

2. the result of data received by your consciousness direct from TS. (here the thought can be the cause of an event, of a future experience)

3. a causal process taking place in our causal deterministic universe, but this process can be influenced (see 2) by different non-causal data. (alpha-probabilities).

If you are not aware of a thought that means that you don't "know" the thought, however it exists as probability of future and also past alpha-probabilities in TS, so it is possible that "all of a sudden" you become aware of a thought you thought you would never be able to think.

What people call "BELIEF" is the total of unknown awareness (thoughts) that are "available" in TS, but humans in tha causal universe cannot explain them in the reductionist materialistic way, they "emerge".

This is just the beginning of the thought.

It is a good way that we answer each other on our threads because I gat a message when there is a new post, I think you too.

I hope to continue this fruitfull communication.

Wilhelmus

Don

Yes I am 'that' Peter Jackson, but unlike some I don't mind communicating with ordinary people. Tell your young friend to keep our communications, then when he is our age and we are legend he has the stuff for a best seller.

I think the limit effects on mass are already visible, at the 'optical breakdown limit' and in Cherenkov radiation.

Yes, ever more herds of them roaming the sparse plains of physics, and their giant invisible cousins hiding in every room.

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Don. This is great stuff. I am certainly no doctor of anything but I do have an upward IQ and a great love for the mysteries of the universe. I have no qualifications but I have some strong convictions on what exactly gravity is. I've been studying gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, space-time and and many many other related subjects in an attempt to fully grasp these ideas so that I can eventually make a meaningful contribution in unification or at least gravitation. In the course of my studies I came to the subject of the Planck Length and many of my ideas suddenly made a little more sense to me. One idea I've been kicking around is that space is not a void but a solid 'mass' of, well, massless somethings that can be displaced and agitated and that light is possibly visible to us because it is disturbing this strata. Also I have been wondering today if perhaps photons DO have mass, but that mass is below a Planck threshold, therefore irrelevant in the real universe. Anyway, I was asking Google about these questions and was directed to this page along with Loop Quantum Gravity, which is almost precisely the same idea I had. Great stuff! Your words have encouraged me to continue learning, because I feel that while I am behind in qualification there are people like you out there that think like I do. Hopefully I will soon be able to fully comprehend all the math formulas and have more to say. I like your idea very much right now, even if that isn't much of a compliment coming from me. Best wishes to you.