The End of Time

Dear John, dear physicists,

I am a bit disappointed because I cannot see how the discussion relates to the article. Also, I did not get responses to my direct questions e.g. to DLB, RLO and concerning Hubble.

In principle, I share your critical view. What about particles and waves, I would like like to know from physicists to what extent my naive engineer's wave view needs corrections.

May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how.

Doesn't a field similar to the the transversal field of a dipole antenna extend symmetrical or anti-symmetrical to the left and the right half-sphere? May I imagine these two halves entangled? May I consider PET based on such pairs?

Couldn't I conclude from such coherence that decoherence is a phenomenon that cannot be ascribed to the single pair of particles but to interaction with its surrounding molecules?

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I'm not the best qualified to answer. I do think the conceptual structure will have to change though. I think the idea of coherence vs. decoherence might also be considered in terms of linearity, vs non-linearity. Linearity is energy in the sense that lines of force/coherence line up, while decoherence is mass, where they all lock up and stabilize.

Hello dear friends.

John, you see he doesn't change, "Science is an entirely rationalist enterprise" you are surprising Tom, but don't change ,Lol he rebegins Tom, John you see he rebegins :)

re :)

Friendly

Steve and SPHERICALLY YOURS OF COURSE

Hi all,

Dear Eckard, Happy to see your posts. I speak a little on APS linkedin, there are several interstings articles. With a person I discussed about the climat. Could you come on Aps please or could you say me why the simulations utilize a system incompressible as liquid and the mathematical serie is correlated at this incompressiblility. It's not possible in this line of reasoning to simulate correctly the chaotics parameters. I have some ideas but that seems so difficult and complexs for the encoding of mass and then the encoding of all rotations.But in logic we can predict but we are youngs also at the universal scale,I said on APS it's for the future.

"May I translate spin-up and spin-down into the two opposed to each other polarization or circular polarization with left and right chirality? If so then how." SPINING SPHERES ALWAYS dear Eckard lol

It could be cool if you come on APS linkedin also.

Regards

Steve

Dear John, Eckard, and Steve

A photon is a particle elementary of the Nature. The Photon is the lightest/smallest particle type, which every thing (whole universe matter) is made of. And the Light is its effect (gravitational force interaction).

Terminology confusion;

The term "Atom" which we still use, had meaning of the Natures fundamental particle as the word origin was 'indivisible" and latter became divisible for several time and still seems to be

The term of "elementary particles", is still in a situation of undetermined stage, which may give bit confusing meanings.

I have been facing problem with terms, and realized that, we should be always aware with the change of term, time to time and its usage in different fields (even the native one).

What I means is that from the beginning (just after Big Bang moment) there was only extremely large number free photons (elementary particles) latter they clustered into bigger spheres due to gravitational force, and these resulted bigger spheres clustered also into bigger spheres and .... The phenomenon of the Gravitational force at this chain of clusters seems now to be scalar. In other words photons Gravitational force (influence) is what we know as Light and it is the smallest scale of the G force, and its also a mirror image the effect that a photon may have

There is something like "kissing spheres" at initial moment of each spherical clustering. One may also think that this spherical Lattice-like may be two forms, namely "Body Centered" (BC) and "Face Centered" (FC) due the quantity of sphere kissing initial moment. Note that some numerical characteristics here such us Odd and Even numbers of spheres, Charged and Neutral because of number of clustered photons.

The elementary particle is that which responses the elementary charge and that is the photon. Since Light is (Gravitational) wave the photons/particle can interact by influencing. In general the overall particles interactions in both statically and dynamically creates complex systems

I think the best way to get a good insight is to ask; What combinations/sequence are possible if one throw large number spherical and homogeneous balls that have attracting force at empty free space?.

Eckard

the attachment is some previous question I have tried. I think there is something relevant to your question think your question under the title "charge and the Nature of Gravity" If not, we will take a closer look and descuss.

best wishes

BashirAttachment #1: 1_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

Steve,

Tom does have a tendency to reset, but at least he is willing to walk up to the edge. He may not want to take off the blinkers, but he does have heart.

Lol I am laughing of course, I like them you know, Lawrence, Tom and Ray even if I don't agree with some of their conclusions. I recognize that they are simply skillings and that they like sciences and that they like what they do simply,I respect that, I am just a little baby sometimes :)

Surprising this platform, surprising.

Steve

John,

Regarding the question particle and the duality, there also an ariticle that is realated this case,(attached file) and entitled;

"Einstein's Hidden Variables: Part A - The Elementary Quantum of Light and Quantum Chemistry" J. Brooks

In page 3 the following statement;

E = hv where Planck's proportionality constant "h" is equal to 6.626 X 10-34 J sec. This fundamental formula is the foundational basis for all of quantum theory. Interestingly, Planck simply assumed this formula and did not derive or prove it. His arbitrary quantum formula yielded a proportionality constant ("h") equal to the product of energy and time, which Planck referred to as the ultimate "quantum of action".

."I see no reason why energy shouldn't also be regarded as divided atomically." L. Boltzmann, 1891,

"it is quite conceivable...that the [wave] theory of light...leads to contradictions when applied to the phenomena of emission and transformation of light". He proposed that the interactions of light and matter "appear more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is discontinuously distributed in space [in particles]". Albert Einstein.

In page 4...

In 1922, Louis-Victor de Broglie proposed that light waves possess momentum (just like particles), and that particles are "waves" with measurable wavelengths.

What I wonder is the conceptual meaning of which De Broglie proposed, in Physical Reality, How particles can be Wave? could one explain such terminology,in a better form?

Best wishes

Bashir

John,

Here is the attachment.

Have a fun,

Bashir

John,

I appologize that the file was too large to upload. Now you can download from this URL instead;

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/brooks_einstein.pdf

Have a fun,

Bashir.

Bashir,

I did read through it, but haven't had the time to fully unravel the relationships. Eventually the relationships between the attraction of gravity and the expansion of light will be better understood. My problem isn't with the basic science, but the flights of fancy which have grown up in the gaps in our knowledge.

Hi Bashir,

Happy to see you on the blogs and forums, it's cool that.

I read your post and as you know I like spheres. Logic lol that said, i have a question? do you consider a photon as a single particle or a entanglement ?

ps after the BB .....first fractalization of the main sphere with a pure finite number and a serie of correlated volumes ...implying a finite serie of spheres(a photon in logic Bashir and then it's not a single particle) after this step it's a multiplication in my line of reasoning of this ultim entanglement and its number, finite implying in a simplistic vue the space.after the rotations make the rest and permit to differenciate hv and mass but they have the same quantic number in my line of reasoning. What do you think Bashir? and what is this number(it's my headache that lol all days i search a serie to calculate this number the same for hv, m and the cosmological number of spheres(moons,stars, planets, BH....and the UNIVERSAL CENTER the serie you see Bashir id between 1 and 1 but between wawww it's the rock and roll of sciences jimmy hendrix and led zep in the physics lol?

Regards

steve

Steve,

You might say nature is laughing as well.

And nature always has the last laugh.

Blinders are a good analogy for applying scientific method to one's view of how nature works.

As opposed to thinking and acting with the caprice of a dilettante.

Tom

Dear Bashir,

My theory of spherization is always copied , that becomes ironic, many people wants my recognizing. I am tired by all that. The sphere theory there, a new model of spheres here, and others still there, oh my god, and all that for what? the vanity, the monney, I become crazzy.It's irriting and frsutrating. Already that in belgium people stole me , and that continues, it's crazzy. What a world. Have you seen on net. It's incredible the human nature.Sad and bizare. I become crazzy.

Even in Belgium people doesn't respect me and steal me.

Steve

I don't say that for you but on the net, that becomes bizare.

Regards

Steve

Always dear John, with or without our approvement. Indeed the natural evolutuion is specific.

The caprices of sciences seem lost in an ocean of opulences and ironies.

Steve

Returning for a moment to the substance of this article, I must admit to being totally baffled/puzzled by one statement made in the article.

"Because the expanding bubble that we call home is embedded in a finite universe, there is a limit on the number of different configurations it might have, says Lowe. Like a Rubik's Cube, it can only be arranged and rearranged so many ways before it begins to repeat. In 50 billion years or so--just a few multiples of the current age of the universe--the number of options open to our bubble may dwindle so far that 'things would break down into some kind of quantum pixels,' Lowe says."

If I'm reading this correctly (and the fact that no one else has raised this point leads me to suspect that I'm not) Lowe is suggesting that there may be no more than three or four conceivable ways for the configuration of the approximately 10^80 or so atoms in the universe to unfold/evolve? This comes across at first blush as constituting a deplorable failure of imagination! What am I failing to understand here?

J.C.N. Smith,

The wording of the phrase: "In 50 billion years or so--just a few multiples of the current age of the universe--the number of options open to our bubble may dwindle so far that 'things would break down into some kind of quantum pixels" is rather poor. The term "our bubble" will be essentially meaningless then, since: "By then, cosmic expansion will have overcome the gravitational and electrostatic forces that bind our everyday world together, and the subatomic particles that used to be you will be scattered across the universe, terminally out of touch with each other".

The article is referring to the concept (in the Standard Model of Cosmology) of the reduction of information available to observers in the distant future of a universe undergoing accelerated expansion. Since each subatomic particle will be "terminally out of touch with each other", they will each reside in their own cosmic bubble, i.e. universe. The number of configurations of these future bubbles is a problem for a complete theory of QG or TOE, but undoubtably are very much limited compared to the number of configurations available to the currently observed universe.

Dan