i'm not sure if I explained myself very well in the last post.
For a moment we'll just consider the singular particle.
   a singular useage of quanta fit's better than random quanta popping in and out.The point in space will already have a lot of holes punched in it by light sized particles to a fairly even consistency. when mass comes along the available energy will also be consistent.the difference will have to do with the breaks put on it by it's overall mass verses it's density and there fore how that affects it's ability to move.
  In this we are considering the "pixels" as a given medium that the planet is not moving through , but is made of . The "image" of reality can only remain If it is viewed like a net. The net moves through the water , giving a full impression , but is only full while it keeps a certain motion.

Perhaps the "net " is magnetism. I hadn't considered that.

   The question of time comes after the universe has been filled because a singular particle cannot move through space.It almost needs us to see it all backwards. If the universe had an even distribution and began to compress, then matter can be an overlapping of size over energy. the sweeping up of the pixels still makes sense and the background radiation is the redidue which was not used in the formation of matter.
it actuall requires as greater number of unused pixels to be left at the edges. (did I say edges)but the greater the number of pixels , the less reactive the energy will be. the reaction will be at the centre where the most usage is taking place.

So anyway. The placing of the energy is in no way related to the harnassing in what we see today. They have no relation as time events. The usage however is where we get our reality

Iseason

-

Quote :

Iseason wrote : Hi zee,  I took a look at winkipedia to be sure of the terminologies.   i have drawn back a little from my original forthrighteness in describing what "happened" and in what order.This seems too open to arguement that 'we really couldn't know'.   What I have looked at instead is that the particle "occurance" dictates the ability for reality to exist at all. This is a limited resource which can only occur once.   For instance , If I say that the particle was everywhere at once, I cannot then argue that it was there again without presenting an arguement which requires an infinite loop.   So without trying too hard to show how we got from the start in a continious theory, I would prefer to show how it is a possible occurance.   If each pixel can be used up by matter "existing by it's virtue" , then it follows that a mass must change position in space in order to keep reality. This is the same action as the usage of any finite resource.      this makes the original state in which the particle existed and the current reality two opposing states, but means that  uneven can exist within an even distribution of the same energy. If a mass passes through a point in space there must be usage of the pixels and a resudue of pixels left undisturbed. This will give both anisotropic and isotropic areas depending on the mass retaining it's reality.    There is no difference between this and a body of water having differing temperatures. It's still water. But the phases in the waters state are differing.    it explains the evenness of orbiting planets, and motion in general. The mass is replenished according to occurrence of the planet.also greater speed means that a mass will encounter more occurances of the pixels.    This is obvious in centrifugal forces where the g forces are felt more at the edges where the same mass/ density passes through a differing number of pixels. Cheers Iseason

Hi Ise ....


That was A CRACKING post ! [ ...especially that bit: quote "that the particle "occurance" dictates the ability for reality to exist at all. " end-quote.] ..




rock-solid thinking ......

saucer








-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-04 09:16:23 --

Thanks Saucer
That means a lot to me as you know.
Actually , I'm so glad I discovered causality here. It seems the most credible was to look for 'energy'. However, I think it ends up complicated if you follow it too closely, and you can fall into the trap of inventing 'probabilities' instead of possibilities.
  What I am trying to show is that it is possible that it occurred in this fashion. The reason for this is that the theory allows for ANYTHING to be possible. So probabilities become totally redundant. trying to follow a pathway from a single particle and making it "behave" in a fashion , opens it up to every concievable arguement for and against being true.

  However if I say that because the state existed , and our reality exists , there must be reasonable assumptions as to the overall behaviour of the particle.Since it cannot move, (through What)changing states once is akin to being in two places at once or "everywhere at once".
  Because there is a varience. It is the "space between states " which becomes the energy or speed of the particle.
  The reality in which we live is simply , as I say, looking at both ends of the event at a certain stage of the change.

Cheers
Iseason

quote:    
      trying to follow a pathway from a single particle and making it "behave" in a fashion , opens it up to every concievable arguement for and against being true.
-unquote





Hi Iseas,

..Though; its a basic method by which, to reach somewhere "diagonal path, or diagnostic root!" (....another Arguement.) zee          

ok Zee.
i'm game!. please broaden your last statement.

cheers
Iseason

I, suppose Iseas
that what I mean IS; Life in many ways is like "an extended-laboratory." Though, the problem with this " lab" is, that there is only 1 synchrotron in the entire "lab!" A problem where many many synchrotrons are NEEDED, for any work to "get-done!"
In essence, there will go on being: "..so many conceivable arguements" to follow a pathway from a single particle, ( my point..)

In the prescribed "laboratory" that DOS N'T MEAN we should fill our "lab" with the "entire-universe..." but, rather WE as sentients (and a mind..) will have to PLAN our "lab-experiments" (..a little..)~ Being ..just that little bit more selective, in our search. zee




   

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-04 09:16:57 --

hmmmmm!

Are you saying checking how single particle affects or could explain individual behaviours . Or are you describing scientific methodology.

I know if I can take the particle past the first causality that it can do anything. That's ending up the catch here.Everything else is illusiunary.It would be much better to cheat a little and 'give ' myself "space" to work in.

The only way I can see to do that is to have the particle continually catching up with itself.What's the curvature math of space. can we factor that in somewhere?

Cheers
Iseason

The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of ten equations in Einstein's theory of general relativity in which the fundamental force of gravitation is described as a curved spacetime caused by matter and energy.




The constant κ (kappa) is called the Einstein constant (of gravitation), where π (pi) is Archimedes' constant, G the gravitational constant and c the speed of light.




;;;


an equivalent formulation:






;;;



Solutions of the Einstein field equations~

The solutions of the Einstein field equations are metrics of spacetime. The solutions are hence often called 'metrics'. These metrics describe the structure of the spacetime including the inertial motion of objects in the spacetime. As the field equations are non-linear, they cannot always be completely solved (i.e. without making approximations). For example, there is no known complete solution for a spacetime with two massive bodies in it (which is a theoretical model of a binary star system, for example). However, approximations are usually made in these cases. These are commonly referred to as post-Newtonian approximations. Even so, there are numerous cases where the field equations have been solved completely, and those are called exact solutions.

The study of exact solutions of Einstein's field equations is one of the activities of cosmology. It leads to the prediction of black holes and to different models of evolution of the universe.

zee


:  

--Last edited by zee on 2007-04-09 08:20:56 --

Iseas~

you may look at some of the contents of this science-book (below) I noticed ( if you can find a free complete ebook copy, of it.):






Wolf, Spaces of Constant Curvature
5th ed.   xviii + 412 pages.   Clothbound.  1999





This is the standard reference, by one of the major contributors to the field.

Contents:  

Part I    Riemannian Geometry
    1.1  Differentiable manifolds
    1.2  Vector fields
    1.3  Differential forms
    1.4  Maps
    1.5  Lie groups
    1.6  The frame bundle: parallelism and geodesics
    1.7  Curvature, torsion and the structure equations
    1.8  Covering spaces
    1.9  The Cartan-Ambrose-Hicks Theorem

2. Riemannian Curvature
    2.1  The Levi-Cività connections
    2.2  Sectional curvature
    2.3  Isometries and curvature
    2.4  Models for spaces of constant curvature
    2.5  The 2-dimensional space forms
    2.6  Finite rotation groups
    2.7  Homogeneous space forms
    2.8  Appendix: The metric space structure of a riemannian manifold

Part II    The Euclidean Space Form Problem

3. Flat Riemannian Manifolds
    3.1  Discontinuous groups on euclidean space
    3.2  The Bieberbach Theorems on crystallographic groups
    3.3  Application to euclidean space forms
    3.4  Questions of holonomy
    3.5  Three dimensional euclidean space forms
    3.6 Three attacks on the classification problem for flat compact manifolds
    3.7  Flat homogeneous pseudo-riemannian manifolds

Part III    The Spherical Space Form Problem

4. Representations of Finite Groups
    4.1  Basic definitions
    4.2  The Frobenius-Schur relations
    4.3  Frobenius reciprocity and the group algebra
    4.4  Divisibility
    4.5  Tensor products and dual representations
    4.6  Two lemmas on representations over algebraically non-closed fields
    4.7  Unitary and orthogonal representations

5. Vincent's Work on the Spherical Space Form Problem
    5.1  Vincent's program
    5.2  Preliminaries on p-groups
    5.3  Necessary conditions on fixed point free groups
    5.4  Classification of the simplest type of fixed point free groups
    5.5  Representations of finite groups in which every Sylow subgroup is cyclic
    5.6  A partial solution to the spherical space form problem

6. The Classification of Fixed Point Free Groups
    6.1  Zassenhaus' work on solvable groups with cyclic odd Sylow subgroups
    6.2  The binary icosahedral group
    6.3  Non-solvable fixed point free groups

7. The Solution to the Spherical Space Form Problem
    7.1  Representations of binary polyhedral groups
    7.2  Fixed point free complex representations
    7.3  The action of automorphisms on representations
    7.4  The classification of spherical space forms
    7.5  Spherical space forms of low dimension
    7.6  Clifford translations

Part IV    Space Form Problems on Symmetric Spaces

8. Riemannian Symmetric Spaces
    8.1  Lie formulation of locally symmetric spaces
    8.2  Structure of orthogonal involutive Lie algebras
    8.3  Globally symmetric spaces and orthogonal involutive Lie algebras
    8.4  Curvature
    8.5  Cohomology
    8.6  Cartan subalgebras, rank and maximal tori
    8.7  Hermitian symmetric spaces
    8.8  The full group of isometries
    8.9  Extended Schläfli-Dynkin diagrams
   8.10  Subgroups of maximal rank
   8.11  The classification of symmetric spaces
   8.12  Two point homogeneous spaces
   8.13  Appendix: Manifolds with irreducible linear isotropy group

9. Space Forms of Irreducible Symmetric Spaces
    9.1  Feasibility of space form problems
    9.2  Grassmann manifolds as symmetric spaces
    9.3  Grassmann manifolds of even dimension
    9.4  Grassmann manifolds of odd dimension
    9.5  Symmetric spaces of positive characteristic
    9.6  An isolated manifold

10. Locally Symmetric Spaces of Non-negative Curvature
   10.1  The structure theorems
   10.2  Application of the structure theorems

Part V    Space Form Problems on Indefinite Metric Manifolds

11. Spaces of Constant Curvature
   11.1  The classification of finite space forms
   11.2  The geometry of pseudo-spherical space forms
   11.3 Homogeneous finite space forms
   11.4  The lattice space forms
   11.5  A wild Lorentz signature
   11.6  The classification for homogeneous manifolds of constant curvature

12. Locally Isotropic Manifolds
   12.1  Reductive Lie groups
   12.2  Examples of locally isotropic manifolds
   12.3  Structure of locally isotropic spaces
   12.4  A partial classification of complete locally isotropic manifolds





zee  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-04 09:12:27 --

Thanks Zee
I will try to get a copy.

Meanwhile something is interesting for me when I look at curvature. I wonder if I am seeing things correctly. Add to my suppositions.

When I look at a rainbow , I see two distinct areas where there are the makings of white light. This would be if we were looking from either end. (where all the colours add up to white.)
Since we are not looking at it from a certain angle , we instead see the variation of speeds which make up white light. I know there are other factors to take into consideration , and that differing parameters will change the math.

The odity is that here is an example of curvature and position creating a different perspective depending on where you are standing. the light is doing nothing different , but what is visible to one person will not be visible to another.

I am unsure whether I should consider that light waves have these two distinctive pathways or not.Here is my scenario.

That when light travels, (despite a differing environment affecting the parameters) , we need refraction to SEE white light. In an intense beam , where the photons are more concentrated that a rainbow scenario, the refracting energy is still there. Unless the waves arrive at seperated intervals , they will not add up correctly. one sure way to keep this in check is if the light we actually use is crossing our eyes in the same order dictated by the rainbow.

I am well aware of the horisontal/virtical polaroid nature of light. This is similar , but removes the straight beam.

The constant of these differing energies actually needs them all to be present ALL the time , with one or more dominating but the distinct signiture of each light type would only be a constant if it arrived seperated at the correct intervals. shorter or longer wavelenghts is easy to see when we view a rainbow edge as the viewing perspective.

cheers
iseason

Iseason,


You are referring to: A rainbow is an optical or meteorological phenomenon.




also:

("Do two people ever see the same rainbow?" ...that
"since the rainbow is a special distribution of colors (produced in a particular way) with reference to a definite point - the eye of the observer - and as no single distribution can be the same for two separate points, it follows that two observers do not, and cannot, see the same rainbow." In fact, each eye sees its own rainbow!!
Of course, a camera lens will record an image of a rainbow which can then be seen my many people! http://www.eo.ucar.edu/rainbows/  )



]Iseason, I get the feeling this subject is (right-off; a "start..") complex! ~
..So, I will have to view more issue, to be more positive! Any.??? :zee  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-04 09:13:13 --

The methodology of a rainbow is not my point.This is but one type of refraction.what i am saying is that the variability of differing wavelengths would be dependant on every interval being also present. At all times.

Say I want to use a crystal to seperate white light. This needs a refractive angle for this to occur.The degree of refraction is crucial to all of these behaviours.

What I am saying is that the refractive nature of light need not begin at the crystal. Or the air. or the atmosphere.

In space light would necessarily have a similar behaviour determined by the medium it was travelling through. If the angle at which we recieve the light is correct,we will see something.

But there will be a refractive difference between what we see and the true distance to an object. There must be.

That means that If I were travelling at the speed of light and could do so in a direct path , I could do so faster than a beam of light could do it . Even if the refraction rate was minimal.

But since this is not possible , there are two realities possible within the one universe. The one we see , and the actual reality that exists.

to keep motion possible , one must be inviolable(straight path) and one interdependant (refractive). The refractive pathway is essential to create differing perspectives of the straight pathway.

The necessity of this in theory is to prevent a law which allows infinate speeds.Without curvature the straight line has no width/depth or lenght.

cheers
iseason

Carying on from where i left off.

The straight line impossibility is what makes the particle "everywhere at once".

The straight line must exist "everywhere at once", but cannot in reality be true. Therefore the motion of the particle is "borrowed" by the universe we know.

The speed we can travel through a medium is dictated by the amount of curvature which inhabits a space. (Matter is much more curved than space)But the rule of the straight line is a real law.Eventually Space will straighten out , Because the motion is trying to find the rest mass or position of the straight line.

total mass gives the best opportunity for this. Because direction will then be meaningless and void. straight lines which were theoreticlly possible are now theoretically impossible. in this case the change in state is from a straight line to a straight line.

The reverse would prove equally true and end in nothing. not even the possibility of a straight line would exist.

So which way are we going? up in mass to a straight line? Or down in mass to a singularity which rescues us from becoming nothing?

Cheers
Iseason

Isea quote; The speed we can travel through a medium is dictated by the amount of curvature which inhabits a space. (Matter is much more curved than space)But the rule of the straight line is a real law.Eventually Space will straighten out , Because the motion is trying to find the rest mass or position of the straight line. unquote~






Hi, Iseas~


I have this word in my head when I read your last post..


The word is: transmogrification

..... zee  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-08-04 09:14:44 --

thanks
it's interesting to take this line of thought.
I know I have written in other locations about the behaviours. If there were two original positions for the particle.

1. most outer
2. most inner

And the particle could never occupy the same location twice, it sets up a very reasonable arguement for the nucleus of an atom and strong force.
  The inner position is one particle width. The outer is a much bigger variation.    after leaving the centre, the particle can never occupy that position again. at the outer limit the same occurs. upon reaching the outer limit , the particle cannot simply return on the same course as that would put it back on a collision course with itself. good sense says that unless it were to change course radically, the change would be in an arc. this creates a figure eight, which at the centre must occupy one particle width of the centre (removed).As this pattern continues , the particle must turn the width of the centre in order to miss itself.
  as it continues , the centre will move towards the outer (like a growing ball)the outer can remain at the limit for a lot longer since the "occurance " can occur many more times.
  Density will happen much like spirograph, but will be dragged along with the turning whole creating a "wrapping effect" as well as the initial crossover, the motion can alter the straightness of the middleground trajectory to a similar arc as the outer edges.

In fact there is nothing to prevent the outer limit as being the original position . If a particle curcumnavigated a limit, the outer rim would eventually offer no more free space. The variation would be greater then one particle size as the engel needed to avoid the meeting of itself would cause an arc that moved the particle to an interior position. Now this angle would never again be equal to the rim .
 Unless the particle pathway filled only one half of the rim, and in doing so would paint itself into a corner, it must reduce its orbit with each passage until it reaches center. Then use a similar (but different travel pathway to get back to the outer rim.
  In this model , the same thing occurs. The centre becomes "full" of particle "occurances" while the outer areas have more available space.If the particle occurance is equal in all areas "speed for size" then it cannot but create a varience in density. The area halfway between the outer and centre rim will have a measureable comparason. So will a number of other regions . 1 1/8 1/4 1/2  and so on.the end result is a very good mathematical 'thing'.
   With all the variations that are possible from this action, i'm not surprised to see the diversity that we get.

Cheers
Iseason  

--Last edited by Iseason on 2007-04-20 05:47:06 --

-


Correlation does not imply causation ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation




-

-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_Structure




-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2008-05-08 14:58:20 --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Dec 3, 2003
Clear message for causality

Experiment confirms that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light

Ever since Einstein stated that nothing can travel faster than light, physicists have delighted in finding exceptions. One after another, observations of such "superluminal" propagation have been made. However, while some image or pattern- such as the motion of a spotlight projected on a distant wall - might have appeared to travel faster than light, it seemed that there was no way to use the superluminal effect to transmit energy or information.

In recent years, the superluminal propagation of light pulses through certain media has led to renewed controversy. In 1995, for example, Günther Nimtz of the University of Cologne encoded Mozart's 40th Symphony on a microwave beam, which he claimed to have transmitted at a speed faster than light. Others maintain that such a violation of Einstein's speed limit would wreak havoc on our most fundamental ideas about causality, allowing an effect to precede its cause. Relativity teaches us that sending a signal faster than light would be equivalent to sending it backwards in time.
Obeying the speed limit
Obeying the speed limit

Now an experiment by Michael Stenner and Daniel Gauthier at Duke University in North Carolina and Mark Neifeld at the University of Arizona promises to shed fresh light on this century-old conundrum. The Duke-Arizona team has attempted to directly measure the "speed of information" by sending a message through a superluminal medium (M Stenner et al. 2003 Nature 425 695). However, the work could merely fan the flames of the dispute over faster-than-light propagation.
The speed of light

Special relativity tells us that no matter how much kinetic energy a massive object gains, its speed will never exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, c. This, at least, is generally accepted. However, the issue for light - which is an electromagnetic wave composed of massless photons - has never been quite as clear-cut. Special relativity says that massless particles always travel exactly at c, but one of the first things we are taught about light is that it travels slower in glass or water than it does in a vacuum.

This delay is due to the absorption and re-emission of photons by particles in the medium. When light hits an atom, the electrons begin vibrating at the optical frequency, and the electromagnetic fields that they re-radiate interfere with the original fields. Whether this interference delays or advances the phase of the waves depends on the properties of the atom and the frequency of the wave.

The fact that light might travel faster than it does in a vacuum caused great bewilderment at the beginning of the 20th century. But the issue was eventually clarified by Arnold Sommerfeld and Léon Brillouin, who showed that the "phase velocity" - the speed of the individual ripples on an idealized wave that extends to infinity in both directions - does not directly describe the motion of the energy in a light pulse. Instead, Sommerfeld and Brillouin realized that the propagation of a photon should be described by the speed at which the peak of localized packets of ripples moves - the "group velocity". Even when the phase velocity is faster than light, the group velocity should be slower.

Despite this careful redefinition of the velocity of a wave, there are, in fact, still exotic situations where the group velocity can exceed c. However, these situations are characterized by a great deal of absorption and distortion, which led Sommerfeld and Brillouin to argue that the group velocity itself loses any meaning in such regions. They showed that any abrupt change in the pulse shape - which the person receiving the signal would not expect, and which would therefore carry new information - would travel not at this superluminal group velocity but only at c.
The speed of information

Experiments in the 1980s, however, showed that it was possible for the peak of a wave packet to arrive sooner than it would had it travelled at c. Most researchers agreed that the peaks of such smooth, predictable pulses carried no new information, since one could foresee the arrival of the peak from the shape of the earlier portion of the pulse. The modern version of Einstein's law that no signal can travel faster than light was therefore left intact. Some researchers, on the other hand, pointed out that these "superluminal" pulses could well be used to trigger a practical detection system earlier than pulses that had travelled at c.

One obstacle to resolving the issue was that all known examples of superluminality involved the loss of most of the incident pulse, either through absorption or reflection. This loss degrades the quality of any signal, leaving open the argument that it could still take longer to accumulate information than in the case of slower, but lossless, transmission through the vacuum.

However, 10 years ago Raymond Chiao of the University of California at Berkeley proposed that under the right conditions an optical pulse might pass through a transparent (lossless) medium faster than light. Together, we suggested an experiment in which this could be observed. The idea was to pump a sample of atoms into an inverted state in which their optical properties are essentially opposite to those in normal matter, and then to tune the signal probe to a particular frequency that allowed it to propagate superluminally.

In 2000 Lijun Wang and co-workers at NEC in Princeton demonstrated this effect, proving that a pulse peak could exit a small vapour cell even before it should have had time to enter (see "No thing goes faster than light" and "Taming light with cold atoms"). This rekindled the embers of controversy, and much theoretical work has followed. However, until now no experiment has come any closer to closing the book on this issue.

The work of Stenner and colleagues extends the NEC work in two ways. First the researchers devised an improved way to pump a sample of potassium vapour into the special superluminal state, which allowed them to increase the relative size of the effect by a factor of five. Instead of an advance of only 1/50 of the original pulse width, as Wang and co-workers had achieved, their pulse leaped an astounding 1/10 of a pulse width ahead of one travelling at c.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Second, not content to work with infinitely smooth, predictable pulses, the researchers encoded a realistic "signal" on top of their light beams (see figure). This signal can represent either a "1" or a "0", and the goal is to find the earliest moment at which a receiver would be able to determine whether a "0" or a "1" had been sent. Stenner and co-workers found that although the smooth pulse arrives noticeably earlier through the superluminal medium, the instant at which the "1s" and "0s" begin to differ does not seem to be accelerated. In fact, carrying out a very careful analysis of signal and noise, and eliminating nearly all spurious delays that the equipment itself might introduce, the team found that "new" information actually arrives somewhat slower than light.
New information

This result will be welcomed by mainstream physicists, who believe that Einstein's speed limit will always be respected. But it is worth pointing out that in this experiment, as in any real-world situation, the detection of information has to be defined statistically in terms of how long it takes to reach a certain level of confidence about the content of the message. In reality, there is always some delay between the decision to send a message and the point at which the first photon leaves the transmitter. Similarly, it takes a finite time after the arrival of this first photon before any level of confidence can be achieved.

It is therefore easy to mistake a reduction in these latency times for true faster-than-light propagation. For example, a system that filters out some of the noise would make it easier to extract the message quickly. While the current experiment has done an excellent job of eliminating spurious effects, it would be easy to construct similar experiments that erroneously indicate superluminal information transfer. Furthermore, one could argue that such information transfer could have occurred but still be masked from view by mere technical noise.

Perhaps more important is the continuing uncertainty about how to truly pin down, even in theory, where this "new information" resides. Clearly, a signal cannot be spread out over all of history in a perfectly smooth pulse. On the other hand, truly discontinuous pulses are never observed in the real world and they are unpalatable even in theory. While theorists focus on geometric points where something unpredictable happens, experimentalists counter that no energy is contained in an idealized point, and that no information can be obtained until at least one photon is detected. Experiments like this force us - in this information-dominated age - to come to terms with the fact that we still do not truly know how to describe a task as simple as saying "yes" or "no".
About the author

Aephraim M Steinberg is at the Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria