Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single pointâ€.
It means that all information also was assembled in a “single point”.
And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a “single point”, every particle
of a “single point” is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :" How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? "
========.
If you go on way a) - so maybe yes, maybe no
you will pass through a forest of knowledge .
If you go on way b) - you will pass a forest of
theoretical knowledge along a straight road.
========.
Why I say so?
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe.
More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen," dark matter ".
Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more
then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us.
So our aim must be to study "dark particles " or…..
………..
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Really, it is not beautiful, is it ?
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
Was I mistaken? No.
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
========.
Why does only electron have quant of information?
Maybe does proton also have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
==========.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was
one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has accidentally blown up
Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally
Then complex atom was formed accidentally.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then the fauna was formed accidentally.
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
==============.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest thing (for example an electron) and then
to study the far away space and particles
(for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).
============.
Best wishes.
Electrons are great, and certainly it is more important to understand them then theoretical dark matter, or exotic particles, but I think you are taking it slightly too far. First off any charged particle has an electric field, any moving charged particle generates an electromagnetic field, and any accelerated charged particle generates an electromagnetic wave. The electron does not have exclusive ownership over these things. And even if they did, information can be transfered through other means. If we feel gravitational attraction doesn’t that tell us that there is some massive object in that direction? Sound waves carry information as well, right?
=====================
Sound waves carry information as well, right?
==============.
It is absolute correct.
Sometimes we can hear a dog’s bark.
The dog is source of information.
But it is pity that we cannot understand it.
But we can understand information from TV and radio.
And this is nice.
But information from TV and radio we can hear
only thanks to electromagnetic fields.
====== =====
Did you read anything about protono- magnetic field ?
How do energy, entropy and information interact?
If the energy increases the information also increases.
If the entropy increases the information decreases.
Is the interaction compatible or incompatible?
But it seems to me that this scenery of explaining
of the beginning of creation the Universe is very hard.
Because I explain everything in common words.
I must say: “quant of energy “, “quant of entropy “,
“quant of information “. But even these words are common.
I must make them more accurate. The smallest quant of
energy has electron. And we know, there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means this electron has (carries) the smallest
quant of information. But what is “quant of entropy “?
Nobody knows. I know the answer.
It is Dirac’s particle -“ antiparticle “.
As entropy is a shadow of energy, so “ antiparticle “
is a shadow of particle. And we come to Quantum theory again
with all its paradoxes.
The physicist Jim Whitescarver wrote:
†QM is simply an instance of a complete mathematical
logical system unlike classical logic. It describes the universe
in terms of information which is necessarily the reality itself,
rather than representing some deeper reality.â€
It is not his own opinion, it is common physicists, opinion.
Is they really right?
Is it really impossible to understand QM with usual, human
( classical) logic? Are the physical formulas cleverer us?
I think we say in such way because we don’t still understand QM.
Nearly 100 years ago the scientists tried to explain electromagnetic
theory using balls, springs, blocks ……etc. And now we have the
same situation. What to do? We must look at QM from
another point of view. We must ask ourselves again:
“ What is the sense of Quantum mechanic“?
There is still a mistake in this question.
Because QM is not a mechanical theory.
It doesn’t describe systems of balls, springs, blocks …etc.
socratus, I like your thoughts on these things but I think you use alot of science words you don’t fully understand! I think your ideas are good though!
I agree with you totally there. QM describes nature in a fuller way than mechanics can. I think its the holoistic nature of QM that is over looked. Althoough you get a quanta of light or an electron its impossible to totally define the electron without defining its enviroment. You can’t define an electron at a single point and say exactally what its doing. But you can say the electrom is orbiting a nucleus in a particular shell. All matter is energy this means that all matter must be doing some kind of action. I think this is fundemental to quantum physics.
I think its wrong to think of entropy and energy as opposites. Entropy must always increase its not a conserved quanity. Entropy is a measure of disorder whereas energy is a measure of change. antiparticles still have positive energy. They are holes is the sea of negative energy. The vacuum is where all negative energy states are full and all positive states are empty. If an electron in one of the negative states moves into a positive state it leaves a hole which is a positron thus you get particle-anti particle creation. If the electron falls back in the hole you get particle-antiparticle annilhation.
[/quote]
You are ( was) good student.
If I were teacher I would give you 10 on physics.
But there is a small problem.
There are many abstraction and paradoxical things in physics.
And it seems you took them very seriously.
I am qualified in physics; so yeah I know what I’m talking about.
I suppose to ask where information comes from is to ask: what caused the big bang?
But if you have answer for that then you can just ask what caused that?
So you get no where asking what causes things and where things come from.
Theoretically the big bang must have come from a singularity. In a sigulartiy time and space no longer exsist. Therefore to ask such questions is actually meaningless. There is no space to say this came from here and theres no time to say this past event caused this present event to happen.
Now If we consider entropy we get some interesting answers. The big bang must have come from a very low entropy state. This is obvious if you run time backwards all the way to the big bang the secound law of thermodynamics says entropy must decreases all the way back to the big bang. If you consider a black hole on the otherhand, which is also a singularity, the entropy must be exterely high.
So the bing bang must of started in a very ordered state.
I think one problem here is that information is ill defined. I guess we could say that each and every conserved quantum number is a piece of information. These being the measurable quantities. But is the total number that is conserved not the number of quantum numbers. If we consider the creation of an electron and a positron the elecron number does not increas as but we have 2 new particles so in this sense more information is produced.
Basically though the lower the entropy of the universe the greater the universes ability to create order. If we run backwards in time entropy gets smaller and smaller. Therefore the moment of creation the big bang is as it should be: the state of the universe with maximum potential to create. This is far from paradoxical it makes perfect sense!!! This state must also have had a massive energy density. So things would happen pretty quickly. So relative times would be shorter, i.e the time between events would be shorter, so a meaninful unit of time would be unimaginably short. The closer to the start of the big bang the smaller this unit of time must be. So its a bit like a fractal the closer you zoom in i.e the smaller amout of time you look at from the begining the more detail you see but this detail must be becoming more and more ordered. As time and space don’t exsist ‘before’ the big bang(there is no before). It becomes very meaningfull just to consider these shorter and shorter time spans into infinity. the closer you get to the moment of creation the more creative and perfect the universe becomes. So one would could conclude that the universe more indeed infinely creative and hence creative enough to produce a set of laws perfect enough that any physically meaningfull enitity even a human being could be created.
Its all there in the laws of the universe. So yeah I take them seriously. They are certainly not paradoxical; there reality.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field …… etc.) – was assembled in a “single pointâ€.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single pointâ€.
The answer is :
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
Once there was a “Big Bangâ€.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
===== ========
About the theory of the “Big Bang†is written the thick (very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bangâ€.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
Action, when the God opens his palm,
have named the “Big Bangâ€.
And action, when the God compresses his palm,
have named " a single pointâ€.
===========================.
they have there the equations given my einstein for General Relativity. They show how matter curves time and space. And they do describe empty space around a “single point”!!!
Erm ok you never read genesis? because your reason for the big bang is written there too…
Its not written in science books about the big bang because its not science.
If you spoke english a bit better your question might make more sense. If its empty space by defintion there are no particles. If theres no gravity fields either, which i guess you could say is truely empty, then the space would just be flat then its defined by the metric for minkowski space which has the main diagonal as -1 1 1 1. But as that really doesn’t describe the presence of the singularity(= “single point”). For the geometry go look up the Schwarzschild metric which describes all the physical and geometrical parameters for the empty space(vacuum) around a star, black hole, sigularity etc. Its just a solution to Einsteins field equations for general relativity as I said before.
All this was worked out over 90 years ago in a ww1 trench no less!!! Poor Schwarzschild died in the trench shortly after writting the paper so for fuck sake give the guy some credit!
Fin666
If you spoke english a bit better your question might make more sense.
S
Excuse my wrong English.
Fin666
If its empty space by definition there are no particles.
S
Empty space has….. " virtual particles".
Fin666
If there is no gravity fields either, which i guess you could say is truely empty,
then the space would just be flat then its defined by the metric for minkowski space
which has the main diagonal as -1 1 1 1. But as that really doesn’t describe
the presence of the singularity(= “single point”).
S
If there is no gravity fields…the space would be flat…then this space
is Minkowski space … negative 4-D united space/time continuum.
Is the Minkowski space abstract continuum, as anybody says?
I think this space is real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
Minkowski space has no gravity fields, but negative parameter.
2.Vacuum has negative parameter : T= - 273.
3.And this negative parameter united with space/ time , which
join together absolutely .
4.And the second SRT postulate says about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
Fin666
For the geometry go look up the Schwarzschild metric
which describes all the physical and geometrical parameters
for the empty space(vacuum) around a star, black hole, sigularity etc.
Its just a solution to Einstein’s field equations for general relativity as I said before.
S
It means …the Schwarzschild metric …the Einstein’s general relativity
they describes absolute another situation…
The presence of Mass changed situation.
Fin666
All this was worked out over 90 years ago in a ww1 trench no less!!!
Poor Schwarzschild died in the trench shortly after writting the paper
so for fuck sake give the guy some credit!
S
It is pity.