So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

First off:

Why does everyone on this thread love to display their illiteracy?

We are not talking about "noise", nor are we talking about "noises".

We are talking about "sound", and about "sounds".

Chuck Yeager is famous for "going fast than the speed of sound", not for "going faster than the speed of noise".

A "noise" is an undesireable sound. Clutter. That's what the word meant of centuries. And in the late 1960's the concept of "noise" has been expanded into the visual and other realms by computer scientists. Data, or flaws in photographs are now labeled as "noise". Computer software exists to eliminate visual "noise" from photographs.

Noise is a subset of sounds. Sounds in general are what we are all talking about.

Now back the topic.

The tree that falls where no one hears it.

Does it make a sound?

you're just saying that "sound is the sensation".

I think of sound as being the thing being sensed ( ie the phenomenon of air molecules pulsing outward as a waves called "sound waves").

You could conceptualize it either way.

But... if a star explodes into a supernova in some corner of the universe where no human astronomer can detect the light it emits most folks would not claim that said supernova "does not produce light". They would just say "it produced a vast amount of light that no one detected".

Light is just electromagnetic radiation that happens to be in the right frequency to be detected by the human eye (lower frequencies are detectable as infared, microwave, or as radio waves. Higher frequencies are called ultraviolet light, higher still X rays and gamma rays).

Forget the tree, lets use a simpler example:

So if a giant tuning fork is struck in the middle of the desert and no one is around to hear it it would still produce the phenom of vibrating air molecules that we would perceive as "sound". So (to my way of thinking) the tuning fork still "makes a sound" even if no one hears it.



Its kinda of an unanswerable semantic question.

That is a beautiful and profound thought.
That is exactly why I want to know.
How could we perceive sentience in electrons?
Is there research in this direction?

Individual electrons being "sentient"?

How would that be possible? They don't have brain cells.

The wave/particle duality experiments tells us ...

An electron behaves differently if you monitor it or not, as if it knows someone is watching it.



No one knows why.

it is specifically a "correlation co-efficient series" i was trying to determine.
i did not post the pictures as a form of argument, i posted them to show that i have given much thought to the matter of how matter derives from pure energy. otherwise people may think that i have given it scant attention.

anyway, the nesting as you can see it interrupted by a missing page, and i have written wheelbarrow loads of scribble on my considerations.

i prefer to think in deep nests because i can see the cyclic development of phenomena that i would not have been able to notice without that type of thought.

i also like to program some ideas with "point setting code" so that i can see in graphical detail, the patterns that some nesting procedures produce from the cyclic revolutions of iterations of developments in my ideas of visual feedback .

anyway i could go on forever.

i am not going to say anything else on the topic because i prefer to think of it alone.

An octopus has its 'brain' in its tentacles.
I think you might be referring to vertebrate brains.
The biology need have nothing in common with ours.

Why did you bother to post this?
Its both untrue and irrelvent.

FIYI octopi DO have the balance of their brains in their heads. Though (like humans) they have nerve cells in their extremities.


https://cephalopods2014.files.wordpress ... ctopus.jpg

But more importantly: the "biology" of how different organisms organize their brainpower has nothing to do with the subject for the obvious reason that electrons don't have any "biology".

There is no "biology" of electrons because electrons are not living things. They are subatomic particles. Living cells are composed of atoms which are partially made of electrons. But electrons by themselves are not living things. So they have no "bio" (which means 'life') "logy".

Sorry to have annoyed you. What I was trying to get at is that I don't think a brain is necessary for sentience. I was kind of shocked that you said that no brain cell = no sentience. Maybe I should try to define my terms. I'd settle for awareness.

I googled octopus a lot and got very much discussion of each tentacle having its own brain capacity, each tentacle capable of acting independently. I'm trying to say that awareness might be elsewhere. It sounded like, either they're like us or they're stupid. It really rattled my cage.

Actually, a stupid electron would be interesting.

Thank you for that url for the innards of an octopus; I kept a copy. Octopuses (Greek origin; plural is 'es') are dear to my heart.

Glad that you like the picture of the octopus anatomy.

Octopuses, and their cousins (nautiluses and squids) are quite interesting creatures.

The reason that I was "annoyed" is that even if octopuses have a brain decentralized into their tentacles (brain cells are basically just nerve cells, and most large creatures have nerves in their extremities) that would still be brain cells. So it would not even be an example of "sentience without brain cells". So I was annoyed that you were bringing up something has nothing to do with supporting your assertion that "sentience is possible without brain cells".

"Sentience" means "intelligent", or "self aware". A lower life form like a plant, or a jellyfish is not usually thought of by us humans as being "sentient". A rock is even less complex than a jellyfish. So it cant be "sentient" even to the extent that a jellyfish is. A single electron is far simpler than even an inanimate rock. So if your saying that a single electron can have mental processes then you have a lot of explaining to do.

I would argue that we know exactly why. The only way to measure a property of a particle like it's location is to have it interact with some kind of measuring device and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction that will mean that the measuring device must interact with the particle too. In quantum mechanics "observation" is defined differently then it is in regular every day language, by the quantum mechanical definition any interaction that results in an aspect of a particle being physically possible to know is considered an observation.

This really just comes down to things behaving differently when left alone compared to when another particle like a photon or something interacts with it, which is about as spooky as a ball behaving differently when someone comes up and kicks it. The ball doesn't "know" that it's being kicked, it's just following the laws of physics which dictate that it's velocity should change when a force is applied to it. In reality what the wave/particle duality tells us is that electrons behave differently when you bombard it with enough particles that it's location can be figured out.

Sure, there are some other experiments that show some truly spooky things like particles reacting to something that has not yet happened but that is completely different from the wave/particle duality and does not imply that particles "know" that they are being watched in any spooky way.

^^^^^

Nonsense!

Electrons are like cashiers at Walmart! They steal from they til unless that they know the security camera is on them. Then they behave differently!

Just kidding.

Was gonna say something like that.

According to the cartoon guy in the film clip they put "detectors" right on the slits to "see what the electron is really doing". And he implies that the fact that the electrons "know" they are being watched causes them to behave differently.

He doesn't go into exactly what these electron detecting devices are, nor how they work, but its safe to say at that
subatomic level the very act of observation influences what is being observed.

You cant check the air pressure of you car tires without causing a slight change in that air pressure.

In our everyday world you can look at a tree outside and "see" the tree by the means of your eyes gathering the light photons that reflect off the tree and into your eyes. But if you tried to put little cameras in slits to "see" what individual photons are "doing" when they go through the slits in this type of experiment the camera would simply absorb the entire photon (you cant detect a photon without aborbing it), and the photon would cease to exist, and would never hit the far wall to make any kind of pattern (neither the two stripes, nor the interference pattern). It would just be blank.

Likewise if you're not shooting photons, but electrons, at the wall with slits, but put some sort of detecting devices at each slit to observe the electrons as the go through the slits it would be like a gigantic clumsy invasive air pressure gauge bigger than the tire itself attacking your car tire that causes your tire to go flat while its trying to check your tire's air pressure. The clumsy device would sap energy from the electron, or effect it in some other way, that would cause the wave function to collapse, and for it go back to acting like a bullet or a tennis ball rather than like a wave. Hense the resulting two bands on the far wall instead of the interference pattern.

Unfortunately, no one listens to any scientifically sound theories unless given by a person with AT LEAST a master's degree behind their name. I have plenty of theories that I have developed over the years as I picked up new information along my educational journey. When I was 9 years old, I wrote a 'thesis' paper on my proposed theory as to the cause of Jupiter's red spot. By that time, I had learned that society looks down on anything less than a college graduate's work. So I left it alone and it currently sits in a filing cabinet along with my other elementary artifacts. I will just wait until someone else thinks of the same thing in 20 years and receives an article in every science/space magazine ever printed while I watch thinking "Oh well at least it will finally end up in the textbooks now". On a related note, 2-3 years later I had another situation when I started studying genetics and I delved deep into so many research papers and lab work data and genome sequences of said creature that I was going to be sure that my ideas were well backed. That idea was so sure and intense and potentially life changing that I fully intend to get a degree in animal genetics so I can continue my research with better rescources and funding. I stopped focusing on that and started to aim for graduating high school as fast as possible to get in and out of college before someone else snatches that idea from me. Fortunately, this is unlikely because the idea is so theoretical and outside the box that it would take a much more open minded scientific community than we have now to even look at the right factors to put the puzzle together.

Those are just the two major, unshareable scientific breakthroughs that I have had.

Please understand that I will not be sharing any fundamental details of any of my theories because once I graduate from college, I will begin working on them at a much higher level.

what you say is true. one must have graduated through formal education to achieve a status where their notions are seriously considered by the scientific "fraternity" (sexist? gawwd).
it is unfortunate that there are quite a significant number of crackpots posting their ideas to universities for consideration, and the receptionists really have no time to refer them to the busy men who would be assigned with the the task of assessing them.
the vast majority of the submissions from the general public are invalid, and many of them come from bi-polar disorder people who have a "flash of genius" and scribble it down, but that "flash of genius" was no more than a gross overestimation of a psychotic flight of ideas.

i have also considered many matters from my own perspective without referral to external information, and i consider most of them to be valid (i do not have bi-polar disorder (which does not automatically validate my ideas however)).

i developed my own imaginary system of mathematical appraisal, and i notate what i am thinking in that language, and if i were to post anything to a professor, not only would they have to find me somehow credible, they would also have to learn my mathematical system in order to appraise it and try to think of how to translate it into conventional systems in order for others to appraise and test.
that would never happen.



well the way i see it, it is for my own personal gratification that i come to form an understanding of various questions i have as to how the universe is. i do not care about whether i am understood by others, or receive accolades for discoveries. the fact that what i think will most probably die in my head when i die is no reason not to continue to speculate.

people are still going on about "gravity".
i do understand einstein's idea of the curvature of space.

it is explained in a rather simple manner to the public by manners of visual representations that are inadequate.
so everyone is familiar with the bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. it depresses the area at where it sits.
the old "roll the marble" thing then demonstrates how orbital decay happens as the marble spirals into the centre where the bowling ball is.

they usually represent it as an elastic planar grid.

so that is all well and good. but it is 2 dimensional. most humans are fundamentally unable to imagine that concept in 3 dimensions.

so let us think of a circular planar disc that surrounds the sun on it's equatorial plane. any diameter will do.
so that is at zero degrees tilt, and that is the plane represented on the documentaries about space curvature.
so let's think of another similar plane, but tilted off the equatorial plane by a small degree (infinitesimal really),
and continue to think of planes tilting all the way around (z-axial shifts).
imagine simultaneously all of those planes together that comprise a volumetric sphere, and consider each plane as identical to the trampoline idea.

that idea, to me, allows me to understand the 3 dimensional aspect of space curvature.

i also think there is a series of dimensions of mathematical probabilities, and it seems to me, that since a large mass like the sun is located at the center of this sphere in space, then the probability of mass being at that location is greatest for anywhere in the sphere (and becomes greater the more mass is there), so they all obey these mathematical probabilities (loosely called "laws") of least resistance , and wind up in that location (excepting for the law of angular momentum equalizing the probablistic tendency for it to go in a to go in a straight line with the probability of being in the center. and that happens very rarely. (again within the ever complexifying idea of probability).

whatever. that's gravity in a very abridged way according to me.


so dark energy, i have surmised is 100% potential energy.
it is not manifested energy.
the hindu's have thought this through well i think.

so, one may say that "potential energy is stored in a ball that is held from dropping to the ground". that is true. there is potential energy stored in the ball, but the ball it's self is fully bound energy.

potential energy that is not stored and released, is unmanifested energy
it is completely pure and does not exist in a material existence. but it does have a value.

that is dark energy. the result of the calculations to personally define it have to be zero. zero can never be a component in any further mathematical considerations.

so dark matter is not related to dark energy as far as i can see except for the label "dark" which indicates it is not yet understood.

well there must be a universe full of unbound subatomic particles that are not parts of atoms, and they are quasi existential.
they do have mass, but they are not visible, so do not occlude vision from behind them.
so when the "big bang"happened (which is debatable elsewhere), the first things to come into existence were particles. quarks are the most abundant and gluons (strong force) the second, and the then the rest.
so it takes three quarks to smash into each other to become a hadron, and i am not sure how many gluon's are involved, but they bind the hadron and form the prototype of a nucleus. so b;ah b;ah b;ah.. through 100's of millions of years the probability matrix coalesced the particles to a degree......
this is WP, so i am not going to go into huge detail here. also because it is better to talk these things than to type them.

so, many particles were not bound in any system and remain free "floating" in the universe until they either are bound, or swallowed by a black hole.

all these particles have an entity, so they have a value in the probability matrix, and thus constitute their own warpation of space (albeit extremely small), and these warps are combinable to produce a tremendous gravitational influence in the universe.

so, now to the question of whether there is going to be a "big crunch", or a "big rip", as the universe comes to an end.

current measurements of excursion of distant objects suggest they are accelerating away (red shifted), so therefore space is expanding, and at some point, they will be going away from us at faster than light speed and we will no longer be able to see them.
with the same mindset, it is then conjectured that the expansion of space will become logarithmic, and every atom will be torn apart and it constituents then torn apart, and there will be no manifestation in the universe ever again.

well good bye "conservation of energy"

but another consideration is that at the center of every galaxy is a super massive black hole.
it is forgivable to imagine that all orbital solar systems have the correct velocity to maintain a stable orbit around the black hole, and to imagine that this will be the case forever.
lets talk about the milky way.

but what of that dark matter? as small as it's volumetric mass is, it will add to the mass of the black hole as it is sucked in, and therefore increase its gravity.
as time goes by, the solar systems will start to spiral toward the black holes, and eventually be consumed by the black hole that will then be immense.
this may happen in all the galaxies that can only exist as an orderly unit with a black hole at their epicenter.
since there are hundreds of billions of galaxies that may undergo this fate, then there will be hundreds of billions of super massive black holes.

so they say that the gravity on a black hole requires an escape velocity of greater than the speed of light".
how much more?
what is the precise measurement?
how many times greater than the speed of light would be the escape velocity from all these super massive black holes? 10 times? 100 times?

if it it greater than the velocity of expansion of the spacial universe at the time, then all these black holes would "notice" each other, and start heading in each others combined directions to unite.

obviously each black hole contains a galaxy and when they all come together, then that is possibly where another big bang will happen.
i do get divisions by zero when i think about it in my own mathematical language.

I don't much care for public gratification either but when you have an idea that you shape your entire future around, it would be quite disappointing to discover that someone else has just discredited your ideas. You would still study them, of course, for personal reasons, but you would be studying like Galileo and lose a portion of credibility in the scientific community for obsessing over something that some bigger name has decided untrue. Loseing credibility could quite possibly lead to more restricted access to certain resources. No one wants to loan valuable lab equipment to a 'quack'.
Pardon my use of vague slang terms.

I do continue to speculate for myself (my latest theory being in Nuclear Chemistry) and plan to continue for the rest of my life. I am however jumping out of my skin waiting until I can get in a lab and watch my ideas grow or shrink. For my own curiosity of the natural world, I absolutely need a lab. I live in anticipation of the day I can get my hands on an electron microscope and so forth. My desire to receive formal education IS part of my personal goals. My mind was built for lab work.