ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY, How it related to spacetime

Thank yquantum
The earth was flat for 1,000 year.... the earth was the center of the universe for 300 years..... the Big Bang and inflation was around for 50 years.
The "math kids", with the WEB, should find my "spot"in less than 50 years and be able to decide if The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence. have any meaning at the planck scale.
A few phone calls by a "somebody" to their favorite "math kid"would probably expedite the process and give a publishing advantage.
50 years is a long time, I might not live that long.

Why Not?I have been following TRoc's "Omni-band Harmonic Matrix of Resonant Potentials".... Maybe he can see a starting place with what I have been saying.

How can a nobody do a peer review and be believed?
Besides…. I don’t have enough knowledge.

An analytical computation of
asymptotic Schwarzschild
quasinormal frequencies
Luboˇs Motl
Jefferson Physical Laboratory
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
motl@feynman.harvard.edu
24 Dec. 2003
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0212/0212096.pdf

I do believe that we have demonstrated that r=1 does not work.

I believe that we have established that we cannot get a wave at 3. IT SHOULD BE 6.
I wonder what his calculations will produce if he obeyed the Planck scale rules and uses 6 for a wave.
See..... I've demonstrated my ignorance.
He did something wrong .... what was it?

jal

WE HAVE IGNITION! …..WE HAVE LIFT OFF!

WE HAVE A PLANCK SIZE BALLOON/SPHERE! !

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203
LET THE JOURNEY BEGIN.
#1
Hello! I found a lot of great information on waves. The complexity is enough to blow your mind. What have you two got?
LET’S GO INTO THE 6 SIDED SANDBOX!
#2
I got some very simple stuff. Simple solitons.

NO! LET’S GO INTO THE 12 SIDED SANDBOX!

##3
I found out that we should also be looking at where the energy is NOT located. We should be looking at spacetime.

LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1

Good day!
By now, it should have become obvious to the people promoting Heim, the metron, and protosimplex that Heim used a Quantum Geometry approach.
See:“A Brief Introduction to Quantum Geometry”, by Micho Durdevich
http://www.matem.unam.mx/~micho/qgeom.html
Heim was aware that the Planck scale rules could not be violated.
I suspect that his approach led him to having the metron at “large dimensions”.
I suspect that he did not like what he got….. Large metrons.
The best that people would have said would have been that he had found a new way of getting the mass of the particles.
“A LOOKUP TABLE”.
That is not very sexy or very saleable. It makes for terrible science fiction.
The “math kids” at Heim should stop wasting time with science fiction and they should find and remove the “exponential?,… scaling?.... T-duality …or whatever?” that Heim inserted in his formulas.
For a start the Heim “math kids” should get familiar with the work by James G. Gilson on the fine structure constant at http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page2.html and his work on Stochastic Simulation of The Three Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
At http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf

Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.
If the Heim “math kids” do their work properly we should be able to see a spot/metron.
jal

A better approach is the hydrino. However, they made a simple math error.
They violated the Planck scale rule.
The minimum size of a sphere at the Planck scale is when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/AtomicPhysics.pdf

( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).

http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentatio...2005%20Fuel.pdf

(Planck scale must be obeyed…. ( The minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).

The Minimum Radius corresponds to the gravitational
Radius which cannot be less than the minimum possible size for a planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).).

If the “math kids” at Black Light Power Inc can clearly indicate that they can include the Planck scale rules and that their work stand up then they will have a link to “REALITY”. Their search would need to concentrate on how they have applied The key concepts that I have applied to Quantum Geometry which are…. 2D packing….3D packing …. Scaling… and Congruence.
The graphics from Black Light Power Inc. are great for understanding what I have been saying.
As a result, …. we could end up with a spot/hydrino/metro
jal

LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
#1


What have you learned from this thread?

1. What is the fine structure constant?
It is a formula that is derived from finding the location of 6 equally spaced waves on a sphere.
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/page3.html

2. What is the smallest distance in our universe?

3. What is the smallest area in our universe?
It is a surface area having one Planck length and one Planck width and no thickness.

4. What is the smallest sphere, bubble, in our universe?
It takes 6 Planck size waves to make a Planck size sphere.
Therefore, the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)
The answer has been worked out by James G. Gilson at
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jgg/gil0.pdf


5. What is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ?


Now, …. above, is the diagram showing where the waves can and cannot go.
The red is forbidden. It is out of bound. It does not exist. Nothing can reside/stay within that 2 pi region.
The green is the area where the waves can occur by obeying the Planck scale rule. They cannot stay “flat” all the time. They can overlay as long as they stay and maintain a Planck length separation. They got to do some “up” spinning as the waves circle around the Planck Sphere and they must stay one Planck Length from each other and from the adjacent Planck spheres.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is equal to Planck's constant divided by 4π.
A fundamental consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that no physical phenomena can be (to arbitrary accuracy) described as a "classic point particle". (At the Planck scale it is impossible).
In a wave, a cycle is defined by the return from a certain position to the same position such as from the top of one crest to the next crest. This actually is equivalent to a circle of 360 degrees, or 2π radians.
As can be seen in the above diagram, the calculations are done on where the waves are located. (The waves do not originate at r = 0.) Therefore, there is an uncertainty, (the green area) of where the waves are located.

6. What is a wave function?
Waves, Acoustics and Vibration, by J. B. Calvert,

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavdynam.htm

THE ORIGIN HAS BEEN WRONGLY ASSIGNED AS ZERO IN QUANTUM CALCULATIONS. IT SHOULD BE ASSIGNED, “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
A point violates the distances allowed at the Planck scale.
R = 0 IS NOT ALLOWED.

7. What is a postulate?

8. BECAUSE , the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ITS TRUE VALUE (when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi)) A WHOLE INDUSTRY OF SCIENCE FICTION HAS DEVELOPED.
IT IS EASIER TO SELL SCIENCE FICTION THAN TO SELL SCIENCE.
SCIENCE FICTION DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SCIENCE.

“Getting rid of the infinite density, infinite force of gravity, and infinite curvature of space around a point mass requires changes in known physics.
Quantum Geometry is a valid approach to the understanding of the universe.”
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!

JAL

Message for TRoc:
I don’t want to litter your thread.
Your scale should hit “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi). Since G (gravity constant) is based upon r = 0 then G must be scaled and change to agree with “the minimum possible size for a Planck sphere”, which would be when r= 6 or when it is equal to 3(2 pi).
G should have two numbers: One for Newton physics and one for Quantum physics.
The Quantum G should be an Exp. Curve. It could start at the 2D packing (which is the Holographic principle) then it should cross at the 3D packing and should cross at Newton G which should be at approximately one mm.
The result: no more renormalization …. No more infinite density, ….. no more infinite force of gravity, and …. no more infinite curvature of space around a point mass.
Depending on the exp. Curve, there might not be any missing energy and therefore a need for neutrino or dark matter. (Prof. L. Randall should be good at choosing the right exp. Curve)
Because of scaling and congruence, there are no reason why the 3D packing could not be at 10^-18.
TRoc…. I would expect that your scale would follow the exponential curve for the Quantum G.
If you can make the scale fit the Quantum G. Exp. Curve….I’ll gladly owe you a beer.
Would this be another way of answering yquantum’s question? “What is mass?”

The dimensions assigned to the gravitational constant (length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared) are those needed to make gravitational equations 'come out right'. However, these dimensions have fundamental significance in terms of Planck units: when expressed in SI units, the gravitational constant is dimensionally and numerically equal to the cube of the Planck length divided by the Planck mass and by the square of Planck time.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu482-1.htm

NOW!…… THAT WOULD BE NEW PHYSICS!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!

JAL

I have pointed out the problems.

Can you fix your theory?

COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006

AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR

QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION




What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal

Where did all my crew go?
TRoc cannot apply his science to a science fiction model.
The WEB is a big ocean..... I need surfers to help guide this ship.
I expect to make landfall on 31 Oct. 2006.
Let's do science.
jal

Good Day!
There a lot of readers and people on this forum who are not exactly "unknown".
You have web pages.... you are known in the physic community....etc
Let them know.... prof, ... students.... bloggers.... that I'm looking for a quantum theory of gravity that does not violate the Planck scale rules.
Be here for the big gathering ...... 31 Oct 2006.
jal

entropy is not increasing in time
entropy itself is time running into a-temporal space

amrit!
Be here with more than wisdom from the hill on 31 Oct 2006.
If you have the wisdom then you should be able to give a detailed explanation for all us simple mortals. (Of course you'll back it up with your extensive knowledge of math. otherwise...... = science fiction)
jal

Good Day!
Doesn’t anyone look at links that are provided? Look at the gem that TRoc has given.
The universe could be making music and obeying the quantum scale.
Surely, there must be musicians on this forum who can make sense of this.
See you on the 31 Oct 2006
THE GEOMETRY OF MUSICAL CHORDS
Dmitri Tymoczko, Princeton University
http://music.princeton.edu/%7Edmitri/voiceleading.pdf

jal

Good day all!
"THEY"A great link from rpenner
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html

Here is a lot more…..
http://members2.boo.net/~knuth/
Hint…hint…. I found a structure.
If J. Baez answers you e-mail would you let him know about my party on 31 Oct 2006.
I’m sure that he would have some wonderful “toys.”
Therefore, I expect that music will be on the agenda for the 31 Oct 2006.

jal

Good day everyone
I want to restate

We must first understand how "science" is being done before being able to do anything else.
The links that have been provided, here and in yquantum's thread, should help us understand.
The latest link http://precondition.blogspot.com/2006/03/d...dimensions.html should be a "must to read" especially for anyone who expects to get a job in physics.

The party on 31 Oct 2006 will look at different "possible" path that could become venues of further investigation for our understanding of the universe. It will not look a getting a further understanding of how physic is presently being done. That is already well done on the WEB.
Since "THEY" has so graciously offered to provide the music (with the help of Albers) We should expect that she will be able to find other/more interesting "links" and maybe a small discussion on her thoughts of which approaches might prove fruitfull for further study.

Since we are going to have music..... we should have some dancing and games.
Does anyone want to step forward and vollunteer? "Musical chair, bobbing the apple, spin the bottle"

jal


This post has been edited by jal on Sep 13 2006, 03:43 PM

I did actually read rpenners link, but thanks for the heads up. You know I miss alot because I have so little time to read posts here. Glad someone is watching for the best ones!