ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY, How it related to spacetime

Good Day Everyone!

As we are all aware, everybody has their favorite fishing spot….heheheh …In the weeds….in the rapids….among the rocks….in the deep deep waters where you cannot see the bottom …. heheheh
I have not hidden the fact that I don’t fish and that I don’t know how to fish.
I do enjoy watching the fishermen doing their thing. However, there are times that I cannot tell how they manage to do their thing.
They know what lure to put on the end of their line, they cast out with a complexity of motions, the lure hits the right spot, the fish strikes, then a complex struggle issues and out comes the fish.
Now…. Not every fishing spot is good.
I’ve got what I think is going to be the best fishing spot in the whole wide world.
It’s going to take some of the best fisherman in the world to try to catch the fish in this spot.
You can see the bottom in my fishing spot.
You can see the fish swimming around. The spot is full of fish. As a matter of fact… they are “flat fish” … swimming in groups of 12. heheheh
Only the most skillful fisherman will be able to land these fishs.
Of course, a good fisherman would be able to help out an “amateur” by advising where not to cast the lure…. He would be able to help select the right lure … so that an “amateur” does not catch any “red herrings”.
He would be able to explain how to cast and how to reel in the fish.
Gerard ’t Hooft has pointed us in the right direction but he seems to be busy for now so … I therefore, nominate/elect Yquantum as our official fishing guide for the party because he is the only one who has come forward and declared himself as a daily fisherman.
Hopefully…. Yquantum , You will come prepared with a good fishing story to complement and advance the efforts of Gerard ’t Hooft.
It could end up being the best fishing story ever told. It could end up being “publishable”.
Other Fishermen (being what they are)…. Would not hesitate to try to tell a better fishing story.
See you at the party.

jal

Good day!
Just a short note:
If you have been searching for the “Beables” these are probably the best places to get an explanation of this old word which was used in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604008.pdf
The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
By Gerard ’t Hooft
.
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/Kauffman.htm

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/beables.pdf
The “Beables” of Relativistic Pilot-Wave Theory
Simon Sanders

Remember that in the Planck scale a sphere is = hole = 2(3(2 pi ))
And the “Beables” = “SPOTS”.
jal

Good Day!
Since we are limiting the party toys to those that do not violate the Planck Scale then it should become obvious that spacetime is porous.
Can my model of spacetime be used as a dynamic porous material?
I only want you to bring some math approaches so that the “fishermen” will be able to tell if what you bring is “A Red Herring” or if could be adapted to make a “Plan B".




See you at the party.

jal

Hi jal,

Problem.. first catch your yquantum.

I feel like a fish that has been thrown back (sniff) ..

What you are attempting looks (to me) like a cross between finite element analysis .. (we say we go no smaller than a Planck 'something' ) and systems analysis where each Planckable zone has inputs and outputs which we can quantify.

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

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

Also

http://www.modelbenders.com/mastersim.html

Leaky? I don't [b]do[/do] leaky (except by mistake , sniff).

-C2.

(sniffle)

Confused2!
Without you ... this ship would have run aground a long time ago.

Systems theory is the basis for modeling complex systems, which are broken down into three basic components: units, processes, and structures. Once these three components can be identified, a mathematical or game-theory derived model can be produced. This model is then run through a Simulation.

I'll look for some other "tools" that are being used that could be applied.
Thanks
jal

Thanks jal,

I feel a bit better now


-C2.

Good Day!
Here are some recent attempts to use a "SPOT" approach.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610023.pdf

WRONG! … UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND YOU WANT TO DO SCIENCE FICTION.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610064.pdf

Good reading
jal

Hi jal (y),

Excellent references .. thanks.

If you were a pointy sort of particle the amount of energy (information) required to establish 'I'm HERE' could (waves hands frantically) exceed the amount of energy of the particle itself. (it might even BE the energy of the particle itself ). Hence .. maybe .. everything gets to wear a furry hat. Occasionally it might be interesting to suggest that there's only one design going on here .. it must all fit together. If imponderable space starts to think along these lines then it would be a bit blurry too. Hence you get blurry furry particles you can never quite put your finger on. For the sake of wild conjecture one might propose the blurry effect starts to dominate at around (you guessed it!) the plank length. Far from being a boiling foam at that scale .. it all settles down into a sort of 'Om' state. No infinite energy. Just 'Om'.

Can you still see your fish?

-C2.

Confused2
I have been encoutering .... kT ln(2)....and furry.... but I cannot quite grasp the concept of how it would affect the quantum structure.
Have you got more info.... explanations?
jal

Good Day Confused2!
"kT ln(2)" …You are opening the possibility that the “spot” dynamic structure is detectable by its heat lost. That the physic is deterministic and reversible… but not 100%. The system produces some entropy. Which then begs the question…does the spacetime structure emit a temp.? Could this be another explanation for the 3 degree Kelvin of the universe? That the Big Bang scenario is not the cause of the 3 degree Kelvin temp.?
The beginning of this thread where I start the discussion about entropy and potential energy would be where the process was not reversible and where a lot of heat was produced.
I have no idea if "kT ln(2)" would produce enough heat to replace the B.B. scenario or to account for the CMBR. There are 12 “Waves” generating heat as they get into a stabilized configuration.
My way was to demonstrate that by packing that there was more energy in a 2D system than in a 3D system. A gap of 16.64%.

Here is something to make you think.
http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundor/ifzx/cvinbit...(2)%22%20%20%22
Heat capacity in bits
P. Fraundorfa
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Molecular Electronics, University of Missouri,
St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121 and Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri 63130
~Received 15 July 2002; accepted 2 June 2003!

Note that the Planck scale imposes a minimum of 12 waves for 3D.
jal

"Moreover, as a theorem of statistical inference not involving energy at all, it applies to thermally unequilibrated systems sharing other conserved quantities (including money, for example)..."

That strikes a chord, thankyou jal. I shall print and study.

This post has been edited by Farsight on Oct 10 2006, 04:46 PM

Hi jal,

Very interesting .. thanks.

I think we might be looking under the same rock here.

I was generally coming from the direction of thinking that the more divisible your space is the more information it will contain (even if you don't want it to).

I had sudden doubts as to whether virtual particles actually contain any 'information' until flushed out into 'real' particles. A Casimir force 'engine' might help to flush out what's going on. (reversible?) .. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/carnot.html .

I'm sorry.. my brain continues to reject 12 (waves) .. please ignore it but be aware of it, if you see what I mean.

I suspect the CMBR is a red herring.

C2 .

Confused2... and all!
It would be interesting to see what the calculations would produce from assuming that the 12 "waves" is the bottom of the scale.
"A Casimir force 'engine' ".... The vacuum energy could be, ("kT ln(2)").
Due to the “Carnot Cycle” of the 12 waves not being as efficient near “mass” (spacetime curvature) we would get a higher energy reading. Then this inefficiency could be what we call “Dark Matter”.
We will just have to wait until somebody does the numbers.
jal

We're talking nano here.
Imagine a little ball on a thread suspended close to a surface .. everything except Casimir force is eliminated (one way or another). We set the ball swinging.. it swings. Keep scaling it down by a factor of ten and repeating the experiment .. either the ball stops swinging or goes berserk or something else.
Any guesses?
-C2.

Confused: Have a google on AFM and STM. I came across a paper a while back bout the forces at work between tip and surface that might be relevant. Sorry, I can't find it.

http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/res...sxm/sxm_e.shtml

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/surfaces/scc/scat7_6.htm