tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34512271843594634472018-02-20T14:25:19.022-08:00FB36 BlogFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-8176982724713651062018-02-15T07:56:00.004-08:002018-02-15T09:07:50.077-08:00What Black Holes Are Made Of?<br />https://www.patreon.com/posts/black-holes-must-16994748<br /><br />Wikipedia says Planck particle "defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius".<br /><br />Can we really think of Planck particles as tiny Black Holes themselves, as Wikipedia says? I think the answer is yes. Then, could we also really and truly call them Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes. Would it be logically consistent to say, Black Holes are made of Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes.<br /><br />Would that be consistent with General Relativity? I think the answer is yes. Because, would it really make any difference from GR point of view, if we divided a single Black Hole into N smaller Black Holes? Would the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole, would really change then? I think the answer is no. (Actually, the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole would be locally different from the total gravitational field around of a single Black Hole, but it would become more and more similar/indistinguishable, as N increases toward infinity. And, if Black Holes are really made of Planck particles, then N would be an astronomically large number for any real Black Hole, and so the gravitational field around any real Black Hole (made of Planck particles) would be practically indistinguishable from the gravitational field around of a single Black Hole.)<br /><br />Would that be also consistent with Quantum Mechanics? I think the answer is yes. Because, if we are assuming Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles, then we are assuming Planck particle is real and so it is a (new) member of Standard Model. And if we are assuming that, then would it be consistent with Quantum Mechanics, if Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles? I think the answer is yes.<br /><br />And, if any theory of Quantum-Gravity (now/future) is really correct, would it not say that, all objects in the Universe (including Black Holes) must be made of particles? If so then, should not we consider, which theoretical elementary particle(s) we know about, could be really fully consistent with, what we know about Black Holes and GR and QM, altogether?<br /><br />I think only a particle that is by itself a (tiny) Black Hole would be consistent with General Relativity, for BHs could be made of. Is there any other theoretically possible particle that is a tiny Black Hole itself? I think the answer is no. So if any Quantum-Gravity theory is correct, and so BHs are made of particles, then only valid possible option would be Planck particles.<br /><br />So, I think the idea that "Black Holes are made of Planck (Black Hole) particles" is actually consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Can we say the same for the idea that "the center of any Black Hole is a singularity"? It is obviously consistent with General Relativity, but, is it really consistent with Quantum Mechanics, also? I think the answer is no. Because, Quantum Mechanics (Standard Model), does not, also cannot, have any elementary/composite particle that can represent a singularity!<br /><br />So, it seems to me that, it is physically/realistically more plausible, Black Holes are made of Planck particles, compared to, Black Holes contain a singularity in their centers, which has infinite density and zero size and can have/hold any amount of mass/energy/information.FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-19086608931652899122018-02-11T20:13:00.002-08:002018-02-11T21:05:12.333-08:00Proving Quantum SupremacyWhat would be the simplest way to compare the power/capability of classical and quantum computers?<br /><br />Assume a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor (each processor register is N bits). How its insruction set would need to change for it to become an N-bit Quantum RISC processor?<br /><br />Actually most of the instructions would not need any change. For example, arithmetic and logic instructions would still be the same, but they would process qubit states (0,1,U) instead of bit states (0,1).<br /><br />Maybe just load/store instruction(s) need to be modified (from a programmer point of view):<br />Assume that, if a LOAD instruction for a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor is:<br />LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1'<br />Then the LOAD instruction for N-bit Quantum RISC processor would be:<br />LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1/U' (U for Unknown/Undetermined states)<br /><br />Quantum algorithm examples for such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor:<br /><br />Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm:<br />Problem: Assume A*B=C; A and B are known to be prime numbers; the value of C is given. What are the values of A and B?<br />LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />MULT R0, R1, R2 # R0*R1 -> R2<br />LOAD R2, C # => A -> R0 and B -> R1 after this instruction! (C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value.)<br />Imagine that, when R2 is forced to have the value of C in the end, that causes states of R0 and R1 change from unknown to real values of A and B, thus solving the problem.<br /><br />Quantum First Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:<br />Problem: Assume A*X+B=0. What is X if A and B are given? (Analytical solution: X=-B/A)<br />LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3<br />ADDN R2, R3, R3 # R2+R3 -> R3<br />LOAD R3, '0'*N # => X -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!<br /><br />Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:<br />Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)<br />LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />LOAD R3, C # C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />MULT R0, R0, R4 # R0*R0 -> R4<br />MULT R1, R4, R4 # R1*R4 -> R4<br />MULT R0, R2, R5 # R0*R2 -> R5<br />ADDN R4, R5, R4 # R4+R5 -> R4<br />ADDN R4, R3, R4 # R4+R3 -> R4<br />LOAD R4, '0'*N # => X0 or X1 (with %50 probability for each) -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!<br /><br />Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm 2:<br />Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. X0+X1=-B/A & X0*X1=C/A. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)<br />LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's<br />ADDN R0, R1, R2 # R0+R1 -> R2<br />MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3<br />LOAD R2, -B/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />LOAD R3, C/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value<br />=> X0 -> R0 and X1 -> R1 after these (which is the solution)!<br /><br />Realize that such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor could also still work as a N-bit Classical RISC processor (by simply never setting any register qubits to unknown states)! Meaning, a quantum computer has at least the same power as a classical computer for any/all worst problem cases! Meaning, finding even a single problem that a quantum computer can solve faster, would mean a proof of quantum supremacy! And realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above uses only 4 instructions! Could there be any chance that the N-bit Classical RISC processor (which has the same instruction set as the N-bit Quantum RISC processor), could solve the same problem using an equal or less number of instructions? The answer is obviously no, which means we have a proof of quantum supremacy!<br /><br />What are the advantages of quantum computers against classical computers, in general?<br />Realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above evaluates (in the end) all possible values of A and B instantly to find the (unique) solution.<br />(Imagine that whenever a problem has multiple possible solutions then a quantum computer randomly picks one each time.)<br /><div><br /></div>FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-56454888068503976272018-01-21T07:20:00.003-08:002018-01-21T07:20:38.519-08:00Hawking Radiation vs Unruh RadiationEquivalency Principle (which is the foundation of General Relativity) says gravity and acceleration are physically completely equivalent. Let's also consider that acceleration towards speed of light produces Unruh Radiation. Then one must conclude that, Black Holes also should produce Unruh Radiation, since their gravity (escape velocity) increases towards speed of light, when approaching near their Event Horizon.<br /><br />But then, a BH produces both Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation?<br />IMHO, all physical mechanisms I read about for, how exactly Hawking Radiation is produced, seem lacking. So I think it is quite possible that, BHs actually produce only Unruh Radiation.<br /><br />I think it is generally thought that, even if it is real, Hawking Radiation around any real BH, can never be actually detected by us, using any tech. What about possibility of detecting Unruh Radiation, instead? (I have no idea.)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-84860818870152436752018-01-14T22:51:00.003-08:002018-01-16T06:58:29.444-08:00World Energy ProblemI think, for the long term future of humanity, just having renewable clean energy (solar, wind, wave) is not really enough! If we really want to improve the future of our world, we need renewable clean energy but also astronomical amounts of it!<br /><br />Why? Realize that, we could really transform our world, if we had astronomical amounts of energy to spend. For example, titanium is an extremely light, strong, durable material. And our world has plenty of it to use for anything. But mining it at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could build all our vehicles, buildings, homes, bridges, roads, infrastructure from titanium, for example. Then, they all would last pretty much as long as we want/need! Imagine how much maintenance costs would be saved in the long term!<br /><br />Also keep in mind, titanium is just one example. Similar situation exists for aluminum, also. Aluminum is also an extremely useful dream material, and it is also plenty in Earth's crust, but it also requires a lot of electricity to mine. Another example is glass. Imagine, if we could produce glass bricks very cheap, then we could use them in all kinds of buildings (as walls), for example.<br /><br />Also water desalinization (using sea water) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy, also moving water across continents (using pipeline networks) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could provide enough clean water to anywhere anytime, for cities, agriculture, even for creating new large forests!<br /><br />Also realize that electricity is a big part of the total cost for pretty much anything we produce and use/consume. If we had really plenty electricity, price of pretty much everything would significantly drop (in different levels for different things) and also availability of pretty much everything would significantly increase (in different levels for different things).<br /><br />And that is why, we as humanity need to keep researching/experimenting clean fission/fusion!FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-9969991877894931132018-01-14T21:04:00.003-08:002018-01-14T21:06:58.610-08:00FUTURE OF AIRCRAFTFor large passenger and cargo (fixed-wing) aircraft (at least), what are must be our design goals?<br />I think:<br />1) Max fuel efficiency<br />2) Min mechanical complexity (for less breakdowns (more relilability) , less repairs and replacements, cheap production and maintenance)<br />3) Max safety<br /><br />What if, all wings had no internal/external moving parts? (Where each wing joined to the body, the wing is actually joined to a rotatable circle, where circle diameter is the wing width.) (That means the pair of two large width main wings would need to be replaced by small width (and also small length?) multiple pairs of wings, located back-to-back (with an interval in between) and/or like biplane wings.) The rotatable circles would enable a flight computer to keep readjusting attack angle of each wing, for all kinds of flight control, and very fast, very often. It would also enable computer to always adjust the attack angles for max lift/speed/efficiency, depending on current speed, temperature, pressure, weather. I think it would also end icing problems for all such aircraft! (Also realize that this kind of aircraft would require engines to be joined to the body (not to any wings), to not increase mechanical complexity.)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-82663937022624693532018-01-14T13:31:00.004-08:002018-01-14T13:34:07.435-08:00AUTOMATION AND UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOMEI think it should be clear to almost anyone today that our technology is progressing really fast, and its progress speed was always keep increasing (in the long term), since the beginning of our human civilization. So the speed of our technological progress is exponential in general. Availability of higher and higher tech, for cheaper and cheaper, to more and more people, is also probably exponential. I think, as the complexity and ability of our tech increases exponentially, the result for humanity would be having harder and harder time, for keep adapting to our own technological progress!<br /><br />I think, if nothing (effective) is done, we would be looking at a future world, where the general population share of poor people (who are below the income needed for their own basic needs), keeps increasing. (And where the general population share of rich people keeps decreasing but they also keep getting richer!) Unless a permanent solution is found, that is!<br /><br />I think, the first solution possibility, would be that humanity also (hopefully) keep increasing its abilities (always at same speed as tech!), by means of extending STEM education to the whole population.<br /><br />Second, each government could start (hopefully) providing Social Security Income and/or Food Stamps and/or Universal Basic Income, to its all poor people.<br /><br />I think success would be always far from guaranteed for either of these kinds of solution attempts.<br />Even if they can be done successfully for a while, they both have their own natural limits. For example, where the continuous money for the poor will come from? Would there be always enough money, if the share of the poor in the population keeps climbing in each country? If the tax on the all rich(est) people is increased successfully, is economic balance/stability can always be preserved? What would be the max tax rate possible on the rich for still keeping economic stability? And, is it really guaranteed, that max tax rate, would always be enough to provide help to all poor? (Or always can be even successfully enforced against the rich?)<br /><br />I think, if all other solution attempts failed someday, in the (hopefully distant) future, the last solution could be try to make a global law for everybody having less children. (If ever really made, I think that kind of law would need to be global (and approved by all countries), to really work, to prevent any country having/claiming any unfair population advantage/disadvantage against any other.)<br /><br />FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-45254925683361911672018-01-13T07:46:00.000-08:002018-01-13T12:03:54.458-08:00CYPRUS PROBLEMIMHO:<br /><br />Each international problem that keeps going for a long time without a permanent solution is a failure for our whole human civilization. We need to be able to solve our problems ourselves, peacefully, permanently, quickly. I think all international problems have solutions, if we just apply objective and realistic reasoning on them and act on the results.<br /><br />There are two sides of people at island of Cyprus, Southern Greek side and Northern Turkish side. After decades of negotiations, finally some years ago, UN prepared a very detailed joining agreement for the both sides. I think, first, the governments of both sides agreed in the terms of the agreement, and later both sides done their own public referendums for approval. Greek side refused the joining agreement but Turkish side accepted it. Since then the situation stays unresolved and no permanent solution could be seen for the future.<br /><br />How they could move on towards a permanent solution for the both sides?<br /><br />I think, objectively and realistically, solution of the both sides joining together, is pretty much looks dead. Then, next possible solution is the both sides becoming fully independent countries. I think from that viewpoint, Southern Greek side has no problem with international recognition from UN, but Northern Turkish side has a problem. Then, IMHO (as always), problem is already half solved. We just need a solution for the other side.<br /><br />How to move on:<br />I think Northern Turkish side need to ask UN to vote on, whether accept it as a fully independent country, or not. If UN refuses to vote on it, or votes but decides no, then I would say, Northern Turkish side would need to accept the reality, that their dreams of becoming a fully independent country is pretty much dead, at that point. And if that happens, their only realistic option, for a permanent solution, would be to join Turkey. And then Northern Turkish side would need to do a public referendum to decide between two realistic options:<br />1) Full join (meaning, their internal government/laws would be canceled)<br />2) Half join (meaning, their internal government/laws would stay)<br /><br />Choosing Option 2 would mean a relationship similar to the relationship between any state and federal government, of USA, if any a real-world working example is needed. (Of course, an example also could be chosen from the world history or today. Or they could try to create a new example of their own.)<br /><br />But what if, Southern Greek side is claiming that Northern Turkish region is actually belongs to them? (And so only permanent solution they can accept is that Northern Turkish people leaving the island.) I think, to be able to solve big international problems of humanity, first, we need to be realistic and objective. How many countries, kingdoms, empires came and went from world history. How many times, each and every piece of land, exchanged ownership? If so then, who can really say which piece of land is really belongs to whom? Each land must belong to oldest known people who lived there? If so then, what would happen to USA, Canada, Australia, for example? IMHO, Southern Greek side need to see that only realistic way for them to get Northern Turkish side would be war. Because Northern Turkish people and Turkey are already proved that they are willing to make war for it. I certainly would like to think neither side really wants to start a new war, which would involve many countries, for sure. So how about we all try to be objective and accept the reality that we can see?<br /><br />Of course, politics is a highly polarizing subject to talk about, same goes for religion. It should be known that I completely and absolutely respect any other views/opinions of anyone else. And I also always hope that everybody respect my own personal opinions are (only) mine. Also, ultimately, all political decisions belong to the official governments of the world, each for their own country.<br /><br />So that clarified, what about Syria problem?<br />IMHO, what happened (and continuing for years) in Syria is a civil war. The country divided into two parts. The current situation (which is really going on for years) is a stalemate. I think, ideal solution would be similar to the solution I suggested above for Cyprus. Meaning, both sides would do their internal public referendums about how to join back. But, to be realistic, I am guessing that, after many years of making war with each other, and enduring a lot of losses from each other, neither side would accept joining back, in any way. Then my suggestion would be that, both sides accept to become a new independent country, and all land each side currently control would become the land of their new country.<br /><br />And what about North Korea problem?<br />IMHO, best solution would be that North Korea government/public given these three options to choose one: (within a week/month for example)<br />1) North Korea joins South Korea<br />2) North Korea joins China<br />3) North Korea stays independent, but must also accept to give up on any, current or future, R&D on any kind of WMD, and must also accept periodical inspections by UN, US, and any/all other countries with WMD ownership, knowledge, experience. In return, all international trade restrictions must be lifted from North Korea, so to become the same as any other independent country in the world.<br />Of course, if option 1 or 2 is chosen by North Korea, then joining could be full or half (which would be best to decide by an internal public referendum). I personally think North Korea joining back to South Korea would be the best solution for the people of both sides/countries. (I think, how East and West Germany were reunited could be a good real world example.)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-67066749821527106142018-01-05T15:18:00.001-08:002018-01-17T13:42:52.694-08:00GUT 2https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-aim-to-classify-all-possible-phases-of-matter-20180103/<br /><br />"While classifying emergent particle behaviors might not seem fundamental, some experts, including Xiao-Gang Wen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, say the new rules of emergent phases show how the elementary particles themselves might arise from an underlying network of entangled bits of quantum information, which Wen calls the “qubit ocean.”"<br /><br />To everybody (especially physicists) who think, elementary particles could be really quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium at Planck scale, maybe this is the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT you are looking for, if you could consider the ideas below, for just few minutes:<br /><br />This is the GUT problem really:<br />All the physical experiments and observations in history are telling us that Universe acts,<br />according to Quantum Mechanics (which is discrete and probabilistic) at smallest scales,<br />and according to Relativity (which continuous and deterministic) at largest scales.<br />Is there a more fundamental theory that combines both QM and Relativity into one?<br /><br />Here is an answer proposal to consider:<br />Whenever we want to solve a really big and complicated problem, how about first we try to simplify it as much as possible? Is there any known simple analogy (toy model) for the GUT problem?<br /><br />What if really there is?<br />There is a known (by computer scientists) simple 2d/3d Cellular Automaton called FHP. It is used for (basic) 2d/3d fluid simulations. It creates a toy universe (matrix) of cells. Each cell can be empty or contain a particle or (a particle size part of) an obstacle. Later computer software tracks all particle movements and collisions (with each other and/or any obstacles present). In this kind of fluid mechanics simulations, at smallest scales/resolutions (close to particle size), physics of the toy universe looks discrete and probabilistic (which is similar to Quantum Mechanics), and at largest scales, physics of the toy universe (which is Navier-Stokes physics), looks continuous and deterministic (which is similar to Relativity).<br /><br />If so, then realize that those kind of (CA) fluid simulations actually create a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property! So if a very simple toy model can do that, why not our big and complicated Universe also could?<br /><br />Okay but where is the GUT in above ideas one may ask:<br />Let's first assume, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale). Then we can assume further that our theory (GUT) explains (all of) Quantum Mechanics and what is matter/antimatter. But even if so, then how we can explain Relativity (and what is spacetime)? Remember how FHP creates a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property? (And that it creates a continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) from discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales).) Then what if the continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) of Relativity is created by the discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales) of Quantum Mechanics?<br /><br />Then one may still ask:<br />Okay, matter at largest scales can be explained by QM, but how spacetime can be explained from QM? What is spacetime is made of (at smallest scales), according to QM? This is what it really says, isn't it? Spacetime is made of quantum vacuum, which is made of virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence, everywhere in our Universe. Then isn't that really means, our perception of spacetime (and all of its properties according to Relativity), must be created by quantum vacuum? (Which would mean that virtual particles are creating spacetime, just like real particles are creating matter.) (Also realize if spacetime is quantum vacuum then Casimir Force is artificial gravity!)<br /><br />Now realize that, if these above are assumed/accepted to be true, then finding the answers for many other big problems in physics is really not that hard to work out:<br />For example, what is the true nature of time, what is a Black Hole is made of, what is Dark Matter?<br />I think FHP model can answer a lot about true nature of time!<br />Only thing BHs could be really made of is Planck particles! (But if they are not made of any particles then they could be only pure balls of max dense spacetime!)<br /><div><br /></div>And what is Dark Matter is also simple, if someone just assumes this GUT ideas above are true and also consider what all DM experiments/observations are really telling us!<br />I think what all DM experiments/observations are really telling us is that DM is not made of particles (matter). Now remember that our GUT above tells us that everything in the Universe is matter or spacetime! And if so, then, isn't that mean, if DM is not any form of matter/particle, then it must be made of spacetime! Then what if, DM filaments of the Cosmic Web of our Universe, are really higher density regions of spacetime?<br /><br />Okay then what really is gravitational field?<br />If spacetime is an emergent property medium created by virtual particle medium of quantum vacuum,<br />and since gravitational fields modify spacetime curvature, then what we call gravitational field must be a previously unknown type of vacuum polarization!<br /><br />Okay if we really defined a full GUT above for unification of QM and Relativity, is that mean we really have a TOE here?<br />No, because remember these chains of reasoning all started by assuming, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale).<br />That is the missing part to have a full TOE candidate here, otherwise it is a GUT!<br /><br />Also where is the explanation for Dark Energy and expansion of Universe?<br />If we look at our Universe at largest scales, we see the cosmic web of Dark Matter expanding.<br />If Dark Matter is higher density regions of spacetime, then expansion of Universe maybe kind of like the surface of a boiling soup, or the inside of a rising dough. So what maybe causing our Universe to expand could be a currently unknown internal energy conversion process (like how a dough rise), or it could be because of addition of (negative) energy to our Universe (like a boiling soup) from outside of it (if really exists).<br /><br />https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-find-wrinkle-in-famed-fluid-equations-20171221/<br /><div><br /></div>One of the 7 Millennium Prize math problems is about completely understanding behavior of Navier-Stokes. I think it is not because of pure luck that one of the greatest problems in math is related to at least two of the greatest problems in physics. Realize that, whether fluids in the real world, or fluids created by CA like FHP, the continuous world of Navier-Stokes created by a discrete world of particles, from lower scale, as an emergent property. So that means Navier-Stokes problem is really about fully understanding how exactly an emergent property world is created mathematically.<br />Realize that whether real world fluids made of atoms, or computer world fluids made of particles in a matrix of cells, fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes could really only happen, if particle size making a fluid is zero. So fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes is always the limit case for infinite resolution fluid dynamics/simulation. Since FHP is much more simple than real world fluids, how about we try to understand Navier-Stokes using FHP CA, instead of real world fluids?<br />Imagine if we started with an FHP matrix of N by N with M particles and described them mathematically as a set of discrete particle equations, later, we assumed N and M values goes to infinity and that gives us the continuous Navier-Stokes equations in 2d. Realize that continuous Navier-Stokes equations are really the boundary condition of a math problem, asking exact mathematical explanation, for how they are created from a (simplest possible, like FHP) discrete particle world, as an emergent property. Also realize that Quantum-Gravity GUT problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem, use continuous equations of (General) Relativity as the boundary condition at infinite resolution, start from discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics.<br />Further realize that TOE problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem,<br />that asks, use continuous mathematical structure descriptions of elementary quantum particles as the boundary condition (at infinite resolution), start from discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale. Realize then the TOE emergent property problem naturally mathematically must harder than the GUT emergent property problem. That is because, in the GUT problem, we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem. (Realize it is also the same problem situation for Navier-Stokes emergent property problem. If we use FHP then we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem.) But in the TOE problem realize, we have only the set of boundary conditions for the right side (equations of continuous mathematical structure of elementary particles), and asked to find the left side, discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale.<br /><div><br />Also realize that, in the mathematical setup of the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, for the GUT, QM is the boundary condition for the left (discrete) side, and for the TOE, QM is the boundary condition for the right (continuous) side. That means for the GUT problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of discrete particle dynamics (movement and collision rules) equations (which are fully known today?). That means for the TOE problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of continuous elementary particle structure equations, which would be the set of elementary particle definition equations of Standard Model. (Standard Model would really have no choice but mathematically define structure of each elementary particle as continuous, since it does not assume existence of a deeper level of reality at an even smaller scale (Planck scale).<br />Of course currently it is unknown whether set of elementary particles in Standard Model is really complete or not. (My prediction is a least one more elementary particle waiting to be discovered: Planck particle, which BHs are maybe made of.) (How about gravition: I think if it really exists, it must be a quasiparticle of quantum vacuum that creates spacetime as an emergent property, not really an elementary quantum particle of Standard Model.)</div><div><br />Also realize that, in the general mathematical setup of emergent property problems, like the Navier-Stokes problem, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT problem, the TOE problem, in the general case, there are three different problem setup cases:<br /><br />1) The set of discrete particle mechanics equations are provided for the left (discrete math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of continuous field mechanics equations for the right (continuous math) side.<br /><br />2) The set of continuous field mechanics equations are provided for the right (continuous math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of discrete particle mechanics equations for the left (discrete math) side.<br /><br />3) Both sets of equations (a set of discrete equations for left and a set of continuous equations for right) are provided, as the boundary conditions, and we are asked to find (mathematically), how the set of discrete equations at left side creates the set of continuous equations at right side, as its emergent property, and vice versa.<br /><br />Also realize that, we have (at least currently), no standard mathematical notation system that can express any kind of particular emergent property problem (so that we could try to find general solution equation(s)/algorithm(s)).<br /><br /></div><div>(If we had a standard mathematical notation that can express any emergent property problem, then someday maybe we could use advanced quantum computers, to extremely fast search between all possible sets of solution symbols, and try to find solutions (expressing valid, discrete or continuous equation sets), containing the minimal number of symbols (of our (future) standard mathematical notation). Meaning, then, we would be looking for minimal length strings, made of our standard mathematical notation symbols, which are valid mathematical solutions, for the problems we have, like the Navier-Stokes, the GUT, the TOE emergent property problems.)<br /><br />Also realize that, in the emergent property problem case 3, since we have both boundary conditions (discrete and continuous sets of equations), and the solution (discrete or continuous set of equations, whichever we want), depends on what resolution (scale level) we choose. For example, if the mathematical emergent property problem setup is the GUT, and if we choose a scale any close to an average human size, we should expect to get the discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale, or the continuous equations of Relativity which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale.<br /><br />Then realize that, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT (emergent property problem) is already solved:<br />Because we have the both sets of (discrete and continuous) equations defined as boundary conditions (at left discrete Quantum Mechanics (Particle Dynamics) equations, and at right continuous Relativity equations (at infinite resolution scale limit)). We also know that at intermediate scales (like close to human size scales), equations of Quantum Mechanics reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, and equations of Relativity also reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, just as we would expect based on all the physics we experimented/observed at those scales (and that is actually how we (including Newton) discovered Newton Mechanics. So it can be said that we already know, as we look at how the reality/Universe physically/mathematically works, in different size scales, going from average size of elementary particles to average size of the galaxies for example, we can theoretically/experimentally/observationally show that, at lowest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly discrete rules of Quantum (Particle) Mechanics, and at the highest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly continuous rules of Relativity (Field) Mechanics. And, at any size scale, in between the both extreme limit cases, we already know that the physics at that selected size scale depends only on, if that size scale is closer to pure/perfect, Quantum physics side at left, or the Relativity physics side at right. So it should be possible to determine how exactly the scale variable value determines the exact mathematical nature of physics at that (any selected) scale.<br /><br />Is the scale variable of the GUT emergent property problem, operate like a linear weight variable like: Physics(scale)=scale*Relativity+(1-scale)*Quantum, where scale is between 0 and 1 (after normalized from being in between average particle size scale and average galaxy size scale).<br />(Or normalization scale could be chosen to be between smallest particle size (Planck particle size) and size of the whole Universe. So the choice of the normalization scale, determines the scale range of the emergent problem, and what scales its solutions would apply.)<br /><br />Then some important questions:<br />Is the scale really works linearly, like in above equation, in our real Universe? (Or it works a non-linear way (currently unknown)?<br />Is the scale works the same way for all kinds of mathematical emergent property problems?<br /><br />One way to answer would be, if we setup many simple emergent property problems, each with both boundary conditions given, and try to find out how scale changes the physics, at different scale values, and try to find a fitting curve, from those scale point physics. Then in the end, we could clearly see if scale changes the physics always linearly or non-linearly, and with always the same general equation (curve), or not.<br /><br />One such simplified emergent property problem is clearly FHP. Imagine, if we analyzed the physical behaviors (mechanics) of FHP fluid simulations, going from single particle scale resolution to large scale, nearly continuous looking, fluid dynamics. And if we checked/determined the physics is what share (of the whole) discrete particle physics and what other share (of the whole) is continuous field (Navier-Stokes) physics.<br /><div><br />For example, if the scale variable really works the same linear way, for all emergent property problems, as the way suggested for the GUT problem above, then it would mean, this is the general equation for it:<br />Physics(scale)=scale*B+(1-scale)*A, where scale is normalized to be between 0 and 1.<br />A: discrete (particle) physics/mechanics/dynamics<br />B: continuous (field) physics/mechanics/dynamics</div><div><br /></div>Of course, if someday we can define/express all mathematical emergent property problems in a standard general way, then it maybe possible to find the general equation of scale, applying to any emergent property problem (physical system), if really exists, (instead of trying to do curve fitting).<br /><br />I think General Emergent Property Problem is quite possibly the greatest unsolved problem in all of mathematics, physics, computer science. (Realize its utmost importance in physics and realize solving even a special (maybe the simplest) case of it, is a Millennium Problem!)<br /><br />Realize that, it is actually a Cellular Automaton problem. For example, in the case of TOE, at right (continuous) side, we have the set of elementary particle (continuous) structure definitions of Standard Model. We are asked to find, the unknown set of discrete equations (maybe zero or any number of valid solutions possible), that would create the right side perfectly as an emergent property, at infinite resolution. So in special case of the TOE problem, we are asked to find any/all/simplest/shortest (Planck scale) Cellular Automaton definition, that would be able to create all elementary particles of Standard Model perfectly, at infinite resolution limit. Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Standard Model! (For that Cellular Automaton what we need is the full set of all possible cell states and the full set of cell state transition rules.) (Why it needs to be Planck scale, because that is where (the scale) our known physics equations breakdown and become invalid solutions! And our basic laws of physics indicate Planck Units are the base measurement units of our Universe!)<br /><br />What if we done that and created a quantum computer simulation of our (any solution we can find) Cellular Automaton and discovered it does not look like really matching to our Universe, what then? I think that would mean Standard Model is incomplete?!<br /><br />Also realize that, even though it could be said the GUT problem is already solved, for a true test of it, and also to establish validity of the whole Emergent Property idea, we would need to convert all known quantum elementary particle mechanics/dynamics (movement and collision rules) into a Cellular Automaton definition form. Later, we would need to do, either mathematically show that our CA would recreate full General Relativity at infinite scale resolution limit, and/or create a computer simulation, and look at the action, at as large scales (at as large resolutions) possible, and try to determine, if the action, really matches to General Relativity (field mechanics/dynamics), or not! (The action would also need to match Newton Mechanics at its valid scales!) (Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Quantum Mechanics!)<br /><br />Also realize that, in the case of the GUT problem, our Cellular Automaton (CA) solution, would need to include mechanics/dynamics of all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!<br />(Similarly in the the TOE problem, the set of continuous particle structure definitions (Standard Model) would need to be able to express all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!)<br /><br />Obviously, if we solved both the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, and showed their validity thru simulations, experiments, observations, then it would mean our reality created by a quantum cellular automata operating at Planck scale, and it creates QM at higher scales, and it creates Relativity at even higher scales, in our Universe!<br /><br />And since the TOE CA is would need to be based on a crystal-like solid matrix of cells (which creates elementary quantum particles as its quasiparticles), and if we also consider expansion of our Universe, it would mean our Universe/Reality is like an expanding bubble/sphere of information, essentially! (But what if fluid/gas-based (no solid (ordered/random) matrix/grid) CA solutions are also possible?)<br /><br />Do we really have the complete solution for the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT emergent property problem? It actually still depends. If we look at CA (FHP/LBM) used for fluid simulations, which we now know are actually physical models, capable of numerically solving the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, they require a full set of movement and collision rules to handle mechanics/dynamics of their particles. In the GUT problem, we need the full set of discrete equations defining movements of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?), and also need the full set of discrete equations defining collisions of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?) (Amplituhedron?).<br /><br />Is beauty really important in mathematics, physics, computer science? Can beauty really guide us towards the truth? I think it really depends on the sense of beauty of a scientist. Personally for me, if our Universe/Reality is really created by a very advanced Planck Scale CA-based Quantum Computer, I think it would be absolutely beautiful! (For the TOE CA, my sense of beauty tells me, it would be best, if each Planck Scale cell state represented by a Sedenion (16D number) (which is also can be seen/used as 2 Octonions (8D numbers), or 4 Quaternions, or 8 Complex Numbers, or 16 Real Numbers).)(And imagine, if each of those 16 real numbers was a physical qutrit (using Balanced Ternary (-1, 0, 1) state values).) (Why Universe would want/need to use qutrits (using Balanced Ternary), instead of qubits (using Binary)? Because both the TOE CA and the GUT CA would need to be able to represent both positive and negative energy particles or fields, and also neither.) (Why Universe would want/need to use Sedenions and all the others? Because, I think, when number of dimensions of numbers/variables/constants, used in mathematical/physical equations/formulas, increases/doubles, their expressive/computational/solution powers also increases/doubles. Think about how much mathematical/physical progress was made because of discovery of Complex Numbers. And also I think many experiments and observations show that our Universe does not really disappoint, when it comes to realizing even most extreme conditions/possibilities :-)<br /><br />(20180113)<br />So, if, both 2d/3d FHP CA and LBM CA (particle physics) are creating Navier-Stokes (field physics) as their emergent property, they are both valid solutions for the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, and there is no difference between them? (Also, both FHP CA and LBM CA algorithms have many different versions for simulating different fluids/gases.) Actually, each different version would create a different version of 2d/3d general Navier-Stokes equations/physics, as its emergent property! For example, if LBM CA is considered, values of its free parameters (constants) selected, determine, values of the global constants of the fluid/gas created, as the emergent property.<br /><br />And I think, that means, in general, global constants of each emergent property (at right side of the problem setup) is determined by global constants of the CA (at left side of the problem setup). This would imply, for example, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in (General) Relativity equations, using the global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when it redefined as a CA). And, similarly, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when redefined as an Emergent Property (EP)), using the global constants in the TOE CA.<br /><br />I think, there are big mathematical questions waiting to be answered about General Emergent Property Problem, for example:<br />Since, we can always calculate the constants at right side, from the constants at left side, can we also always calculate the constants at left side from the constants at right side? (Is the relationship always one-to-one; can it be one-to-many; can it be many-to-one?)<br />As the resolution/scale goes to infinity, are the values of constants for the emergent property, always converge to constant values? Can they diverge to +/- infinity? Can they change periodically, chaotically, or like a fractal (deterministic/non-deterministic) curve?<br /><br />(20180114)<br />If spacetime is an emergent property created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum,<br />what is the total energy in unit volume of quantum vacuum?<br />I think, that must be the total energy of all elementary particles currently in existence in that volume in any given moment in time. (Also think that calculating it, would require knowing creation probabilities, and average durations, for all virtual elementary particles (assuming Standard Model is complete).)<br /><br />If quantum vacuum is always creating positive energy elementary particles (always as matter-antimatter pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is positive.<br />If quantum vacuum is always creating both positive and negative energy elementary particles (always as pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is zero (neutral/signless).<br /><br />If quantum vacuum energy is positive, then Dark Energy (which causes expansion of Universe), also must be positive. (Because, if it was negative, then it would cancel out quantum vacuum energy and make Universe contract, instead of expand.)<br /><br />And, if quantum vacuum energy is neutral, then Dark Energy must be a neutral form of energy, also. (If it was really zero then it would mean Universe will expand forever to infinite size! But, I think, if our reality is created by a CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid of Planck scale cells, then our Universe is really an expanding ball of information. Meaning, all forms of matter and energy are just information. And, all our experiments and observations show that energy is always conserved. Meaning, information must be always conserved by the CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid creating our reality. (All known conservation laws would be also, ultimately, because of the conservation of information law of our reality.) And, if information is always conserved, it would mean, information would not be created out of nothing by our reality (so it must be provided initially for Big Bang to happen).) So, if quantum vacuum energy is calculated to be zero, it would not mean quantum vacuum has no energy (and so it can be created infinitely), but it would mean quantum vacuum energy and Dark Energy are neutral/signless forms of energy.</div><div><br />I think, to better understand Big Bang, expansion of Universe, Dark Energy, we can further use 2d/3d FHP/LBM CA fluid simulations as simplified models/analogies. I think they are mostly used for fluid flow simulations, not for static fluid in a container. Realize, if the GUT CA and the TOE CA ideas are really correct, then our Universe also could be like a fluid flow simulation. In fluid flow simulations, using CA, there is a continuous incoming flow of new particles to be simulated. What if, each (stable) elementary quantum particle is always stable, even if it is a virtual particle? Imagine, if each elementary particle always can either have full necessary positive/negative energy to continuously exist (as told by Standard Model), or it would stay as same (stable) elementary particle, but as virtual. (And, if it is virtual, then it pops-in-out of existence (actually just appears and disappears, from our view/measurements), with a certain random uniform probability.) (And, imagine, when real (also virtual?) particles, collide and get destroyed (or decay), their total available positive/negative energy gets shared, between (always existing) virtual particles closest nearby, to get charged/absorbed to become real particles.)<br /><br />And, if those above are correct, it would imply that our Universe could be really like a CA fluid flow simulation. Imagine, new quantum (stable/unstable) particles are uniformly and randomly keep getting fed (somehow) into our Universe/reality ball of real/virtual quantum particles, starting from the time of Big Bang. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were real particles, for a certain time duration, at the beginning, which created matter later. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were virtual particles, afterwards, until today and keep going (so they keep creating new spacetime!).<br /><br />I think it is also possible that each and every virtual particle keeps appearing and disappearing from our reality in periodical oscillations, kind of like how any Neutrino oscillate. And if so, it could be that each virtual particle increases its frequency of periodical oscillations as it encounters and absorbs positive/negative more energy available from its local environment. (And if its frequency ever reaches a certain threshold (resonant?) value then it turns into a real particle.)<br /><br />https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-makes-the-hardest-equations-in-physics-so-difficult-20180116/<br /><br />How do we know if Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)?<br />Remember (from above) that Navier-Stokes problem is an emergent property problem, and FHP CA and LBM CA are its special and general (valid) solutions (at infinite resolution/scale limit) (which is already known/proven). And realize that, one thing common, in both FHP CA and LBM CA, is that (all) particle velocities are always bounded!<br /><br />Okay but how is that mean Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)? That is because both in the real world and in computer fluid simulations, resolution (scale) is always finite! That is why fluid (particle) velocities can never add up to infinity anywhere anytime, since (all) particle velocities are always bounded (finite) numbers! (Keep in mind that, in the real world, all fluids are made of atoms/molecules, and in the computer simulations, all fluids are simulated grids of certain finite resolution.)<br /><br /></div>FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-25001017487066630342018-01-01T00:09:00.000-08:002018-01-25T21:31:03.848-08:00Bitcoin ScamIs Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency) really a Ponzi Scheme (PS)?<br /><br />How a PS works really?<br />Imagine a PS Master offering you a deal and says:<br />If you invest, as much as your money (all you can afford), to buy shares of my company, I guarantee that, the value of your investment will keep increasing (exponentially), in the long term, and completely risk free. You can sell your investment shares anytime, fully or partially, for their current price. So a PS works this way but isn't this also how Bitcoin trading works? You buy as much as Bitcoin you can afford as initial investment; you wait as long as you can, to make your investment value increase as much as possible, for you.<br /><br />Realize that since the value of Bitcoin would keep exponentially increasing in the long term, how much money you can make from Bitcoin investment depends on just the total value of your initial investment and how long you wait! (Wikipedia says Satoshi Nakamoto owns about one million bitcoins with current value around 19 billion dollars!)<br /><br />If Bitcoin is a PS, how it would end (if it is not stopped by law everywhere)?<br /><br />Imagine, as the value of Bitcoin is nonstop increasing exponentially, it would get attention of more and more people, everywhere in the world! Imagine yourself as an average person who really likes easy and risk free money making opportunities, anywhere in the world! Imagine you bought Bitcoin(s), its value kept increasing, but sooner or later you wanted/needed the money, and sold your Bitcoin(s), for a much better price! You are happy that you made lots of money from your investment! But what if the value of the Bitcoin(s) you sold, kept increasing exponentially afterwards? How long it would take before you decided to invest in Bitcoin(s) again? And if you decided to invest again, wouldn't you want to invest even (much) more money, if you can, in order to get an even bigger return, sooner?<br /><br />Realize that as the value of Bitcoin(s) keep(s) increasing, mining it would be a more lucrative business all the time, meaning a positive feedback system!<br />Realize that as the value of Bitcoin(s) keep(s) increasing, more and more people would invest all they have, and more and more people would become ready to offer all their money to buy Bitcoin!<br /><br />How long it would take for an average Bitcoin investor to realize, in order to get most money, one must invest as much as money possible as initially, and wait as much as possible, unless the price of Bitcoin reaches the highest possible level earlier, and sell back. Now try to imagine a future world where the price of Bitcoin is reached highest possible level, so that all the invest-able money in the world is invested in Bitcoin! Realize that in those times, whoever still has any Bitcoin to sell would be incredibly rich! So real winner(s) of Bitcoin (scam) will be those people who still has any Bitcoin(s) to sell when its price reached the its ultimate limits, globally! (Since there will be about 21 million Bitcoins in the end, and if Satoshi Nakamoto owns about one million bitcoins, and if all investment money globally is invested in Bitcoin in the end, isn't that mean the value of Bitcoins of Satoshi Nakamoto will be equal to 1/21 of all investment money globally? If so, wouldn't that make him the richest person ever lived, by far?)<br /><br />Realize that, as the value of Bitcoin(s) keeps increasing exponentially, more and more people from all over the world, would invest all their life savings in Bitcoin! Realize that, those people would do probably anything to protect the value of their Bitcoin investments! Realize that, eventually, so many people in each and every country in the world, would be heavily invested in Bitcoin(s), and they would have enough power to prevent any government ban against Bitcoin trading!<br /><br />In conclusion, Bitcoin is probably the biggest scam in world history, and if it is not banned globally, it would end in global financial collapse! It needs to be banned by each and every country in the world, while each still can!<br /><br />Also keep in mind, if Bitcoin is really a PS, then so are all other cryptocurrencies!<br /><br />Also I think lots of people are buying other cryptocurrency coins because of thinking they lost the biggest opportunity with Bitcoin. But is that really true?<br /><br />If the price of Bitcoin is bound to keep increasing, until almost all invest-able money of everyone in the world is invested in Bitcoin, nobody left who wants to sell anymore, and so the Bitcoin price market contains only a (max) number of waiting buyers, then wouldn't any investment in Bitcoin (no matter if small), eventually would reach astronomical values? And if so then, isn't in a smart person's best interest, to just buy as much as Bitcoin possible (and keep buying as much as possible), until such time, the total value of the Bitcoins bought, surpasses anything that person would want to buy/have in his/her life? Then why try to tell everyone it is the biggest scam in world history, instead of taking advantage of it? It maybe really easy to make so much money from Bitcoin, by someone who understands its true nature, but doing so also would be extremely unethical behavior! Because it would be really just taking advantage of all the naive Bitcoin investors in the world, many who invested all their life savings!<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns<br /><br />What I discovered is that Bitcoin is a global Ponzi Scheme, for sure:<br />Customer buys a certain amount of shares from Ponzi Scheme Master.<br />Those shares gains value exponentially in the long term.<br /><br />Only differences in Bitcoin are these when compared to the first Ponzi Scheme by Ponzi himself:<br />There is no human master(s) running the scheme. The physical ledger of Ponzi himself, replaced by a general public ledger without any human owner(s). If there was human master(s) of Bitcoin with a well known (giant) amount of Bitcoin (share) ownership, and the master is not selling (yet), sooner or later general public and all world governments, all world banks/companies would start to realize that, the total value of Bitcoins of the Master(s) reaching truly astronomical levels! Then they would have to choose either to fight against the master, or try to buy as much as Bitcoin to also make a lot of money for themselves? (Imagine more and more people realizing that there is no way to lose when somebody invests all his/her money in Bitcoin and just waits as long as possible to decide when to sell and make an astronomical profit!)<br /><br />Imagine a future world, Bitcoin was never banned, almost everyone invested all their money/wealth in Bitcoin, and currently the total value of each of their Bitcoin investments are truly astronomical!<br />Would anyone want Bitcoin gets banned globally, and the value of all their amazing wealth waiting invested in Bitcoin, instantly drops to zero?!<br /><br />Regardless of Bitcoin is really a Ponzi Scheme or not, and unless it is banned globally and completely at any time in the future, its price will/must keep increasing exponentially in the long term. Then it is obviously the best investment ever seen in world history! (Its long term price chart (since it started) is already a perfectly exponential curve, and not because of luck but because of basic economics of a limited supply investment (true buying frenzy would start when all mining comes to an end eventually)!)<br /><br />As its price drops back (as a percentage) less and less over time, (because of more and more people trying to hold on to their Bitcoins as long as possible), it will be seen by the public to be an amazing investment opportunity! Imagine it turns into a true global frenzy that everyone tries to sell everything they own to buy any number of Bitcoins (or any other popular cryptocurrency) they can!<br /><br />20180125:<br />IMHO, Bitcoin is just a new, previously unknown, modified form of Ponzi Scheme. To be exact, Bitcoin is a decentralized Ponzi Scheme with a variable long-term interest rate. But then, what is the proof for Bitcoin being a Ponzi Scheme, such as described above? How about these?<br /><br />Bitcoin is a decentralized Ponzi Scheme, because it uses a public ledger (that managed by Bitcoin exchanges/"banks"), instead of a private ledger (that managed by a human master). (The founder of Bitcoin, who keeps the initial one million Bitcoins, could be seen as the "secret master" of Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme, though.)<br /><br />Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme with a variable long-term interest rate, because its value must always increase in the long term, because of basic rules of investment economics, because of its limited availability. Meaning, any investor of Bitcoin would get an extra return in the long term, guaranteed!<br />So it is really equivalent of getting a guaranteed but variable interest payment in the long term! (Is there any other (real/physical) investment that can do the same?! If not, why not?! So, what would be the consequences, for the whole world economy, if no real investment can match Bitcoin?!)<br /><br />(Realize that, all of these also apply to all other so-called "crypto-currencies", not just to Bitcoin!)<br /><br />(Also, I think calling them "currency" is wrong. Notice that, as Bitcoin price kept increasing exponentially, people stopped using it as a currency, and started using it as an investment. This was no luck! Since the price of Bitcoin would climb exponentially in the long term, in any case, it would sooner or later would be impossible to use as a currency, and it already happened, as would be expected! So I think a better name for them could be "crypto-investment" or "token-investment" or "abstract-investment".)<br /><div><br /></div>FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-22798099105092534522017-12-27T21:08:00.003-08:002017-12-27T21:09:35.221-08:00A World Government ProposalWhat is the biggest problem of our world or the whole human civilization?<br /><br />Is it lacking full healthcare or good education for everyone?<br />Or not enough food and/or water for everyone?<br />Not (good) enough jobs/money for everyone?<br />Not (good) tech and/or living standards for everyone?<br />How about the lack of permanent world peace or the lack of (a fair and effective) world government, that quickly solves all problems between any countries of our world?<br /><br />If we look at the history of our world, we see many big and small nations, city states, kingdoms, empires, countries make wars from time to time.<br />The problem is how much damage happens to so many people and their property in each war!<br />Also consider, thanks to keep advancing military weapons (because of the constant power competition between all countries of the world), possible damage from any big/small war is keep increasing all the time, fast!<br /><br />Besides of wars, big/small countries of our world, also keep running into disagreements that bring bad consequences for one side or both.<br /><br />Also, who can say the outcome of any particular war/disagreement was really fair for everyone?<br /><br />Okay but how do we know creating a fair and effective world government is even possible?<br />Currently we have UN (as a second attempt I believe) but it obviously cannot solve all international problems. Can we really create a new UN (more like a true world government) that is fair and effective for any and all international problems?<br /><br />In the current UN voting/decision system, each member country has a right for a single vote for each decision. But any (permanent or temporary) member country of the security council has a right for preventing any UN decision. Can we really create a more fair and effective voting/decision system?<br /><br />What if there was no security council to prevent any decision? Then, obviously, biggest and/or most powerful countries would not accept to have equal voting rights with smallest and/or least powerful countries, and rightfully so IMHO. If so then, what if we find a way to fairly (each year re-)calculate how many votes each country needs to have?<br /><br />Obviously, first, we would need to find a fair and equal way to evaluate each and all member countries. Imagine in the end of evaluations, each country gets an overall score, to be used as the weight, to calculate the number of its votes.<br /><br />And to calculate overall scores, what if we put together a big international group of scientists/experts, and asked them to determine a standard set of statistics (and their weights) to evaluate economic/military/industrial/technological/scientific power, land size, population, living standards, healthcare, education of each and all member countries, to calculate a (sub)score for each, and later, apply a standard set of weights to all sub-scores, and add them together, to calculate overall scores for each member country?FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-75840826474701149302017-12-24T08:50:00.003-08:002017-12-24T08:50:37.733-08:00EMPEROR IS NAKEDWhat really is the current state of String/M Theory/Theories?<br />And what practically it really means for the community of phycisists/universities?<br /><br />IMHO:<br /><br />How about we always judge current theories of phycists based on, currently and objectively, how much chance (as probability), they (still) have for being correct?<br />And what exactly, each range of probability of correctness, means for us practically?<br /><br />I think second question is obviously easier to answer:<br /><br />1) A new and promising theory of physics comes along then what to do?<br />New phycisists (or their percentage who really like challenges and taking risks), start studying it, theoretically, experimentally, observationally, by all means.<br />(Or existing phycisists, who are considering changing their area of expertise, and have similar character :-)<br /><br />2) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) unlikely to be correct then what to do?<br />Existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.<br />New phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.<br /><br />3) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) likely to be correct then what to do?<br />Again, existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.<br />Again, new phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.<br />(Obviously, in the cases of current state of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, each definitely have .999... probability of correctness, each in their own domain/scale.)<br /><br />At least ideally, whenever the current probability of correctness of a theory goes lower (because of new theoretical/experimental/observational results) then current percentage of new people choosing to study it also should go lower, and vice versa.<br /><br />In the case of current state of String/M Theory/Theories/Frameworks, the following is my current personal view/judgement, as just a big fan of physics and nothing more:<br />I think theoretically or observationally there is really nothing to favor or disfavor String Theory.<br />And I think, the experimental results (mainly from LHC), directly disfavor Super Symmetry, and indirectly String Theory.<br />So I think what it practically means for the world of physics is number two above, unless new experimental/observational results change its probability of correctness in the future.<br /><br />For the reader who read everything above:<br />My first idea for the title was a simple yet glorious one, "Theories Of Physics".<br />Later I changed it to "On Theories Of Physics".<br />Later I changed it again to "Descent of (String) Theory" :-)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-7580108276990711712017-12-23T07:44:00.001-08:002017-12-23T07:44:31.518-08:00ISRAEL AND PALESTINEThe problem between Israel and Palestine was going on for a long time and is does not look like will be resolved anytime soon, IMHO.<br />I would ask this, are we all want a peaceful solution or not?<br /><br />We all as the humanity, should always try to find peaceful solutions to any problems between ourselves, or not?<br />If we all want peace, we should always try to make sure absolutely all possible solutions are considered, or not?<br /><br />Can we really say, all possible solutions are considered for the problem between Israel and Palestine?<br />And all of them rejected by Israel and/or Palestine?<br /><br />I really do not know the answer, and I really do not think anybody else knows the answer, either (but that is just my guess).<br />I think it is because the problem seems really big and complicated, with a long history.<br /><br />I think scientific/logical approach would be, try to define the problem precisely first, and try to make a list of all possible solutions, to consider all later.<br />Obviously, to precisely define the problem, we should try to simplify it as much as possible, at first.<br />Can we really simplify the problem between Israel and Palestine, so that almost anybody can understand, what is the problem, exactly?<br />How about trying to find a simple analogy for it first?<br /><br />Here is an idea (IMHO):<br /><br />Imagine, you are the current owner of a little farm, and living there with your family.<br />Your farm was owned by your family going back many generations.<br />Your farm also contains a little land which is an extremely holy site for you, for your religion.<br />But you also have a rich neighbor, who really wants to own your land, because, the distant ancestors of the neighbor also owned the same land, for many generations.<br />And also, the holy site in your little farm was in fact, was first build and used by the distant ancestors of your neighbor, and it is also an extremely holy site for your neighbor, for his religion.<br />You and your neighbor were keep arguing (even fighting) for many years without finding any solution.<br /><br />Obviously, the most simple solution would be both sides leaving each other alone, but imagine, that never happened, and does not look like will ever happen.<br /><br />What other solution possibilities could be considered for the problem?<br /><br />Here is an idea (IMHO):<br /><br />What if your rich neighbor offers to buy your farm, for a more than fair, really good price for you?<br />But how you can sell such holy place for your family to anyone else?<br /><br />But what if, first, you and your neighbor determined the exact location and size of the common holy land, for both of you?<br />What if, that holy land would be always belong to you and your neighbor, with equal ownership, as part of the agreement.<br />What if, you both also determine another co-ownership land, next to the holy land/site, to build a common headquarters, to provide security, repairs, cleaning and so on, to the holy land/site.<br />What if, you both provided an equal number of people for all services, and they always have to work together, enter, leave the holy land/site.<br />What if, you both first determined, what are the exact rules for any visitors, what kind of possible situations must be handled, and exactly how.<br />(Like, for example, what if, multiple groups of visitors from both sides/religions want to use the same part of the holy site, at the same time? Maybe a common scheduling system could be created?)<br /><br />Assuming you and your neighbor agreed upon the holy site (somehow), would you be okay with selling the rest of your farm to your rich neighbor?<br />Or you would want to keep arguing/fighting with your neighbor farm? (And you and your neighbor both keep getting/causing harm/damage.)<br /><br />I think, if I was in this situation, I would be okay with selling (non-holy site part of) my farm, but only if, it is absolutely certain I would get a new (and better) farm.<br /><br />So, what if, Palestine sells all its land to Israel (except the holy site), for an agreed price.<br />What if, as part of the agreement, we need to find another country in the Middle East, willing to sell a large piece of land to the people of Palestine, to build a new (modern and luxurious) city, and start their own new independent country there?<br />What if, as part of the agreement, UN would need to officially recognize the new Palestine, as a new and independent country?<br />What if, as part of the agreement, Israel (and UN/US?) would need to guarantee protection of the new Palestine state, against any possible future invasion/takeover attempts, by anyone from outside?<br /><br />If we look at the history of our world, I think there countless times a whole nation (country) got relocated.<br />Also some large lands were bought/sold with agreement (sometimes fair, sometimes not), instead of war/invasion.<br />Can we do it in our modern times, without war/invasion, and with a really agreed upon and fair deal for both sides?<br /><br />IMHO, one thing is certain, humanity would be gaining/accomplishing a lot, if we learn to solve our international big problems (at least), always in peaceful ways. FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-22817467889990132462017-12-21T22:15:00.000-08:002017-12-21T22:15:57.893-08:00SONIC BOOM ABATEMENTHow we can reduce sonic booms generated by supersonic passenger aircraft, so that they can easily fly over cities, all the time?<br /><br />From what I read on Wikipedia, it seems to me there are two main strategies as,<br />try to reduce it by modifying aircraft shapes and/or surfaces,<br />try to divide it into multiple smaller sonic booms.<br />I am guessing even combining both methods is still not good enough.<br />If so then, can we find more strategies to combine with the others?<br /><br />Since the problem is called '"sonic" boom', it is a sound problem, obviously.<br />How we take care of other loud noise problems?<br /><br />For example, think about how noise cancelling earphones work.<br />What if each aircraft carries a powerful enough speaker, that generates anti-sound, for its own sonic boom (and all other noise?)?<br /><br />Each sonic boom can be thought as a combination of countless simple sound waves, doing constructive interference.<br />If so then, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each sonic boom wave is generated as twins in opposite phases, like sound and anti-sound?<br />Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each simple sound wave generated, also has a twin in opposite phase?<br />Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that all simple sound waves generated are in randomized phases, so that the aircraft generates non-loud white noise, instead of loud sonic boom?<br /><div><br /></div>FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-69323454757438536552017-12-20T18:26:00.002-08:002017-12-20T18:26:26.016-08:00General Theory Of Auto-drivingToday there are many companies working on autonomous cars/vehicles/drones/aircraft/ships/submarines. I have no idea how their software actually work. I also do not know, if there is a general theory for how auto-driving/piloting software should work.<br /><br />Why we would need a general theory for it, right at the beginning?<br /><br />I think a good example is the history of computer programming languages. What were their state, before and after, development of the general theory of computer programming language design?<br /><br />I think the general theory of auto-driving/piloting, could be based on Game Theory in Computer Science.<br /><br />For example, when a computer is playing Chess, to decide each next move, it generates as many as possible future moves for itself, and the other player. It evaluates the board states in those future moves from a winning/losing score point of view. Then it chooses the best move for max winning and min losing scores.<br /><br />Now imagine we have a self-driving car:<br /><br />It keeps track of all moving vehicles, people, animals, objects around. (Each could be represented as a moving box in a 3d non-moving world of boxes/surfaces.)<br /><br />Every millisecond (or less), the software creates future possible moves, for the car itself, and all other moving objects. (So the car itself and each moving object is like the players of the same game.)<br />And it also evaluates those future possibilities for:<br />How close it is to the future navigation goals of the car?<br />How high is the chance of an unavoidable collision?<br />How high is the chance of an avoidable collision?<br />Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the car itself can be minimized?<br />Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another vehicle can be minimized?<br />Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another person/animal can be minimized?<br /><br />To generate future possibilities, it would need to consider things like, the car itself, each of all other vehicles around, each of all people/animals around slowing/accelerating/turning in many different (and physically possible) ways/directions.<br /><br />Of course, the general method described above can be modified for piloting, instead of driving (just like the general algorithms known in Game Theory can be modified for playing different games).FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-25919155310679998662017-12-17T18:29:00.003-08:002017-12-17T21:52:52.767-08:00Comparing Security Of Programming LanguagesMany different programming languages are used to create all kinds of software. And computer software security is extremely important today, and probably will become even more important in the future.<br /><br />Big Question:<br />Are all programming languages inherently equal in security viewpoint? Or some are really inherently more secure than some others? (And also, a related question, are some Operating Systems more secure than some others?) How we can compare them objectively for inherent (natural) security?<br /><br />First, how software bugs are used to break security of computer systems, by hackers or malware?<br /><br />I think they send a series of instructions/input data to any accessible software, to activate known (and unpatched) bugs. Which create unhandled runtime exceptions, like division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,...<br /> <br />Now, for simplicity, assume we want to compare security of native executables, for a certain OS, compiled using a certain brand and version compiler, for a certain programming language (and its version), like C, C++, Delphi,...<br /><br />Imagine if we created a table for objectively comparing security as follows:<br /><br />First column: A (sorted) full list of common runtime exceptions like, division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,... <br />Next, add one column for each certain language compiler.<br /><br />Next, we fillout cell values of our table (where each will be -1 (No) or +1 (Yes)), by asking this question:<br /><br />Is the runtime exception on the left, possible to happen, for the certain language compiler on the top? (Assume the programmer wrote any section of any compiled software, using that certain language compiler, and forgot to add any exception handling for it.)<br /><br />(If the certain version OS, which we creating this table for, already have general safe handling, for any certain common runtime exception, so that it can never be used by hackers/malware, then we do not need to include it in our table, obviously.)<br /><br />(If the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, for the certain language compiler on the top, then the cell value still must be -1 (No). Because that is still an advantage for the certain language compiler on the top. Since all programming languages are Turing-Complete, any algorithm can be implemented in any certain language compiler. Then we must conclude, if the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, there is no ability lost, but there is an inherent security gained.)<br /><br />Then in the end, we can compare inherent security of each certain language compiler, which we included in our table, by simply calculating sum value of each column, as an inherent security score. Then smaller sum values would indicate higher inherent security.<br /><br />But I think if we do statistical analysis on all existing software (for any certain OS version), then we would find, some kind of dangerous runtime exceptions are more common than others. That means if we know relative frequencies (RF) of each common runtime exception (bug) in our table, then we can make our inherent security scores more realistic/accurate, by using relative frequencies as a weight, for each runtime exception on the left.<br />(So then each cell value would be -1*RF or +1*RF.)<br /><br />Can we use this kind of programming language compiler security scoring table, to also score and compare, security of different OSs (and their different versions)? I think the answer is yes.<br />Imagine if we re-evaluated the same security scoring table (same set of row and column titles),<br />for different OSs (and their different versions). Later, for each table, we calculated sum of all cells in the table, to get a total security score for that OS (version). (Then, again, smaller values would indicate higher inherent security.)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-63640558301365588532017-11-21T21:58:00.000-08:002017-11-21T21:59:25.499-08:00The Ultimate VR DeviceLight, thin, sturdy, mobile, supercapacitor-charged computer (PC/MAC/Linux/NET/Android/iOS) glasses, that covers both eyes (and ears) completely.<br /><br />It must be possible to wear it even while lying on the bed, even for many hours everyday, w/o feeling sick or tired.<br /><br />It could be letting no light from outside to to the either eyes.<br />Or it could set for any level of transparency wanted, from 0% to %100, together and/or independently, for the eyes.<br /><br />Sounds coming from outside also must be fully adjustable.<br /><br />It must have WiFi, Bluetooth, USB (at least two most common type connectors) for minimum.<br /><br />It has all kinds of sensors for VR and smartphone applications.<br /><br />It must have a good mouse (it could be something similar to a short and fat pen (USB-chargeable), with a track-point at top, for example).<br /><br />For software, it must have all kinds of commonly-used remote desktop connection/access software, if possible.<br />Also it would be better, if it had its own virtual keyboard(s), internet browser, media player, text/document/image/video viewer(s)/editor(s).<br /><br />It should use (at least one) standard removable solid state memory card, as for its on-board long term file storage drive.<br /><br />Also it would be better, if it also supported AR.FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-4194449441041102442017-11-18T08:16:00.001-08:002017-11-18T08:16:22.660-08:00Baryon Asymmetry ProblemOne of the biggest unsolved problems in physics is the Baryon Asymmetry (BA) problem. Why the Big Bang (BB) created more matter than antimatter?<br /><br />I think the first question for BA really is, what was the mechanism of particle creation? I think the assumption in the world of physics, since the beginning of BB Theory, was Pair Production (PP).<br />But PP seems to be always creating matter-antimatter particle twins, so always equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Then what was the reason, the balance tipped towards the matter side?<br /><br />But, is PP, the only possible mechanism of particle creation we know?<br /><br />When an unstable matter/antimatter nucleus or particle decays, it also creates new particles and/or antiparticles, true? If true then, is not it possible, BB created new particles like an unstable particle decay event? If so then I think the most reasonable assumption would be, the whole universe was a single unstable (elementary) quantum particle at the beginning. (Or multiple particles? (Then most likely, an odd number of particles!))<br /><br />If our universe began as a single unstable quantum particle suddenly decaying, what set of particles/antiparticles were the decay products then? Since our universe contains much more DM than matter, one of the decay products must be DM particles. I think we need to find out for certain (if possible), how DM/M ratio of our universe changed since the beginning. I think if the ratio was always constant, then it would mean DM and M particles were created with that ratio right in the beginning. And if amount of matter (vs DM), kept increasing since the beginning, then would mean DM was creating matter, since the beginning. (So it would also mean BB only created DM, initially.)<br /><br />Clearly, each unstable nucleus/particle decay event, is like a very powerful explosion, at its own scale. So our universe beginning as a single unstable quantum particle decaying, would be definitely the mother/father of all explosions, thus truly deserving the name BB!<br />Which I think would also explain how/why the era of inflation (hyperfast expansion) happened, in the beginning times of our universe.<br /><br />If our universe started as a single unstable (elementary) quantum particle, the biggest question would be this:<br />What were its properties? (All possible sets of quantum elementary particle state values for energy, wavelength/frequency, rest mass, spin, charge, color charge etc.)<br />Obviously the main constraint of the problem, is that the final result of the initial particle decay process, needs to be able to produce all DM/M of our known universe. (And I think that requires us, first considering how quantum properties of particle decay products, relate to quantum properties of the initial unstable particle that decayed.)<br /><br />I think this maybe implying another constraint for the problem:<br />From Wikipedia:<br />"The presence of an electric dipole moment (EDM) in any fundamental particle would violate both parity (P) and time (T) symmetries. As such, an EDM would allow matter and antimatter to decay at different rates leading to a possible matter-antimatter asymmetry as observed today."<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry<br /><br />See also:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matterFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-51693934049126486542017-11-08T23:21:00.000-08:002017-11-10T16:24:57.469-08:00A GUT OF QUANTUM GRAVITYWhat really is spacetime and what really are elementary quantum particles?<br /><br />Imagine spacetime is an emergent property which is a gas-like medium, created by virtual quantum particles keep popping in and out of existence for extremely short durations, which is also the medium of quantum vacuum. Imagine what flat spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of positive and/or negative energy/mass virtual particles are equal. Imagine positive curvature spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of positive energy/mass virtual particles are higher. Imagine negative curvature spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of negative energy/mass virtual particles are higher. (Realize then spacetime would be really a medium of probability.) Imagine when a region has excess positive energy available, positive energy/mass virtual particles are not just created more but stay in existence longer.<br />And whenever/wherever the energy is higher than necessary thresholds, virtual particles created as real particles. (And when a region has excess negative energy available instead, then negative energy/mass virtual/real particles are created similarly instead.)<br /><br />Imagine when light passes thru spacetime regions with different positive/negative curvature, it is like passing thru gas/fluid regions with positive/negative index of refraction.<br /><br />(So a positive energy/mass particle/object creates a field of positive spacetime curvature around of itself, which we call its gravitational field.)<br /><br />Realize if gravitational field is polarization of virtual particles, then creating Casimir Force is actually creating artificial spacetime curvature/gravity!<br /><br />Imagine all elementary quantum particles of Standard Model, which are used to create virtual particles, which create the gas-like spacetime medium, are really quasiparticles of a fluid-like medium, like bubbles created by a boiling fluid. Imagine that fluid-like medium is created by a Cellular Automaton Quantum Computer (CAQC) with Planck length scale cells of qubit registers. Imagine each elementary quantum particle is a like a cluster of information/probability. Probably like a spherical probability wave, traveling in the fluid-like medium created by the CA, maybe similar to CA used for fluid simulation, like LGCA(FHP)/LBM. (Also realize that what happens in CA used for fluid simulation, about predictability of the future (nature of time), is really similar to what happens in our real physical Universe:<br />In microscale future is unpredictable (particles move randomly), but it becomes more and more predictable with certainty, as we watch it in higher and higher scales. Imagine we just watch/observe that CA world by using bigger and bigger tiles, calculating average particle number/velocity/acceleration for each tile. Then the CA world starts following the rules of classical physics (Navier-Stokes Equation), better and better. Meaning the future becomes better and better predictable, as we observe the CA world in higher and higher scales.<br />Which is very similar to how future events are unpredictable with certainty in QM scale, compared to how future events are predictable with certainty in Relativity scale. And predictability of future events, is in between those two extremes, in Newton Mechanics (human) scale.)<br /><br />If what are above are assumed to be true, then it would mean somehow quasiparticles of the Planck-scale medium, are allowed to exist only as a discrete and limited set, which are the elementary quantum particles of Standard Model. (So nothing like soap bubbles, which have a continuous size range, and also have identical/similar nature.)<br /><br />Also obviously this Planck-scale medium has a limited max signal/information travel speed which we call the speed of light (c). So quantum particles without rest mass always travel at c.<br />And quantum particles with rest mass travel at lower speeds depending on their rest mass plus kinetic energy. What slows them down I am guessing is the Higgs particle field across our Universe.<br /><br />So rest mass is like a binary property of elementary quantum particles, with possible values of 0 or 1. So if it is 1 then it creates a drag, moving thru the Higgs Field, because of interaction with it. Then its speed thru the Higgs field depends on its total energy (rest mass/energy plus kinetic energy, which determines size (wavelength) of the particle). And if its total energy is greater, then its size/wavelength is smaller, and it moves faster thru the Higgs field and so thru spacetime.<br /><br />I think Standard Model is not complete and there are at least two more elementary particles to be discovered. I think one of them is Planck Particle and it must be what Black Holes are made of. I think the other must be the particle of Dark Matter (could it be graviton?).<br /><br />Based on the ideas above, I think the recent discovery of "hot gas" in DM clouds/filaments, must be because of DM creating a positive spacetime curvature, which means higher probabilities for positive energy/mass virtual particles of quantum vacuum. (So it is a similar phenomenon to Hawking Radiation.)<br /><br />But why elementary quantum particles have quantum properties/abilities like entanglement? I think it could be because reality is created by a Cellular Automaton Quantum Computer (CAQC) with Planck scale cells. So, since elementary quantum particles of SM are the quasiparticles of this CAQC, they also have quantum properties, since they are clusters of qubit information processed by a (CA) QC.<br /><br />If gravitational fields are fields of (positive) spacetime curvature, and spacetime is a medium created by virtual particles, then how objects would attract each other? Obviously, a vacuum region with higher probabilities for positive energy/mass virtual particles, must be like a low pressure gas region of spacetime medium. And a vacuum region with higher probabilities for negative energy/mass virtual particles, must be like a high pressure gas region of spacetime medium. (Imagine each particle with positive energy/mass, is a region of positive curvature (of the Planck-scale medium), so when they group together in clusters (objects with mass), then they create a macroscale positive curvature region, like a low pressure gas region of the gas-like spacetime medium.)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-31712879106776351032017-11-02T21:48:00.002-07:002017-11-02T21:48:49.377-07:00The Table Of Elementary Quantum ParticlesI think discovery of the Periodic Table (PT) of chemical elements, allowed accurate prediction of many new/unknown elements and their various properties. (If we are given, only atomic number and mass number of an element, can we accurately predict all its properties (nuclear, chemical, physical, electric, magnetic), using only Quantum Mechanics?) So the set of all chemical elements clearly have a basic (and standard) order (PT)! But there are also many known (and useful) alternative periodic tables (APT). (Isn't there any precise (and unique) mathematical/geometric object/structure/group/graph for the set of all chemical elements other than various table structures?) (And if so, then that object can explain all basic properties of all elements?) So we could say, the order of the set of all chemical elements is not really unique!<br /><br />Do we really have any true equivalent of PT/APT for elementary quantum particles (of Standard Model)? I think the answer is really no! Because we could not found any clear order for energy/mass of elementary quantum particles, so far!<br /><br />I think if there is truly no order (can we ever hope to prove that mathematically?), then it could be viewed as a sign of multiverse (or Intelligent Design?)! And if there is an order and its unique, then it could be viewed as a sign of natural inevitability of our reality/universe. My guess is, it will turn out similar to PT/APT situation of the set of all chemical elements (a non-unique order)!<br /><br />What we can do to find it/them, if really exist?<br /><br />I think as a first step, we should try to create a basic (and standard) table for elementary quantum particles. It needs to be sorted by particle (rest) energy (since we are trying to explain order of that primarily), and it surely needs to be simplified using Planck Units.<br /><br />Here is a proposal for a basic (and standard) table of elementary quantum particles:<br /><br />Column 0: Name/symbol of the elementary particle<br /><br />Column 1: Compton Wavelength of the elementary particle in Planck Length Units<br /><br />Column 2: Corresponding Compton Frequency of the elementary particle<br /><br />Column 3: Is the elementary particle have rest mass?: Y/N<br /><br />Column 4: Electric Charge (in Electron Charge units) (Or, is there a Planck unit for electric charge?)<br /><br />Column 5: Spin <br /><br />Column 6: Color Charge<br /><br />(Table needs to be sorted (ascending/descending) by column 1 values, by default.)<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_number<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ModelFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-21988327344420229612017-10-28T19:02:00.001-07:002017-10-28T19:02:29.784-07:00Production Of Quantum ParticlesHow quantum particles maybe produced by our Universe?<br /><br />Assume our reality is created by a CA QC operating at Planck Scale.<br />Assume it creates a Planck Scale Particle based fluid medium, just like LBM (CA) creates 2d/3d fluid simulation.<br />Assume, when that fluid medium starts boiling, it creates bubbles (which are its quasiparticles).<br />And since the cells of the CA QC are qubit (register(s)) based, those bubbles/quasiparticles have quantum properties.<br /><br />So assume, our universal fluid medium, creates bubbles/quasiparticles (quantum particles),<br />as (positive/negative energy) virtual/real single/pair particle/antiparticle, depending on local conditions.<br /><br />Assume, our perception of spacetime is created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum.<br />Assume, gravitational field is polarization of spacetime.<br />Assume, positive spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more positive energy virtual particles than negative.<br />Assume, negative spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more negative energy virtual particles than positive.<br />(So Casimir Force is actually creating artificial gravity/anti-gravity!)<br />And if the (positive/negative) curvature is beyond necessary threshold, then a real particle (pair) is produced, instead of a virtual particle (pair).<br /><br />So we can say:<br />Amplitude of spacetime curvature decides virtual or real particle (pair) will be produced.<br />Sign of spacetime curvature decides positive/negative energy/mass particle (pair) will be produced.<br />Polarization/Rotation/Spin of spacetime curvature (?) decides particle and/or anti-particle will be produced.FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-31946333944711996352017-10-28T14:55:00.005-07:002017-10-28T14:55:37.079-07:00Matter And Dark MatterAssume, in the beginning of The Big Bang, the Universe was a ball of positive energy, in the middle of a medium of negative energy.<br />Later it started absorbing negative energy and so started expanding.<br />As its positive energy density dropped below a threshold, DM particles got created near uniformly everywhere. As the Universe continued to expand, DM particles coalesced into filaments of the cosmic web.<br /><br />The BB also created hydrogen and helium uniformly everywhere.<br />Later DM filaments provided guidance for matter, stars and galaxies to form. But we must realize this view leads to Baryon Asymmetry Problem!<br /><br />What if, matter of our Universe got created thru a different mechanism, which is asymmetric?<br /><br />If we look at our Universe, it looks like matter is coalesced in the central regions of DM filaments/clouds. What if matter is not coalesced, but got created in those central regions of DM clouds?<br /><br />What if, whenever wherever DM cloud density goes above a certain threshold, particles of Standard Model are created, without their anti-particles? (And then later DM cloud density would drop below the threshold there, like a negative feedback mechanism. And if so that would mean total amount of DM in the Universe must be decreasing over time!)<br /><br />And what if, DM particles are gravitons with extremely low mass/energy, and so with extremely large size (Compton Wavelength)?<br />So that maybe why we cannot detect them directly and why they cannot join with each other to create a BH etc. (There maybe a similar rule for them like Pauli Exclusion Principle?)<br /><br />About Graviton from Wikipedia:<br /><br />"The analysis of gravitational waves yielded a new upper bound on the mass of gravitons, if gravitons are massive at all. The graviton's Compton wavelength is at least 1.6×10^16 m, or about 1.6 light-years, corresponding to a graviton mass of no more than 7.7×10^-23 eV/c2.[17] This relation between wavelength and energy is calculated with the Planck-Einstein relation, the same formula which relates electromagnetic wavelength to photon energy."<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ModelFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-39083530304941285202017-10-24T21:44:00.000-07:002017-10-24T21:44:20.535-07:00Spacetime Curvature And Speed Of LightWhat if Gravity is the 5th emergent dimension? (So mass/energy of a particle is its gravity dimension location (+ or -).<br />(2D surface of a sphere is bent in 3rd dimension. 4D spacetime is bent in the 5th (Gravity) dimension whenever (+ or -) energy/mass is present.)<br /><br />When a positive spacetime curvature is present, speed of light must slowdown passing from that location. (Just like light slows down when it enters water from air and refracts.)<br />And if so, then how index of refraction and current speed of light can be calculated for any spacetime location?<br /><br />Spacetime curvature (which we can calculate) determines deflection angle (which we can also calculate).<br />Using Snell's Law:<br />sin(t0)/sin(t1)=v0/v1=n1/n0<br />Also if c is the speed when there is no curvature.<br />And if we plug in the values we know/assume then this is what we have:<br />sin(t0)/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/n0<br /><br />We can calculate total bending (deflection) angle of light (in radians) in General Relativity:<br />deltaPhi=4*G*M/C^2/R (M:Mass in kg; R:Distance from center in meters; C:Speed of light in m/s; G:6.7E-11)<br /><br />Assume incoming angle of light is 90 degrees (pi/2 radians) (for refraction index=1 because n=c/v and no spacetime curvature in the first medium):<br />=> 1/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/1 =><br />1/sin(deltaPhi)=c/v1=n1/1 =><br />1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r)=c/v1=n1/1 =><br />n1=c/v1=1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (Index of refraction for any spacetime location bending light) <br />(=> Possible extreme values:1/0=inf or -inf depending on direction of approach;1/1=1;1/-1=-1 => Range: -inf to +inf)<br />v1=c/n1=c*sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (current speed of light for any spacetime location bending light) <br />(=> Possible extreme values:c*0=0;c*1=c;c*(-1)=-c => Range: -inf to +inf)<br />(Negative c would mean time is flowing backwards there!? c is the flow rate of time (event information flow (perception) rate) anywhere.)<br />(So it is not possible to make time move faster than c but it can be slowed and its direction maybe changed using negative energy/mass.)<br />(Light slows down in (positive) gravitational field because it is denser from light point of view. Imagine more positive energy/mass virtual particles on the way.<br /><br />Gravitational field is actually local polarization of the virtual particle (each with + or - energy/mass) balance at any spacetime location.) If the total net energy is negative then curvature would be negative. Then index of refraction would also be negative.<br /><br />(The speed of light anywhere is speed of information flow between the CA cells which determine perception of events in Relativity by any observer.)<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_lawFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-58323081459784313512017-10-22T16:36:00.000-07:002017-11-16T08:44:19.441-08:00Geometry of Our Universe 2http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/22/comments-of-the-week-final-edition/<br /><br />Ethan wrote:<br />"From Frank on the curvature of the Universe: “What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?”"<br />"Well, there is curvature in the fourth dimension, but the laws of relativity tell you how the relationship between space and time occur. There’s no wiggle-room or free parameters in there. If you want the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere, you need an extra spatial dimension. There are many physics theories that consider exactly that scenario, and they are constrained but not ruled out."<br /><br />Then what if I propose, gravitational field across the Universe is the fifth dimension (for the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere)? (And also think about why it seems gravity is the only fundamental force that effects all dimensions. Couldn't it be because gravity itself is a dimension, so it must be included together with other dimensions (of spacetime) in physics calculations.)<br /><br />And why it is really important to know general shape/geometry of the Universe?<br /><br />I think then we can really answer whether observable universe and global universe are the same or not, and if they are the same then we would also know that the Universe is finite in size. (And we could also calculate general curvature of the Universe for anytime, which would help cosmology greatly, no doubt.)<br /><br />I am guessing currently known variations in CMB map of the Universe, match to the distribution of matter/energy in the observable Universe, only in a general (non-precise) way. I think, if the Universe is really the 3d (space) surface of a 4D sphere, curved in the 4th dimension (time), (with gravity as the 5th dimension), then, we could use CMB map of the Universe as CT scan data, and could calculate 3d/4d matter/energy distribution of the whole Universe from it. And then, if it matches (as a whole) to the matter/energy distribution of our real observational Universe, (which coming from other (non-CMB) observations/calculations), then we could know for sure, whether our observational and global Universes are identical or not. (If not, then by looking at the partial match, maybe we could still deduce how large really is our global Universe.)<br /><br />Further speculation:<br /><br />Let's start with, spacetime is 4D (3 space dimensions and a time dimension).<br />Gravitational curvature at any spacetime point must be a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.<br />If electric field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.<br />If magnetic field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.<br />Then the Universe would have 4+4+4+4=16 dimensions total!<br />(Then the dimensions of the Universe could be 4 quaternions = 2 octonions = 1 sedenion.)<br />(But if electric and magnetic fields require 3d + 3d, then the dimensions of the Universe would be 4+4+3+3=14 dimensions!)<br /><br />20171028:<br />If our Universe has 16 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a tesseract or a double-cube (16 vertices). Or if our Universe has 14 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a Cube-Octahedron Compound or Cube 2-Compound (14 vertices).<br /><br />(20171104) What if Kaluza–Klein Theory (which unites Relativity and Electromagnetism, using a fifth dimension), is actually correct by taking gravitational field across the universe as the fifth (macro/micro) dimension? (Maybe compatibility with Relativity requires taking it as a macro, and QM requires taking it as a micro dimension? (Which would be fine!?))<br /><br />(20171115) According to Newton Physics, speed of any object in the Universe always is:<br />|V|=(Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2)^(1/2) or V^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2<br />But according to Special Theory of Relativity, it really is:<br />C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2 which also means Vt^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2 and so |Vt|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2)^(1/2)<br />So, if gravitational field across the Universe is actually its 5th (macro) dimension then:<br />C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2+Vw^2 which also means Vw^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2 and so |Vw|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2)^(1/2)<br />(Is this the equation to calculate spacetime curvature from 4D velocity in General Relativity?) <br />(Equivalence Principle says gravity is equivalent to acceleration => Calculate its derivative?)FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-35830363200612686532017-10-21T07:34:00.001-07:002017-10-21T07:34:34.978-07:00Explaining Masses of Elementary Quantum ParticlesHow we can explain masses of elementary quantum particles?<br /><br />All elementary quantum particles have energy, some in the form of (rest) mass. Then (rest) mass value of each particle is just 0 or 1.<br /><br />Then what really needs to be explained is energy distribution (order) of list of elementary quantum particles.<br /><br />We already know energy of each particle is quantized (discrete) in a Planck unit. (Then energy of each elementary particle is an integer.) And Compton Wavelength of each particle can be seen as its energy/size.<br /><br />Then what needs to be explained is this:<br /><br />Imagine we made a (sorted) bar chart of energies of elementary quantum particles. Then, is there a clear order of how energy changes from lowest to highest?<br /><br />Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Wavelengths?<br /><br />Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies?<br /><br />Realize that the problem we are trying to solve is a kind of curve fitting problem.<br /><br />Also realize we are really treating the data as a time series here.<br />But how do we know really, if our data is a time series?<br /><br />Also realize that, if we consider the case of sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies, then what we really have is a frequency distribution (not a time series).<br /><br />Wikipedia says: "The Fourier transform decomposes a function of time (a signal) into the frequencies that make it up"<br /><br />Then what if, we apply Inverse Fourier Transform to the Compton frequency distribution of elementary quantum particles?<br /><br />Would not, we get a time series that we could use for curve fitting?<br /><br />(Also, would not be possible then, that curve we found, could allow us to predict, if there are any smaller or larger elementary particles which we did not discover yet?)<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_seriesFB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3451227184359463447.post-59775046550631629312017-10-18T21:32:00.001-07:002017-10-18T21:32:49.775-07:00Geometry of Our UniverseThe following are my comments recently published at:<br />http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/14/ask-ethan-is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite-synopsis/<br /><br />@Ethan:<br />“If space were positively curved, like we lived on the surface of a 4D sphere, distant light rays would converge.”<br />Think of surface of a 3d sphere first:<br />It is a 2d surface curved in the 3rd dimension.<br />Now think of surface of a 4d sphere:<br />It is a 3d surface curved in the 4th dimension.<br />What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?<br />So is it really not possible, 3d space we see using our telescopes, could be flat in those 3 dimensions of space, but curved in time dimension?<br /><br />First let me try to better explain what I mean exactly:<br />Let’s first simplify the problem:<br />Assume our universe was 2d, as the surface of a 3d sphere. Now latitude and longitude are our 2 space dimensions. Our distance from the center of the sphere is our time dimension.<br /><br />Since our universe is the surface of a 3d sphere, it has a general uniform positive curvature, depending on our time coordinate, anytime.<br /><br />Now the big question is this:<br />As beings of 2 dimensions now, can we directly measure the global uniform curvature of our universe in any possible way? Or asking the same question in another way would be this: Our universe would look curved or flat to us?<br /><br />If speed of light was high enough, and if we had an astronomically powerful laser, we could send a beam in any direction, and later see it came back from exact opposite direction, sometime later.<br />Then we would know for certain our universe if finite.<br />But I claim, we still would not know what is the general curvature of our universe.<br /><br />Could we really find/measure it by observing the stars or galaxies around, in our 2d universe?<br /><br />For answer, first realize we don’t know any poles for our universe. We can use any point in our 2d universe as our North Pole, would it make any difference for coordinates/measurements/observations?<br />Then why not take our location in our 2d universe as the north pole of our universe.<br /><br />Now try to imagine all longitude lines coming into our location (the north pole our coordinate system) as the star/galaxy lights.<br />Can we really see/measure the general curvature of our universe from those light beams coming to us from every direction we can see?<br />I claim the answer is no.<br /><br />Why? I claim, as long as we are making all observations and experiments, to calculate the general curvature, using only our space dimensions (latitude and longitude),<br />we would always find it to be perfectly flat in those 2 dimensions. I also claim, we could calculate the general curvature of our 2d universe (latitude and longitude), only if we include the precise time coordinates in the measurements/experiments, as well as precise latitude and longitude coordinates.<br /><br />So I really claim, our universe looks flat to us, because we are making all observations/measurements in 3 space dimensions. But if we also include time coordinates, then we can calculate true general curvature of our universe.<br /><br />And I further claim:<br /><br />Curvature of circle (1d curved line on 2d space):<br />1/r<br /><br />Curvature of sphere (2d curved plane on 3d space):<br />1/r^2<br /><br />Curvature of sphere (3d curved space on a 4d space):<br />1/r^3<br /><br />So if our universe was 2d space and 1 time (2d curved plane on 3d space):<br />Its general curvature at any time would be:<br />1/r^2=1/(c*t)^2 (where c is the speed of light and t time passed since The Big Bang in seconds)<br /><br />And so if our universe is 3d space and 1 time (3d curved space on 4d space):<br />Then its general curvature at any time is:<br />1/r^3=1/(c*t)^3 (where c is the speed of light and t time passed since The Big Bang in seconds)<br /><br />And I further claim:<br /><br />If astrophysicists recalculated general curvature of our universe, by including all space and time coordinate information correctly, then they should be able to verify, the calculation results always match to the theoretical value which is 1/(c*t)^3 .<br /><br />The raw data to use for those calculations would be the pictures of universe, for the same direction, looking at views there from different times.<br /><br />I realized this value for the current general curvature of our universe (1/(c*t)^3) would be correct only if we ignore the expansion of the universe. To get correct values for any time, we need to use current radius of the universe for that time, including effect of the expansion until that time.<br /><br />Wikipedia says:<br />“it is currently unknown whether the observable universe is identical to the global universe”<br /><br />From what I claimed above, I claim they are identical.<br /><br />(So if the current radius of observational universe is 46 Bly, then I claim it means current global curvature of our universe is 1/(46 Bly in meters)^3.)<br />FB36http://www.blogger.com/profile/18166705748528397256noreply@blogger.com0