Re: Look Who's Back / Mike's crazy list of physics hypotheses that he wishes he had time to look into but doesn't have the time.

2010-10-23 Thread Max Battcher

On 10/22/2010 10:35 PM, Michael Harney wrote:

I'm back again. I don't really know that I am doing any better than I
was when I left, but I will see. I wanted to discuss some concepts with
intelligent people (some of whom may already know about some of this
stuff). I will preface these that my knowledge of Quantum theory is
small, and if anyone can recommend a good (emphasis on good, not overly
simplified or popularized like Hawking's Books which read more like
"quantum physics for dummies" I want nitty-gritty details) book on
quantum theory, I would appreciate it.


Have you tried Michio Kaku's or Brian Greene's books? In my experience 
they are both wonderfully accessible writers with very firm grasps in 
the details of quantum and string/M theories. I've certainly enjoyed 
what I've read from both writers. (They are also both humble, working 
theoreticians.)


--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net

___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com



Look Who's Back / Mike's crazy list of physics hypotheses that he wishes he had time to look into but doesn't have the time.

2010-10-23 Thread Michael Harney
I'm back again.  I don't really know that I am doing any better than I 
was when I left, but I will see.  I wanted to discuss some concepts with 
intelligent people (some of whom may already know about some of this 
stuff).  I will preface these that my knowledge of Quantum theory is 
small, and if anyone can recommend a good (emphasis on good, not overly 
simplified or popularized like Hawking's Books which read more like 
"quantum physics for dummies" I want nitty-gritty details) book on 
quantum theory, I would appreciate it.


Mike's Crazy Hypothesis 1:
I have heard hypothesized that neutrons are simply protons upon-which an 
electron has collapsed.  First, does this make sense by our current 
understanding of quantum theory?  If the hypothesis does make sense, 
what if the hypothesis is backwards?  What if Neutrons are the "natural 
state" of matter and protons are neutrons that had part of them stripped 
away (likely during the big-bang)?  This could explain why electrons are 
near mass-less and the incredibly strong force of attraction between 
protons and electrons.


Mike's Crazy Hypothesis 2:
I am half-way through reading Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion".  
In it he says that proponents of a creator argue that the fundamental 
force constants in the universe are so finely tuned so as to allow the 
conditions that make life (as we know it) possible.  and that if even 
one of these, like the strong force, was slightly different, that life 
would not be possible because if the strong force were higher, all 
hydrogen in the universe would have fused into heavier stuff, and if it 
were weaker, no heavier atoms essential to the formation of our planet 
and the life on it could be created in the cores of massive stars.  He 
explains Multi-dimensional theory and it as a possible explanation that 
would explain why a universe that has the right constants can exist 
without a creator.  Multi-dim theory aside, a thought occurred to me: If 
the constants of our universe need to be at a specific range for matter 
to exist in the forms that promote life, what if the constants like the 
"strong force" are not constants?  What if, over billions of years (or 
even longer), the strong force slowly got weaker.  Indeed, a higher 
strong force would go a long way to explain the singularity that 
resulted in the big bang, and the weakening of the strong force would go 
a long way to explaining why the big bang occurred in the first place.  
It might also go a long way to explain why Galaxies and solar-systems 
don't seem to follow the same model of gravity.  If the fundamental 
constants of the universe are changing ever-so-slowly, Objects at a 
great distance would appear to be affected differently than objects 
closer together simply because of the time it took for the bodies to 
form with relation to each other and the changing of the fundamental 
forces.  This may also explain the recent data suggesting that the 
universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate rather than 
slowing down as one would expect.


I have more crazy hypotheses, but I am getting tired, so I think that I 
will stop there for now.


___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com