It's no torus, by the way... — Hillary

Oh? You have changed your hypothesis? I will need to update your reference to the 6D manifold guy.

Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory. — Hillary

The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy.

No. You said undetectable means not real. — Hillary

Do you have the quote where I typed that?

What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies. — Hillary

From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things

But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. — Hillary

Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions

Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? — Hillary

Sure, I can start with a tin foil pipe shape and imagine it has very little thickness but if it has no thickness then it disappears from my view but I can still imagine that it's there but is too thin for me to see.

We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings. — Hillary

I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet.

Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension — Hillary

If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right.

Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles? — Hillary

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts. Some exchange goes on between particles when they 'interact,' but we only have mathematical models of what's going on.

Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer — Hillary

Why would the circle be rigid? point particles behave like waves not ping pong balls.
Two circles 'meeting' on the curved surface would interact like waves if they are bosonic and would not be able to interact like waves if they are fermionic.

If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? — Hillary

This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d.

If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant — Hillary

From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended. There are two types of waves: bosonic waves and fermionic waves. Bosonic waves can overlap. Fermionic waves cannot. In one case the waves are always touching (they are spread out and they overlap); in the other case they can never touch

Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference — Hillary

You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane. You can have a 1d curvature but you cant have a 1d circle. I have no idea what you mean by 'small string on it' strings are vibrational states, they are not ON anything as they are posited as the fundamental component of everything.

You're talking about something that is a complete unknown. — SpaceDweller

As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely.

In string theory, the 10d structure is a static one. The partiicles themselves are strings and branes moving through it, and that's where the trouble starts. Just imagine the 5d Kaluza -Klein case.. — Hillary

My detailed knowledge of string theory just is not there but I know it only proposes 1 type of string.
It's the way strings vibrate in 10D that creates all the 'particle' states we see in 3D.
By static, do you mean not expanding?

Imagine a cylinder. From afar it's 1d. A circel in it has inly one direction to move in. Same for an S1xS1xS1 structure in 3d : three directions to move in. Si the particle is a tiny geometrical structure. Which can be filled with charge.

A mindless first spark? — Hillary

No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture.
I dimension means an extent which has forwards and backwards only with no thickness or height, no up/down, no side to side. So you cant have a circle in it as a circle needs two dimensions. Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model.

I see no relation between your description of a particle and my 'mindless first spark,' first cause suggestion. I do not conjecture regarding any attributes of my suggested first spark like charge for example or spin or mass or any other such attribute.

am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
— universeness

Which is equivalent to the gods believe. It's a believe. Do you have proof for this spark, magically appearing out of nowhere? — Hillary

I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational.

Well, the 6d structure is static too and the 3d particles move through it, but it offers a naturally appearing Planck scale, Lorenz invariant (which is sought after in modern physics).

Two particles never can get closer than a Planck length. What's the distance between two circles on top of each other? — Hillary

So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then!
for Lorentz invariance, I found:

Lorentz invariance expresses the proposition that the laws of physics are the same for different observers, for example, an observer at rest on Earth or one who is rotated through some angle, or traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer at rest. It is the pillar of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and every experiment conducted to date has verified it. But if new, far more sensitive experiments could detect a very faint field pervading the cosmos, one that exerts a force on electron spin, that would topple Lorentz invariance

That just takes us back to the proper length and proper time measures of the isolated reference frame used to help exemplify special relativity.
What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again.

Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion — SpaceDweller

:roll:

I think starting such a site is a good idea — Hillary

You should so do that! Becoming a webmaster is quite easy today. You can quickly learn HTML. WML and CSS very quickly using a site such as code academy or by buying a few books.
That way you could create and maintain your own websites easily. If you invite others to join your site and discuss your ideas in cosmology, you could get your T.o.E out there amongst the physics and cosmology community. Have you looked at @Angelo Cannata 's site at http://www.spi.st
You could set up something similar. You could PM him about it.

First cause is logical explanation — SpaceDweller

Ok fine, so first cause...mindless spark.....no significance....move on.

which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today. — SpaceDweller

You create unnecessary emotive BS with the 'god' label and the 'sacrificed' label.
These suggest beneficent intent which is much more about your ego and emotional needs than it has to do with truth. So NO I reject your stealth tactic to invoke the 'supernatural sacrifice' imagery installed in you based on your past exposure to the Christian doctrine.

This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value. — SpaceDweller

God is not dead, as the anthropomorphic entity you are attempting to conjure never ever existed and therefore if it never 'lived' then it cannot be dead. I am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
You can have a new spark to make a new universe if you like but that also gets used up.
The very first spark to start the whole process is just that, the first mindless spark. That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you.

Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space. — Hillary

But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me.

Suppose space was apparently 1d
This is commonly used in cosmology. It's called lineland. 2D is flatland.

This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.
You cant have a cylinder or a radius or a circle in 1D space (lineland) You can 'mathematically parameterise' a ID space into single variable points on a circle or cylinder. In other words, if you zoomed into a circle section then it 'LOOKS LIKE' a straight line but this is a mathematical concept, not a physical reality of a 1D space! So we CANNOT place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d. This particle cannot exist IN REALITY to turn a 1D space into a 2D space or lineland into flatland, so you cant continue the process and turn 2D into 4D.
I don't mind mathematical modeling, it's an essential tool but I need to understand that your model here does not break any actual rules of physics. It may be that I don't understand the 'valid logic,' involved here. If I don't then direct me to a site with one or more examples that demonstrate the model you are using here and then if I am convinced that the maths and physics you are employing here are valid, we can move on towards your modeling of virtual particles.

because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do — SpaceDweller

What do you mean by 'terrible'? Do you mean it terrifies you or it does not satisfy you?
We know absolutely nothing of ANY THEIST first cause posit whereas Roger Penrose suggests his team has evidence of 6 hawking points in THIS Universe that provide evidence that THIS Universe started due to the ending of a previous one. Which sends any first cause into a previous time epoch. The Penrose bounce suggests there may have been many other 'bounces.' and time epochs.
How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless.
How much do you need the god fairytale to continue to sate your primal fears?

“what is humanity’s purpose?” — Laila

Imo,

1. To give increased meaning to the Universe compared to the significance it has without lifeforms such as humans.

2. To ask questions and seek answers, We do this better than any other species on Earth does. That purpose is therefore most associated with humans on this planet.

everything fits nicely in and has an underlying purpose. — Laila

Do you think you could explain the purpose of Lions to their prey?
Do you think their prey would consider Lions as evil as humans?

It’s hard to believe that this one species would be useless — Laila

Are lions and lambs more useful than humans. Would the Earth survive without Lions and Lambs as successfully as it could without humans?

Was the Earth a more significant place when the dinosaurs dominated?
Does the term significance have any importance to you when you deliberate about humanities purpose?

Wow, that does sound interesting. I'm going to find it where I can watch it and then check it out. I may be able to learn something from it. thanks — Vincent

You can buy each series from amazon for under £10. I have spend a fair amount of money buying the whole series first on VHS tape and then on DVD and then again on Blue ray and then I bought the spin off movies. and then I found the whole consolidated box set, originally priced at around £150 in a charity shop for a f****** tenner! £10, I bought it of course and gave my old box sets to my brother-in-law.
aaarrggggh! a tenner!!! :rage: First class condition as well.

But I've been gone for a few hours now. Still gotta do stuff. See you later — Vincent

Bye fur noo!

For your return:

If you know that, then thinking you know a lot is the dumbest thing there is. — Vincent

Who you calling dumb? :rofl: Only Kidding. I assume you meant 'we' rather than 'you' as a reference to me personally.

People really think we've accomplished something. That we have already discovered everything. We don't know anything yet. — Vincent

But you are being equally inaccurate with 'we don't know anything yet!' I think the opposite is true, I think we have gained incredible knowledge of the Universe in the 'as you and I agree,' very short amount of cosmic calendar time we have been seeking knowledge.
Knowledge enough to convince you that human immortality is immanent.
If you believe that then it contradicts your claim that 'we don't know anything yet"

Can't we make a site for alternative theories of physics? But with respect for the actual theories already in use? — Hillary

So why don't you?

But maybe for a dollar I might contact Carroll. But it's the very idea that you have to pay to ask. Im curious though for his answer. — Hillary

I agree, definitely worth the pennies involved but be warned, if you pay, it does not guarantee an answer from him. In one of his podcasts, Sean said he 'chooses' which ones he thinks are 'worth,' an answer.

Consider a 6d space. — Hillary

Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory?

The first block describes the bulk, the second block the 3 curled up dimensions. — Hillary

Why 3 curled up or why 3 dimensions of the very small? just as a mirror to the 3 macro dimensions?

the bulk 3d vacuum is filled with virtual particles — Hillary

I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY.

and the real particles are actually virtual particles with precise momenta and positions and existence in time — Hillary

You are making big leaps here! Based on what? A 'virtual' particle cannot be conflated with a 'real particle,' by just 'assiging' it momentum and position. Both of which are mainly probability-based and are field perturbations and also observer relative.

You would need to get me past these points before I could try to understand the rest of your posting

No one really knows me and I've never met anyone who makes the effort to understand me. I also think I've always been with the wrong kind of people — Vincent

Once you have knowledge of what the blockages are and what's causing them, you can start to tackle the problem. Perhaps that's why you started to exchange your views more on sites like this one.

That's a tough one. I'm 32 now and I still don't understand myself. I've already put a lot of effort into it, but I like to change my mind, which causes a lot of chaos in my head. And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. I'm not a good speaker either. Typing it works better — Vincent

I'm 57 now and I still don't fully understand myself, I don't expect I ever will and I am glad of that.
If I had no more questions then what would my purpose be?
Life is a bitch and then you die but I f****** love that bitch and death is the harbinger of change.
I am unafraid of oblivion. It's a far far better sleep I go to than I have ever known!
But meantime life! Being alive! living! Yeah, I think we need to celebrate the wonder of that more and we don't need the permission or sanction from non-existent gods to do so.
Do you ever compare your 32 years with the proposed 13.8 billion since the big bang?
So far, you and I are tiny wee blips in the cosmic calender scale YET we may well be the ONLY assigners of ANY SIGNIFICANT MEANING to the Universe. Without us blips the Universe may have NO MEANING or at least its meaning may be very much reduced. An arrogant viewpoint I admit, especially when I am a proponent of Carl Sagan's great demotions and I consider myself humble but our significance to the Universe may be quite, quite true nontheless.

No never heard of it. What is it about? — Vincent

I think you would really enjoy the story. The Vorlons and the Shadows are almost immortal.
They are amongst the first races to gain sentience in the Universe (as we may be now).
These two races are amongst the 'giants of the Universe,' The humans and other races depicted in the series such as the Minbari, the Centauri, the Narn etc are like insects in comparison.
The Vorlons and Shadows are the 'steward races' of our Galaxy and are here to 'guide' the younger races. But they are bitter enemies. The shadows believe in creating chaos and war because although some races get destroyed and billions die, the races who win become stronger and they progress much faster as a 'final outcome,' and then the Shadows will continue to manipulate the younger races so that they war with each other again. (sound familiar?)
The Vorlons believe in order. They promote obedience, working together, making alliances. They encourage the younger races to deify the various messianic manifestations they make to the younger races. They wish the younger races to love them and need them whereas the Shadows require fear and respect. (again, sound familiar?)
The younger races are the pawns between these two immensely powerful 'first ones'. And so the story develops.....
The Vorlon and Shadow stories are the main theme throughout series 1 to 4 but in series 1 they are only hinted at. In series 2, 3, and 4 they come to the fore. Series 5 (the last series) is more epilogue to the shadows and Vorlons. It's my fav sci-fi series ever but I just think it relates to your world view in interesting ways and if you watched it, you may balance your viewpoints differently perhaps.

Indeed. If you see that there were hundreds of mini-states in Europe before. Because of the Thirty Years' War, the countries started to merge and there was more unification. There was peace. Much later tensions arose again. Until Napoleon came. Another war and the result was that treaties were agreed upon. Another unification of the international system. There was peace again. Much later tensions arose again. Until Hitler got involved. Back war, and what kind. And as a result came the european union, nato, etc. again unification of the international system. There was peace. — Vincent

Have you ever watched the old sci-fi series Babylon 5 by Joseph Michael Straczynski?
Do you know his story of 'the first ones?' The Vorlons and the Shadows or the politics of order against the politics of chaos?

Thanks for your defense of me and I don't wish to dilute it but I am not easily bullied by anyone.
Your sentiments and recommendations towards better communication and honesty between people are spot on in my opinion. We can all benefit more from such an approach. I wonder how well those people who called you an idiot really know you. But the question must also be asked, how much effort did you make, to help them understand you better?

I was thinking about the same song and actually hoped you posted it! No kidding! — Hillary

I believe you. I am not suspicious of everything you say, especially in regards to your extensive physics and cosmology knowledge.

You are a poet! — Hillary

Does it manifest in such a way that you would consider what I am saying to you?

You think that bla... could be a reason for a ban? — Hillary

My advice would be. If you are about to type something which the moderators are probably going to judge inappropriate then dont! Go to the shoutbox! That's what it was made for within extremity guidelines.

Oh well, brother Uni, life is a long ride on the back of them crazy horses. Who knows where they lead us. We can always jump off and lay our weary heads at rest for a while and just bite a straw. I think I have seen most on this forum by now on which just a handful of people offer there musings without actually listening to each other (you, btw. making an exception, which I truly mean, eventhough you're an atheist...). It gets time to do other things. The thing is, it's kind of addicting and I'm kinda perceptive to that. — Hillary

Well, some addictions are good for you, such as addiction to life, to communicating with others, to helping others, addiction to love, addiction to wonderment, addiction to truth seeking. I am just trying to convince YOU PERSONALLY that your addiction to science is far more worthwhile and useful than your dalliances with polytheism. It's time you forgave the current cosmology community for not giving your ToE more of an airing. Learn to love them again and stop wasting your affection on that which has no existence!
What about these two offerings:



and:

If space and particles are not eternal, that is, not infinite then God is logical explanation — SpaceDweller

You are indulging in that boring old 'special pleading.' Why is your god label 'logical?'
Do you honestly think that the 'god does not need an origin,' special plead, is ever going to be accepted by atheists? or rational thinkers or those of us that just won't accept any woo woo, undemonstrated supernatural claims. The infinite regression issue is not satisfied by the god posit and NEVER will be.
Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?'

What hole of yours you want me to fill, your bla...no, too much! — Hillary

More progress!! Well done! you can exert control and not fall into that black hole.
Told you I was a poet and don't even know it!
Perhaps this time, 'that's not my name!!' will keep his name longer!

or be learned, a lesson — Hillary

:rofl: Good luck with that! You can however keep helping me with the holes in my physics/cosmology :smile:

Mr. Universe! That was before I revealed myself! Had I continued the play, you would be on my atheistic side now. — Hillary

I saw through your 'play,' pretty quickly. But I am encouraged by your quick, honest transition to the reveal. You could have 'massaged my doubt a little longer but you use the same 'errors in English' all the time and those are a big clue! So I won't tell you what they are for the sake of futureproofing. There are also other signs. I also have played this game on other sites with other people. This is in no way original stuff, it is unfortunately quite common. There are far far more serious cases of nefarious intent. You are thankfully not such a person or representative from a dangerous organised group. Or at least you don't show any of the signs I know of.

yes lol. I don't know what to say. Maybe I've convinced him that god does exists — Vincent

@Hillary is a thinker to, just like you but he is also 'tricksy' (to quote Gollum from Lord of the rings)
He is not malevolent, just 'tricksy' and 'complicated.' Its the old 'switcheroo,' everything is not always as it seems.

Good lord... — Hillary

Hah! he is f****** useless, nothing good about him. I would be successful in my lab work if I had better computer chips! Electronic computing systems are just not up to it. You don't know where I could get some futuristic bio chips from do you?
Did that dumb British honours system make that nonexistent pratt a Lord?? :chin:

That gap only is closed when we all think alike — Hillary

No, we don't all need to think alike, that sounds like automatons. We just have to obtain a majority agreement and then be willing to act. Groups of Russians should currently be in armed revolt at the moment. I think it would be horrific for them but I think many of their police and soldiers would soon join an uprising. They did it before, unfortunately they put a complete dipshit in power (Boris Yeltsin.)
They need to rise up again and destroy Putin.

The whole point being of course is that your "Universe", and the means investigating it, is a fantasy just as well — Hillary

Let's try with just your first sentence here! What evidence are you basing this statement on?

For some reason they created us.
— Hillary

What reason then? What about just love? — Vincent

Do you remember this from @Hillary?

I'm a atheist. God is a fantasy. I'm just curious why you think I'm a theist? What in what I wrote makes you think that? — Hillary

I watched Carl Sagan before his demise — val p miranda

You have good taste. You made an excellent choice :smile:

I was expecting you! "It's already eleven. Where's brother Uni? Fuck! Didn't mum open the washing machine? — Hillary

I was working in my lab, building the first atheist transhuman. Our imagined mother was killed by an atheist/theist hydra monster sent by the imagined Hypnos and Thanatos, many centuries ago and you know that so I don't know why you would bring this up again! :cry: :broken:

Between the "should be" and "how it is" there lays the unbridgeable gap of reality — Hillary

I dont agree with 'unbridgeable.'