We are at that time of year again. Every year I check:
http://nobelprize.org/
I am not there.
The Physiology or Medicine prizes were already announced. Three Americans.
I do not even qualify for the Ig nobel prizes.
http://improbable.com/ig/
I do not give up, though. At least I am still alive, I know very intelligent friends that are dead already. I have a chance.
Posts
7 comments:
Co-author a paper about this, and maybe next year will be better.
What about Frampton's idea on black hole entropy?
Your proposal is also interesting.
Read Frampton's idea in:
http://digg.com/d316L4s
The article is very interesting and I need to read the paper, but I have a few thoughts:
From the article:
In the case of the universe, Egan says, “we’d like to know [when and] if the entropy will eventually reach a maximum value, marking the end of all dissipative processes, including life.” Physicists have dubbed that maximum entropy “heat death.”
Which is an assumption that's derived by projecting current theory, but if the preferred theory is as described in my long bet, then pair production increases the gravitational effect and negative pressure proportionally, then this represents is a very simple and obvious solution to the following quote from the article:
No known physical principle can explain why the cosmic entropy is so low.
And that's only because I'm right.
I got you. Good.
Frampton started this claim.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0907.1704
I do not know how they calculate the maximum entropy the Universe can have, though.
By maximum entropy, do you mean heat death? Or are you talking about the maximum rate of entropy that the universe could have?
In reference to dark matter, the model that I've referred says that dark matter is essentially dark mass-energy, that has been gravitationally condensed around massive clusters.
In other words, the vacuum is comprised of mass-energy that is rarefied below the matter density. It is less dense than matter, which gives it negative pressure, giving it an anti-gravitational effect, which means that it mimics Dirac's negative mass solution, and that's where the ball got dropped in quantum theory, which rationalizes the negative energy states differently thereby restricting the accuracy of the quantum theory to the areas that it works.
The following link is very helpful in understanding this as it applies to Einstein's cosmological model, and there are several more relevant followup statements that are linked at the bottom that I made to the theorists in the moderated research group that I used to frequent.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html
The difference with this model is that tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter increases as the universe expands, so the second law ant the arrow of time are inevitably preserved when growing tension compromises the forces that bind the universe and we have another big bang.
Energy is perpetually conserved in this manner, but heat death isn't a feature of it, although maximum energy is the ultimate unattainable "goal" of this evolutionary process.
cantrol said:
Good.
Good, he says when I very simply and classically provide the "unknown" principle that Ned Wright mentioned, which has been the single most vexing problem, and the single biggest failure in all of theoretical physics for 50 years.
Physics that simply and classically defines an energy conservation law that single-handedly resolves the arrow of time problem, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the singularity problem, the causality problem... etcetra and so on until there are no more questions except... "Why any of this"...
... and he says... "good".
You'll be the cool one when we're accepting our prize... ;)
Post a Comment