Mark : другие произведения.

The broken symmetries

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
 Ваша оценка:

   From: Mark
   Message 1 in thread
   Subject: The broken symmetries in Cosmogony
   Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
  
  
   View this article only
   Date: 2001-05-27 13:02:54 PST
  
   We got many fundamental laws in physics, which are ALMOST simple, symmetric,
   and exact. To be precise, however, these laws have to be extended to the
   overcomplicated form, loosing all their beauty on the way. And in mathematics
   the esthetic criterion is decisive, whenever the theory gets too sophisticated
   for the simple numeric tests of validity. In the unified theories of field, the
   break of symmetry cases the electroweak force to split from the strong nuclear
   interaction. At the lower energies, the electromagnetism splits from the -weak-
   nuclear interaction. Energy, impulse, nucleon numbers, etc. - they do preserve,
   after a fashion. Just do not forget to integrate -em over the sufficient spun
   of time, 4-d volume in the time-space continuum, allow on wear and tear of the
   particles, etceteras, and etceteras. Take the first postulate of Sir Isaak
   Newton : "there do exist the inertial systems, where...". So they do, until
   some electron runs into a particularly dense clutch of vacuum (joke). Nowadays,
   professor Hawking holds the Newtonian cathedra. He researched the Black Holes,
   micro BH at particular. Our continuum looks pretty crumbled in their proximity.
   Professor predicted the micro Black Holes radiation, growing as they dwindle to
   nothing, loosing the energy. He used information theory and quantum effects in
   the research. Hawking envisioned the huge objects v BH, for the outside observer,
   and the Universe with the usual physical laws and moderate average density, for
   the insider.
   In the uniform density, part of space the mass grows as the third degree of the
   radius, and the gravitation is proportional to mass, divided by the square of
   the distance. Thus, the surface gravity grows linearly with the uniform area
   size. He has shown it, without using anything outside of the Newton-s scope of
   knowledge! Would Sir Isaak observe such an object, as a monstrous Black Hole,
   he'd possibly explained it. The corpuscular theory of light, outdated as it is,
   together with the classical old fashioned gravity predicts the BH. How Newton
   would have united the Newtonian rings (interference, wave model) and corpuscular
   model without quantum? Some Divine quirk, probably. The point is, in the course
   of the BH research, Hawking introduced the imaginary time. He used the coordinate
   base in continuum, where the time-s base vector directed at the angle to the
   classical time. The Black Holes, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch ceased to be
   singularities in the imaginary time! I never read, however, that anybody have
   done the next logical step. The angle between the time, as we do perceive it
   and the classical time explains the broken symmetries. Draw the projection of
   our continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (they would be on the
   classical axis of time, same space coordinates). Now draw new axis time', at an
   angle to the original time, through the middle.
   Draw the planes, orthogonal to the time'. Look at the Big Bang area. Some
   cosmogonies do say that the matter was created together, with the space. So it
   was, as the time' passed the Big Bang (time' starts "before" the Big Bang). Draw
   a perfectly symmetrical Big Bang in classical time, and it will not be exactly
   symmetrical in the real time'. This theory does predict the cosmological
   constant of Einstein, which is not all that constant. It had an astronomical
   value at the Big Bang, would have the exactly opposite value at the Big Crunch.
   Around the middle of the time' interval of the existence of our Universe, it is
   very small and very close to constant at time'. Now, before and close to the
   "middle" of time' this constant does not hurt the energy preservation law
   noticeably. So why do we integrate the energy over the sufficient interval, for
   it to preserve? Because it does actually preserve in the classical time, not in
   our real time'; the integration over time' gives you almost the same result, as
   over classical time, here, near the ?middlei. Generally, all the symmetries do
   work in the classical time. Some of the symmetries are not broken, but our way
   to observe their action is. Other symmetries broke near the Big Bung event,
   because of its asymmetry in our real time'. Unlike the string theories, this one
   does produce measurable predictions.
  
   From: Mark
   Message 2 in thread
   Subject: Re: The broken symmetries in Cosmogony
  
  
  
   Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
  
  
   View this article only
   Date: 2001-05-30 00:56:42 PST
  
   Now, if our time'; does not change its position in the continuum
   (angle to classical time and space coordinates) there is one more
   interesting prediction. There should be anisotropy of the space,
   namely the plane should exist, that one hemisphere of the visible
   cosmos is older in the classical time, than another. The effect should
   reach the maximum in the opposite "poles". The light from the far
   galaxies reaches us from the distant past, where the effect was
   stronger (proximity to the Big Bang or Big Crunch is the factor). The
   evolution of the Universe makes the existence of the specific objects
   (quasars, some types of galaxies) more probable at the specific stages
   (distance from the Big Bang). Close to one "pole" these "ancient"
   objects would be centered farther from us, than at another! Moreover,
   in the spectrum of the equidistant stars where should be more hydrogen
   and helium lines near the "older" pole.
  
   Mark wrote in message news:<73e5cd79.0105271202.618f9d89@posting.google.com>...
   > We got many fundamental laws in physics, which are ALMOST simple, symmetric,
   > and exact. To be precise, however, these laws have to be extended to the
   > overcomplicated form, loosing all their beauty on the way. And in mathematics
   > the esthetic criterion is decisive, whenever the theory gets too sophisticated
   > for the simple numeric tests of validity. In the unified theories of field, the
   > break of symmetry cases the electroweak force to split from the strong nuclear
   > interaction. At the lower energies, the electromagnetism splits from the -weak-
   > nuclear interaction. Energy, impulse, nucleon numbers, etc. - they do preserve,
   > after a fashion. Just do not forget to integrate -em over the sufficient spun
   > of time, 4-d volume in the time-space continuum, allow on wear and tear of the
   > particles, etceteras, and etceteras. Take the first postulate of Sir Isaak
   > Newton : "there do exist the inertial systems, where...". So they do, until
   > some electron runs into a particularly dense clutch of vacuum (joke). Nowadays,
   > professor Hawking holds the Newtonian cathedra. He researched the Black Holes,
   > micro BH at particular. Our continuum looks pretty crumbled in their proximity.
   > Professor predicted the micro Black Holes radiation, growing as they dwindle to
   > nothing, loosing the energy. He used information theory and quantum effects in
   > the research. Hawking envisioned the huge objects v BH, for the outside observer,
   > and the Universe with the usual physical laws and moderate average density, for
   > the insider.
   > In the uniform density, part of space the mass grows as the third degree of the
   > radius, and the gravitation is proportional to mass, divided by the square of
   > the distance. Thus, the surface gravity grows linearly with the uniform area
   > size. He has shown it, without using anything outside of the Newton-s scope of
   > knowledge! Would Sir Isaak observe such an object, as a monstrous Black Hole,
   > he'd possibly explained it. The corpuscular theory of light, outdated as it is,
   > together with the classical old fashioned gravity predicts the BH. How Newton
   > would have united the Newtonian rings (interference, wave model) and corpuscular
   > model without quantum? Some Divine quirk, probably. The point is, in the course
   > of the BH research, Hawking introduced the imaginary time. He used the coordinate
   > base in continuum, where the time-s base vector directed at the angle to the
   > classical time. The Black Holes, the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch ceased to be
   > singularities in the imaginary time! I never read, however, that anybody have
   > done the next logical step. The angle between the time, as we do perceive it
   > and the classical time explains the broken symmetries. Draw the projection of
   > our continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch (they would be on the
   > classical axis of time, same space coordinates). Now draw new axis time', at an
   > angle to the original time, through the middle.
   > Draw the planes, orthogonal to the time'. Look at the Big Bang area. Some
   > cosmogonies do say that the matter was created together, with the space. So it
   > was, as the time' passed the Big Bang (time' starts "before" the Big Bang). Draw
   > a perfectly symmetrical Big Bang in classical time, and it will not be exactly
   > symmetrical in the real time'. This theory does predict the cosmological
   > constant of Einstein, which is not all that constant. It had an astronomical
   > value at the Big Bang, would have the exactly opposite value at the Big Crunch.
   > Around the middle of the time' interval of the existence of our Universe, it is
   > very small and very close to constant at time'. Now, before and close to the
   > "middle" of time' this constant does not hurt the energy preservation law
   > noticeably. So why do we integrate the energy over the sufficient interval, for
   > it to preserve? Because it does actually preserve in the classical time, not in
   > our real time'; the integration over time' gives you almost the same result, as
   > over classical time, here, near the ?middlei. Generally, all the symmetries do
   > work in the classical time. Some of the symmetries are not broken, but our way
   > to observe their action is. Other symmetries broke near the Big Bung event,
   > because of its asymmetry in our real time'. Unlike the string theories, this one
   > does produce measurable predictions.
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список
Сайт - "Художники" .. || .. Доска об'явлений "Книги"