• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Any one else here obsessed with physics?

Ronald Zeeman

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
My obsession has always been determining how the universe works via particles physics or cosmology. Anyone else having simular interest, I would love to connect with.

Before the beginning all was nothing and nothing was all, infinity and zero were the same. A single point in space can be anywhere, with every where being where that point is. As the point has no volume and movement is undetectable, time would not be required, as its passage would be unobservable.

Since space cannot be infinite and a point, mutually exclusive, its volume can only approach these two boundaries. A single particle would exist as a distribution over the breadth of the universe. Hence the origin of Quantum Mechanics, an expected consequence.

Time is a consequence of movement not an entity in its own right. Movement always exists with every particle thus inducing its own time. Only at the moment of the big bang were their no movement and thus no time. Time started with the big bang, it can only flow forward.

If the universe were static and made of particles that were point like there would be not need for time. You could not tell one instant from the next. Nature does not like undue complexity; time is the result of movement, and as long as movement exists so does time. Time is emergent see Carlo Rovelli's book The Order of Time see an alternative opionion see Lee Smolin's book Time Reborn.
 
Last edited:
re you asking about Bells theorem, yes I got a epiphany years ago that resolves' this Sorry I had a Stroke a year ago lost ability to walk so lose of feeling is pinky and index finger on left side was a touch typer before slowly improving walking now old hat at this.

This is what I wrote years ago:

Imagine a length, any length approaching zero to approaching infinity. This is the x axis. Now imagine a second length, its only criteria be that it be equal in length to the first length. This is the y axis. These two lengths represent any length in space. If the length is defined as one unit, using Pythagoras theorem the hypotenuse is an irrational number, the square root of two. This length in space must also exist if the other two lengths are absolute, therefore none of the lengths can be absolute. An absolute point cannot exist, only a distribution around a point. For a black hole no singularity just a distribution within the event horizon.

The one current theory the jives with this conjecture is “Loop Quantum Gravity”. Developed in Canada by a Canadian physicist and currently a very strong contender for how every thing works.
 
Last edited:
re you asking sbout Bells thereom, yes I got a apithany years ago that resolvesst this Sorry ai had a S toke a year ago lost ability to walk so lose of feeling is pinky and index finger on left sidewas a touch typer before slowly impoving walking now old hat at this.
Hope things keep improving for you.
 
  • Just finished reading, Lee Smolin book the trouble with physics.
  • I used to try and follows thing theory, could no visualize it. , now follow loop quantum gravity . No issues visualizing this just starting to read Carlos Rovelli new book reality is not what it seems
  • I keep this insight to my self for years because I could not see how such low hanging fruit could have been missed by so many people much brighter than my self for all these years. It took reading books on how zero, negative numbers, irrational numbers. to realize that religious dogma over many years prevented many very bright scientists, ancient and current, from seeing outside their-self constructed box... edited by wife, not needed before stroke
 
Last edited:
  • Just finished reading, Lee Smolin book the trouble with physics.
  • I used to try and follows thing theory, could no visualize it. , now follow loop quantum gravity . No issues visualizing this just starting to read Carlos Rovelli new book reality is not what it seems
  • I keep this insight to my self for years because I could not see how such low hanging fruit could have been missed by so many people much brighter than my self for all these years. It took reading books on how zero, negative numbers, irrational numbers. to realize that religious dogma over many years prevented many very bright scientists, ancient and current, from seeing outside their-self constructed box... edited by wife, not needed before stroke
All the way back to Anaxagoras! He was exiled just for saying the sun was a ball of hit fire and not a god and also he could predict things like eclipses. Only thanks to Pericles he was not executed. Of course, it was not really about religion. It was about the powers-that-be needing to manipulate the people into THINKING eclipses meant something that the gods were saying. It was usually what THEY wanted, of course.....
 
I didn't do very well in a physics class I took, but I like the concept of it still, just not the actual math.
 
I'm no math genius either. I visualize in my head.
Yeah, same here. In fact my entire mind space is visual, due to myself being a visual thinker. I can do simple school math, like finance things and algebra, but not extremely complicated stuff.
 
if interested get a copy of lee Smolin's book the trouble with physics he dedicated a whole chapter to people like us. check out Micheal Faraday his knowledge of math was none existent
 
Last edited:
I was obsessed with space and astronomy as a kid and was good at physics, but I didn't have the maths ability to take it to a higher level.
 
I was obsessed with space and astronomy as a kid and was good at physics, but I didn't have the maths ability to take it to a higher level.

The more I read, I understand you have the wrong paradine the guys that become brilliant astronomers are the ones that learn astronomy first, pick up the mathimatics in university. Then your leap frog your colleagues to make the brilliant discoveries, good example Einstein. Keep in mind one in 58,000 have this ability, you have to fill your brain with information, garbage in garbage out. It's not about how bright you are but it sure helps.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the videos, I am familiar with complex number was covered in my high school math some 40years ago, currently refreshing myself with linear equation then known as matrix.
 
I just finished reading Carlos Rovelli book, reality is not what it seem. Excellent book. I have read a lot of books on physics over many years. one of the best easy read. I would answer some of your questions, you are thinking to much in newtonian terms. Carlos books are easier reading
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom