Thursday, December 31, 2009

Happy New Year!

Goodbye 2009! Will 2010 be the year of lattice propulsion? Probably.

Happy new year to everybody. I wish you all the best of everything that life has to offer.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Busy

Ok. I am a little bit busy preparing for the holidays. Sorry. It feels strange that ten percent of the century is already gone. I wish you all the best for the coming year. I'll be back soon with more lattice and gravity stuff.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Gravity, Part II

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In Part I, I explained the nature of physical cause and I described the main differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. In this post, I argue that gravity is a non-local phenomenon, meaning that it involves action at a distance. I also argue that gravity is nature’s way of correcting a violation of the principle of energy conservation. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and Understanding the Lattice before continuing.

Action at a Distance

Albert Einstein notwithstanding, there is nothing magical or spooky about action at a distance. The spookiness is only apparent. It disappears as soon as one accepts that distance is an illusion of perception. The truth of this is no less valid than your reading this article. The abstract nature of space (i.e., distance or volume) is something that can be easily demonstrated with simple logic and I have done so elsewhere. The logic of nonspatiality is as solid as can be. Briefly, the reasoning is that the existence of space leads to an infinite regress. Consequently, given that distance is an illusion, so-called nonlocality is not the exception but the rule. Thus nature has no problem correcting violations to its conservation principles regardless of the apparent distance between causes and their effects. There is no violation of the speed of light limit because no motion is involved.

I realize that many will have difficulty with the concept of nonspatiality. One of the questions that immediately arises is, if there is no distance, what is motion? The answer is based on the premise that position is not the property of some extrinsic space but one of the intrinsic properties of every particle. Hence motion can be defined merely as a change in the positional property of a particle. This is not entirely unlike virtual software objects in a 3-D video game. The position of every object in a game scene is just one of the properties of the object. This property is all that is necessary to locate the object. Sure, we perceive objects as being located in different places in our field of view but it’s only because this is how positional information is organized in our brain’s neural network.

One cool outcome of nonspatiality is that it should be possible for an object to move from anywhere to anywhere instantly. There is no reason that the position of a particle cannot be changed by an arbitrary amount, without going through the intervening positions. Nothing is impossible as long as nature’s conservation laws are obeyed. In the future, once we figure out the full physics of position control, we will develop technologies that will allow us to travel great distances instantly. The deep consequences of such empowering technologies are too vast to fully contemplate at this time.

Stealing Energy from the Lattice

As I explained in my series on motion, a particle moves by undergoing a series of interactions. It follows that normal matter is immersed in an immense 4-dimensional lattice of energetic particles. What is important to grasp, within the context of understanding gravity, is that the entire visible universe is moving at the speed of light along one of the four dimensions of the lattice. According to my causal motion hypothesis, it takes an uninterrupted (no wait periods) sequence of interactions with equally energetic lattice particles in order to sustain the motion of a particle at the speed of light. In orders words, at every instant, it takes the energy equivalent of the entire universe to move the universe a single discrete distance along the fourth dimension. That’s a lot of energy but it’s nothing compared to the energy contained in the lattice.

A problem arises if there are many particles in a relatively small area. This increases the probability of interactions. Whenever two or more particles interact, they temporarily have equal positions. The problem is that there is enough energy at that position to move only one particle at a time in the fourth dimension. It’s a problem because every particle must move at c in the fourth dimension no matter what. Why? Because that is the nature of the special property that keeps all particles moving at c in the fourth dimension.

Nature solves this problem by temporarily borrowing energy from the lattice. As a result, an imbalance is created. An imbalance is, of course, a violation of energy conservation and nature tries to correct it at the earliest opportunity. It does so by moving more matter (or energy) toward the source of the imbalance. This is manifested as gravity.

Coming Up

In Part III, I will explain why gravity obeys an inverse square law and how the force of gravity can be calculated from first principles. Hang in there.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Gravity, Part I

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In this multi-part article, I will attempt to explain the cause of gravity. My explanation is based on the premise that normal matter is immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. I will argue that gravity is instantaneous and is a by-product of a specific type of interactions between normal matter particles and lattice particles. In today's post, I go over the state of Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories and I explain the nature of physical cause. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and Understanding the Lattice before continuing.

Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity

Newtonian gravity assumes that gravity is instantaneous whereas Einsteinian gravity claims that gravity travels at the speed of light. Both theories agree that the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newtonian gravity theory is simple yet extremely accurate, so much so that it is the theory used by NASA and other space agencies to place satellites in orbit and send probes to other bodies in the solar system. General relativity, by contrast, introduces all sorts of strange and convoluted complexities in order to explain why gravitating bodies behaved as if gravity acted instantaneously. The relativist explanation fails for two reasons, in my opinion. One is its lack of parsimony and the other is that it appeals to magic (more on this in an upcoming post).

Publicly, when asked about the cause of gravity, Newton offered his famous hypotheses, non fingo response. However, privately, he speculated that it was the result of some type of flux radiating from every massive body and traveling in straight lines and in every direction. This would explain the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. Of course, the flux hypothesis would not explain the instantaneous nature of gravity unless one assumed that the flux moved at infinite speed, at which point the flux explanation gets into serious trouble.

Most relativists claim that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. When it is pointed out to them that spacetime is just a fictitious math construct, they will either admit that they don’t know or assert that physics is not about the why of things but the how. Whatever. Some relativists are trying to revive Newton’s flux idea by proposing the existence of an intermediary massless particle called the graviton. One of the problems with the graviton hypothesis is that the graviton has never been observed. Another problem is that gravitons are affected by the same spacetime curvature that they create. This results in a troublesome infinite regress that brings down the entire house of cards. From my perspective, the graviton hypothesis is dead on arrival.

Physical Cause

A cause, in physics, is an imbalance and an imbalance is a violation of a conservation principle such as the conservation of momentum, spin orientation or energy. What we observe as gravity is nature’s way of correcting one or more imbalances. The correction is an interaction that manifests itself as gravitational attraction.

Coming Up

In my next post, I will explain what type of imbalance causes gravity and what generates the imbalance.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Climate Change

Crooked Planet

Just a quick post to express my opinion on the man-made global warming hypothesis and the travesty taking place in Copenhagen. I think it's the biggest fraud in the history of science. But it pales in comparison to the two biggest frauds in the history of humanity: capitalism and communism. Did you know that the money that the US Federal Reserve (or similar institutions elsewhere) loans to banks is not theirs to use as they please? It's the public's money, of course. But don't let any of this get you down. Soon, the master of the house will come home and set things in order. I just thought I'd chime in today with another rebellious point of view.

PS. I am working on an article on gravity. Coming soon.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

The Death of Larrabee or Intel, I Told You So

I Had Foreseen It

Back in June of this year, I wrote the following comment in response to a New York Times' Bits blog article by Ashlee Vance about Sun Microsystem's cancellation of its Rock chip project:
[...]The parallel programming crisis is an unprecedented opportunity for a real maverick to shift the computing paradigm and forge a new future. It’s obvious that neither Intel nor AMD have a solution. You can rest assured that Sun’s Rock chip will not be the last big chip failure in the industry. Get ready to witness Intel’s Larrabee and AMD’s Fusion projects come crashing down like the Hindenburg.

Anybody who thinks that last century’s multithreading CPU and GPU technologies will survive in the age of massive parallelism is delusional, in my opinion. After the industry has suffered enough (it’s all about money), it will suddenly dawn on everybody that it is time to force the baby boomers (the Turing Machine worshippers) to finally retire and boldly break away from 20th century’s failed computing models.

Sun Microsystems blew it but it’s never too late. Oracle should let bygones be bygones and immediately fund another big chip project, one designed to rock the industry and ruffle as many feathers as possible. That is, if they know what’s good for them.
Will Oracle do the right thing? I doubt it. Now that Intel has announced the de facto demise of Larrabee, my prediction is now partially vindicated. Soon, AMD will announce the cancellation of its Fusion chip and my prediction will then be fully vindicated. Fusion is another hideous heterogeneous beast that is also destined for oblivion. There is no escaping this, in my opinion, because the big chip makers are going about it the wrong way, for reasons that I have written about in the last few years. I see other big failures on the horizon unless, of course, the industry finally sees the light. But I am not counting on that happening anytime soon.

Goodbye Larrabee

Sorry Intel. I am not one to say I told you so, but I did. Goodbye Larrabee and good riddance. Nice knowing ya even if it was for such a short time. Your only consolation is that you will have plenty of company in the growing heap of failed processors. Say hello to IBM's Cell Processor when you arrive.

See Also:
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
Nightmare on Core Street
Parallel Computing: The End of the Turing Madness