Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 11/20/11 at 4:20am UTC, wrote No. I'm not the .... ....! Also meant for publication -when ready-. Not...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 4/23/11 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote New law of physics: The union of gravity and electromagnetism fundamentally...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 4/23/11 at 4:07am UTC, wrote You are not really talking physics, Even F = ma is a bit strange, for F is...

James Putnam: on 4/22/11 at 19:06pm UTC, wrote Actually, it was intended as a statement and not a question. The statement...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 4/22/11 at 18:58pm UTC, wrote You are asking a philosophical question. Your objection is similar to...

James Putnam: on 4/22/11 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote "As for causality, there is a functional or operational way of working...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 4/22/11 at 11:58am UTC, wrote Theories are not belief systems. They are working structures. Nobody...

James Putnam: on 4/21/11 at 20:03pm UTC, wrote Dr. Crowell, "Science is not a belief system." Theoretical physics is a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Gordon Watson: "RE: Peter Jackson [via "replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT"]: I hope..." in Why Quantum?

Gordon Watson: "RE: Peter Jackson hopes [via "replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT"] --- I..." in Why Quantum?

Georgina Parry: "Tom, I have already said that in some cases such as Parkinson's disease..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Thomas Ray: "Georgina, we are looking at this in entirely different ways. You are..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Thomas Ray: "" ... eternal is in NOW - instant" An instant isn't symmetrical?" in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Jim Snowdon: "We are permanently in the `now`. Everything that has ever happened,..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

Amrit Sorli: "there is no time symmetry, time has only a mathematical existence as..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Shad Williams: "I thought string theory incorporated gravity by identifying the graviton as..." in The Quantum Dictionary


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?


FQXi BLOGS
September 2, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Bang / Crunch / Bang [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Dec. 7, 2007 @ 21:23 GMT


I was contacted recently by Peter Lynds, the young physics iconoclast who turned some heads back in 2003 with a paper purporting correctly to resolve Zeno's paradox by defining time as having no quantized base unit, even in principle. (Full disclosure: Lynds also turned heads by being a mysterious figure without a University affiliation or degree.) That paper appeared in Foundation of...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 8, 2007 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear William,

Yes, that sounds like a pretty good summary. I especially liked your comment about a mirrored block universe. Thanks for having the courage to take it on.

As it seems to be the thing that I am most being asked about in relation to the model, I think it may be a good idea to briefly note a key point about it. When the order of events reverse at the big crunch and resume at the big bang, it is simply the order of events that reverse - something that would be immediate – and not a case of time "flowing backwards." Moreover, in respect to time, it is the very same cycle of the universe that plays over, not a later or future one. In a sense, the universe’s clock immediately resets and restarts afresh at the big bang (in as much as the word "restarts" can have meaning here). As such, no conservation laws are violated, and one is also not faced with the predicament of how events might manage to line themselves up to play over exactly in a later, future cycle.

I find a good way to think about it is to picture a clock, with the big bang being at time = 0, the universe beginning to contract at 6 o'clock, and the big crunch being at 12 o'clock. Just before 12, the clock resets and immediately resumes at 0. Although the hands of the clock will continue to rotate indefinitely, it is the very same 12 hour interval that plays over, not a later one; there are no past or future cycles of the universe in the model. It is one and the same.

For if anyone perhaps wants the links, the paper is available here, while a short supplementary note about singularities and the model is currently available ]here There is also a detailed summary of it here

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 8, 2007 @ 02:06 GMT
Sorry (I mucked up the links). I'll try again.

For if anyone perhaps wants the links, the paper is available here, while a short supplementary note about singularities and the model is currently available here There is also a detailed summary of it here

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 10:41 GMT
Peter, I developed a similar concept via some physics forums around 1997, so I would like to first ask if I quote from Williams initial above page:"who turned some heads back in 2003 with a paper purporting correctly to resolve Zeno’s paradox by defining time as having no quantized base unit, even in principle."

If this is so, then what is this statement you post above find a good way to think about it is to picture a clock, with the big bang being at time = 0, the universe beginning to contract at 6 o'clock, and the big crunch being at 12 o'clock. Just before 12, the clock resets and immediately resumes at 0. " ...if this is not a base unit, ie zero 0 ?

You introduce zero-time, and thius appears to, in principle be a base unit of time! This is important in order to me to explain some aspects of your initial limked paper (which I have already read in fascination, some time ago)..that deals with Time's Arrow.

PS I will add some interesting insights which you may find of great value, WRT CRITCAL PHASE of the pre-bang time-arrow. In order to promote and further develop your very interesting model, paul, et-al, aka... moorglade,waves_hand_particle, olias ranyart ;)

report post as inappropriate


anon wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 16:17 GMT
I very much appreciate your challenging the notion that entropy can continually increase in a big crunch. Definitely an area that hasn't been given enough thought. Hawking left the subject undeveloped in ABHOT.

First, I think you need to distinguish overall cosmic entropy from regional entropy. It is true that star systems for example can continue to dissipate energy in a contracting universe, however at the instant the universe begins to contract the universe as a whole is no longer cooling and is instead warming up. Stars and galaxies can dissipate completely until the distribution of matter and energy is perfectly even, but cosmic entropy begins decreasing at the moment of contraction.

So note then that although disorder is increasing regionally, cosmic order (density per volume) begins increasing also at the turning point of collapse. The energy that caused the big bang expansion is charging up again for another go. The universe is moving towards a sort of twist on Olber's paradox.



Second, if gravity causes this big crunch, which for the universe as a whole is a violation of the second law, why does the second law then stop gravity from creating the singularity? As long as the universe is expanding the second law can apply cosmically and regionally. If entropy decreases for the cosmos yet increases regionally, then regional systems are responding to the greater probability for disorder, while the universe as a whole is turning against the probability for disorder.

Third, it is true and interesting that regional entropy increase would reach a critical phase during the collapse where matter and energy would be evenly distributed, except notice how regional entropy has resulted in a more ordered cosmic state. When cosmic and regional entropy catch up to one another the universe has necessarily become extremely uniform and symmetrical. This challenges the notion that regional entropy in the collapsing phase is an increase of disorder.

Such inconsistencies are why this subject has not been thoroughly explored and I commend you for your focus.

I know of only one way to resolve these paradoxes.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 22:05 GMT
Dear Paul,

Well spotted. If you follow the link to the short note on singularities, this is specifically addressed in it. In relation to the clock/universe analogy, it is more intended to be just that – a simple analogy to perhaps aid in the understanding. The unfortunate problem with such things of course, is that, in relation to accuracy, they often fall short.

Dear Anon,

Thanks. It surprises me too that it seems not much thought has been given to this area. Then again, I would guess that the prospect of dealing with a possible breach of the second law of thermodynamics at the big crunch in the way thermodynamic time-reversal has usually been thought about, may have scared a few off.

In the model, I am talking about the whole system, in the sense of the sum total of heat flow (whether in the context of the whole universe, or inside black holes). The great weakness of the model is obviously the lack of detail regarding this matter and heat flowing to hotter, and there is clearly a need for a lot more thought and work here. The model's strength lies in how compelling the final picture it provides is, and the number of problems and paradoxes it seems to be uniquely able to offer answers to. In a way, the final picture is already there, but some of the finer details still need to be worked out.

I think that it is probably worth noting that if the second law were to be violated as the universe began to contract (as you talked about), the only change to the model would be that the reversal would be at this point, rather than just before a big crunch; in both cases, events would then resume at the big bang. This is, of course, different to how people such as Hawking and Gold have viewed time reversal at this juncture, with the second law actually being violated in their models, and events being said to play over backwards, back towards the big bang.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Phil wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 18:48 GMT
Mankind has a quest for knowledge. He's looking to understand everything. I like the idea of E8, a means to unify the our understanding of how things interact. Once man has reasoned out the operation of all things, God can finally be said to be non-existent - or can He?

report post as inappropriate


anon wrote on Dec. 11, 2007 @ 06:12 GMT
In simpler terms, entropy in terms of energy moving from hot to cold bodies, or concentration to dissipation, a star for example can still emit energy out into cold space if the universe is collapsing. However, the overall temperature of the universe immediately begins to rise at the instant the universe begins to collapse. Thus in a collapsing phase "regional entropy", meaning some designated...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


deepbreath wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 02:40 GMT
Phil,

Concerning God and Lynds model, this may interest you

www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29063

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 05:54 GMT
Dear Anon,

"But bending time into a circle is only one possible model of a timeless picture."

If interpreted the right way (that is, if certain assumptions are not made about the formalism), any model with a relativistic block-time view is timeless.

"The expansion and increasing entropy of our universe can be attributed to the probability for disorder."

The universe's expansion is attributable to the big bang, not the probability for disorder. Moreover, and as you noted, entropy should continue to increase if the universe begins to contract.

"You end up with, "this is just the way existence is".

I see this as a strength, as it means that we are actually able to address the question of initial conditions, why a low entropy past? etc. It illustrates that such questions are misnomers that could not even potentially have a different answer.

"For example, if this one universe simply exists, in principle, all other equally probable universes must also exist. This is a very simple logical conclusion."

I am not sure that it is. What would constitute an equally probable universe? Probable to whom? If the universe just is a certain way, this does not leave the door open for it to be equally probable to be another way. With no possible causal explanation as to why conditions in the universe are the way they are, it actually implies the reverse.

"Importantly, if a physical universe simply exists without beginning or end, there is no need for time to be circular."

No, but if it is to be finite too, there is. Moreover, if a model is to offer any answer to certain stubborn questions, there is as well.

I think I should also probably specifically say that the notions of the universe having existed forever and having had no beginning, or alternatively, it having had a beginning at some finite time in the past, are both faulty. If the first, it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward, not only to where we find ourselves today, but at all. If the second, what caused it?, and what caused that?, and so on. Both ideas result in very real contradiction and neither can be correct, so the same applies to any model which assumes either idea. Once one properly recognizes this, I think the necessity of the third, and really, only other option, becomes more clear. Recognizing what it is just requires one to closely examine one's regular assumptions about cause i.e., that events are always caused by ones (that we normally would term to be) in the past.

Best wishes

Peter

PS: Sorry if the above perhaps comes across a bit terse. It is not intended.

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 06:51 GMT
Peter Wrote: "The great weakness of the model is obviously the lack of detail regarding this matter and heat flowing to hotter, and there is clearly a need for a lot more thought and work here. The model's strength lies in how compelling the final picture is"

Peter, I am a bit confused at your responses and would appreciate it if you explained where your model differs from that explained....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 07:24 GMT
Sorry, we seemed to have posted at nearly the same time.

I wrote:

"Importantly, if a physical universe simply exists without beginning or end, there is no need for time to be circular."

No, but if it is to be finite too, there is. Moreover, if a model is to offer any answer to certain stubborn questions, there is as well.

I certainly agree, but what stubborn questions does a finite universe answer? The equally probable worlds are obvious, every configuration of a universe that obeys the same laws of nature. All the universes that would result of unique early fluctuations. All the unique possibilities that exist between an infinitely dense singularity and a zero density empty space, bound by the laws of nature as we know them, which appear to govern the evolution from one state to the other.

Peter wrote:

I think I should also probably specifically say that the notions of the universe having existed forever and having had no beginning, or alternatively, it having had a beginning at some finite time in the past, are both faulty. If the first, it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward, not only to where we find ourselves today, but at all. If the second, what caused it?, and what caused that?, and so on. Both ideas result in very real contradiction and neither can be correct...

I completely agree Peter, or both are paradoxical. Both exercise the classic notion of time, in which an existence is evolving. An infinite past necessitates an infinite future. I don't necessarily disagree with the existential possibility, however, time in such a scenario would have no impetus, no reason for evolving. One might imagine that an infinite past/future would have explored and thus created every possible scenario/universe, however, the direction of events would be arbitrary. In contrast, we observe a very systematic and orderly progression of events which originate from one extreme of nature and are accelerating toward another.

However, your argument against time having a beginning only applies to the classic notion of time as an evolution of existence, in which case the evolution would necessarily begin from nothing, which is by definition impossible. However, if existence simply is, then what we think of as time is merely a direction in space, and thus time can begin from some particular state, and end at some particular state, just as a story in a book begins and ends apart from the existence of the book.

I think the necessity of the third, and really, only other option, becomes more clear. Recognizing what it is just requires one to closely examine one's regular assumptions about cause i.e., that events are always caused by ones (that we normally would term to be) in the past.

Yes I think we are in agreement about the necessity of timelessness, or that existence doesn't evolve.

report post as inappropriate


Gevin wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 07:49 GMT
Peter wrote: "The universe's expansion is attributable to the big bang, not the probability for disorder."

What is the force behind the big bang if not the greater probability of disorder over order? We have concluded in science the probability of disorder gives time a direction. Without expansion the density, temperature, order of the early universe would not change. The same probability we recognize in our environment applies to the big bang era. Probability is itself a force in time. However, the probability for disorder is not the cause of expansion or entropy. Both are caused by the greater probability for balance, true also of electromagnetism and the weak force. The absolute zero in our future is the ultimate balance in timelessness. Hence from our place within the whole of all possibilities, we perceive time flowing from the extreme positive density of the big bang, to the neutral state of zero. We naturally exist caught in the middle between the ultimate boundaries of a timeless universe.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 18:34 GMT
Peter

Dear Gavin, Gevin and Anonymously (although I take it that you are the same person),

Just a few quick points. In relation to heat flowing to hotter just before a big crunch, I am just being honest. I would love to be able to say that I have more up my sleeve about it than is in the paper, but I unfortunately don't at the moment. I am also obviously aware that it goes against how big crunch thermodynamics are currently viewed by most. My point, though, is that I find the final picture of the universe that the model provides to be so striking and suggestive, that I think that there really must be a reversal of the order of events at the big crunch, and, for various reasons, I feel that heat is mostly likely to be the relevant factor here. In the process, I am also obviously trying to point to how the idea of thermodynamic time-reversal should be thought about. I could naturally be wrong about the heat aspect, but, if so, such is the local consistency and strength of the final picture, I feel that it would be suggestive of the existence of some different mechanism to cause the reversal. Moreover, because of that final picture, I think the model is worth sharing and pursuing irrespective of the current lack of detail regarding heat flowing to hotter.

In relation to the universe's expansion being attributable to the big bang, not the probability for disorder, I do not see how this could be contentious. Of course, the probability for disorder is closely related to things being able to disperse, but this does not explain the universe's expansion.

"However, your argument against time having a beginning only applies to the classic notion of time as an evolution of existence, in which case the evolution would necessarily begin from nothing, which is by definition impossible. However, if existence simply is, then what we think of as time is merely a direction in space, and thus time can begin from some particular state, and end at some particular state."

Cause is the pertinent thing here, and there is no cause in imaginary time. It evades the question. Moreover, I think talking of time being a direction of space is somewhat contrived and unphysical...especially considering neither exist!

Finally, and again, timelessness is a key feature of my model, but it is not what marks it out.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Dec. 14, 2007 @ 05:02 GMT
On the process of directional time, one can form opinionated facts of direction? Time events in Relativity, move/flow: past >> present >> future, if reversed then events :future >> present >> past, but because future events have "nothing" or non events, then the reversability cannot hasppen, there is nothing in the future that can influence the present, that can be recorded as a past?

Time's arrow points from past events, into the present events, and becomes future events. Influence flow, or specific information tends to make matter/energy travel in a constant direction, whilst if there was a process of reversable direction, ie in entropy terms, then one can conclude that this process would be viewed as somthing being created out of nothing, ie the future "nothing/non events, absilute ORDER", effects the present "actual events, entropy disorder" and can locally have information to that extent "memory", exactly like a BIG-BANG event!

It is apparent that in the present "time", heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies, and not the other way around. But then, because there are in "timescales", NO particles available in "YESTERDAY", if the Sun was still existing in a past/yesterday, then it is also pushing out photons etc as well as today? and in order to transfer energy from one body to another, both bodies must exist "somewhere". The simple explination of why heat tends to move from Hot to Cold bodies, is there is a definate direction to time, past>>present>>future :hot >> cold >> coldest!

There are moments where one can introduce faster than light comunication, ie from the future via the present, to the past, and this can ocuur when the Universe process enters it's end-phase, or specifically its critical phase. As the Universe gets colder and less visible during rapid expansion, all remaining bodies become more isolated, one can ask if this is termed as a contraction WRT the isolated body? (as far as the isolated body is concerned the rapid vacuum expansion is forcing a contraction upon the remaining energies), eventually the big crunch happens.

If again one looks at the reversable facts WRT expansion terms, the past expands away from the present, in a contracting Universe these events are colliding together, what events happened to us all yesterday would not disappear, you would findit immpossible to act out events without repeating process over and over, you in fact would be forever remembering the future?

Time ordered events have no option but to follow, in an expanding future Universe, one direction.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Dec. 14, 2007 @ 05:11 GMT
If yesterday still existed ,that is to state there are still particles in a "past" then, these particles would be available for "temperature" collisions, and because of the extent the past has been, there would be more particles in the past than the present or future, thus all hot bodies would tend to cold particles everywhere, that includes the obvious "heat sink" that would be yesterday?

For the transference of temperature, collisions need to occur, you will not find any colliding particles in the "past/yesterday" .

report post as inappropriate


Plato wrote on Dec. 15, 2007 @ 15:45 GMT
This post is redone of previous. Sorry about html problems encountered. Please delete previous post

William Orem said:By the way, I rather like “hot pocket”). That is, it has regions where what we think of as the Beginning and the End are approached, but within those regions the status of "future" and "past" flips. This is a neat way of avoiding singularities almost by fiat.

I see problems with trying to detach yourself from the world Kip Thorne helps us to think about.

"Most people think of space as nothingness, the blank void between planets, stars, and galaxies. Kip Thorne, the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech, has spent his life demonstrating otherwise. Space, from his perspective, is the oft-rumpled fabric of the universe. It bends, stretches, and squeezes as objects move through it and can even fold in on itself when faced with the extreme entities known as black holes. He calls this view the “warped side of the universe.”The Man Who Imagined Wormholes and Schooled Hawking by Susan Kruglinski

Of course it had me thinking about Stephen Hawking and his introductory to Time.

It's as if Peter Lynd is trying to rewrite history without part of that history.

If you cannot include the "microperspective currently established in the collider experience," then what use any block of "no time," if you cannot take this view down to the levels with which integration must develop, to further the "quantum gravity regime."

Without "spacetime" this presentation runs into trouble?

Maybe, I am not seeing the theory as presented appropriately?

Previous commenter helped to make a understanding clear in regards to Black Hole-Powered Jet of Electrons and Sub-Atomic Particles Streams From Center of Galaxy M87. See second picture below.

attachments: 1_27.gif, 1_Galaxy_M87.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 15, 2007 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Plato,

General relativity (and as such, the idea of space-time) applies to the model, just as it does to all other current theories in cosmology. One has to recognize, however, that space-time is just a geometric framework; it does not actually exist. This then sets limits to how that framework can be said to correspond to Nature and how it can be employed in theories. It seems odd, but I do no think that Kip Thorne has properly realized this.

In relation to space-time having no existence, Einstein himself held this view (sample quote, “Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field”), and he often appears to have been careful to make a note of it (if, later in his life, he was maybe a bit apathetic towards others who, whether knowingly or not, clearly believed the reverse). It just seems that this point has been lost on a number of physicists and mathematicians, seemingly unable to make the same differentiation and recognize the limits of applicability of Einstein’s model of space and time. As the reality of space-time is probably seem by many physicists and mathematicians as being more of a philosophical question – a distraction to the real business of solving equations - some are also probably not too concerned with such an issue. Theories which assume the physical existence of space-time would bare witness to this (although not large, there are a few). Of course, there are also theories which assume the existence of time. The idea of time and space being quantized probably being the most notable one. However, just by assuming that instants in time and instantaneous values have physical correlation, much of physics assumes the existence of time as well.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Plato wrote on Dec. 16, 2007 @ 01:59 GMT
Today Peter Lynds wrote,"One has to recognize, however, that space-time is just a geometric framework; it does not actually exist."

I was reading your paper and this selection below seem to contradict what you were saying today.

Peter Lynds wrote "Central to my interest was that I thought it made much more sense for the universe to be positively spatially curved (i.e. OmegaM = ρ0 / ρc = > 1)."On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or EndPage 4 Para 2

You go onto write,

"There seemed to be two general options: either the universe would contract to a singularity, a point of infinite density and geometric space-time curvature, and everything would cease to be; or alternatively, it might bounce back with a great explosion."

Current research into the Quark Gluon plasma has presented some additional information. I'll write further later

report post as inappropriate


Harriet Deface wrote on Dec. 16, 2007 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Peter, I just ate the most delicious cake I've ever had in my life. It's nice to know I will one day, in the past, again enjoy this wonderful cake. Thanks. H

report post as inappropriate


Plato wrote on Dec. 18, 2007 @ 07:14 GMT
Peter,

I can also attest to a previous commentor's postulation that a "white hole" may be the other side of a blackhole.

It does seem strange indeed. Not all that familiar either.

It is not easy to think about a "geometrical emergence" from such a state of the blackhole, yet, if we had thought about the quark gluon plasma, would there be anything there relevant to creating the option to there being a "relativistic portal" being opened from such an extreme heat?

The amount of dark matter and energy in the universe plays a crucial role in determining the geometry of space. If the density of matter and energy in the universe is less than the critical density, then space is open and negatively curved like the surface of a saddle

What contributed to the existing condition in the universe to have the description of the universe as being as such?

Particle physics is in the midst of a great revolution. Modern data and ideas have challenged long-held beliefs about matter, energy, space and time.

So one might look for the causes?

attachments: nothing2.gif

report post as inappropriate


Plato wrote on Dec. 18, 2007 @ 07:31 GMT
The explanation below will help one understand the image that is associated. Further information in relation to article as "Further Reading," most helpful as well.

CRASH COURSE. This composite image from several observatories and telescopes shows where two clusters of galaxies collided 100 million years ago. The ordinary matter, shown in pink, from the two galaxies collided, whereas the dark matter from each galaxy, shown in purple, passed straight through.

Markevitch, et al., Clowe, et al., Magellan, Univ. of Arizona, CXC, CfA, STScI, ESO WFI, NASA


attachments: a7619_1531.jpg

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Dec. 18, 2007 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Plato,

I think there is a real difference between talking about the universe in the context of general relativity, versus saying or thinking that space-time exists.

Dear Harriet,

Thanks. That made me laugh. My dinner wasn’t very nice last night, so I am sort of cursing my cosmology model at the moment. I’ll have cake tonight.

Best wishes

Peter

PS: An additional note. William rightly points out that current data suggests that the universe is going to continue expand indefinitely. If so, my model is wrong. However, I feel that there are some good reasons to believe that the universe eventually will collapse. Some of these are mentioned in my paper, but I think the most compelling one (perhaps with the exception of the final picture provided by the model itself after the fact of contraction) is that an ever-expanding cosmos does not offer any causal clue at all to its origin. With the ideas of the universe having no beginning and an infinite past, or alternatively, it having a beginning at some finite time in the past, both being faulty, this leaves just (what we would normally call) the future to look to for causal clues if trying to answer the question of what caused the big bang. An ever-expanding universe does not offer any, but a universe that collapses potentially can.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Jan. 14, 2008 @ 19:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

I've taken a look at your paper, which I've been meaning to do for quite a while. If I understand correctly, you have two notions of time. One, call it 'coordinate time', flows monotonically from the initial singularity to the big-crunch. The second, call it 'physical time' increases monotonically with increasing 'cosmic entropy'. I think this is sensible, and also the way I look at it, though I don't think anyone would say this is on completely firm footing. You then suppose that entropy increases (with coordinate time) for a while, then decreases as the big-crunch is approached. Physical time then flows away from the initial singularity and from the big-crunch, toward a (coordinate) time near that of the big crunch. In this sense no physical observer actually 'makes it' to the big crunch.

As you are clearly aware, you'll have a hard time making the case for entropy decrease (or more accurately a change in the derivative of entropy with respect to coordinate time) without some strong reason -- one would think that this sort of maximization of entropy would happen only at equilibrium. But let's leave this aside, as for the issue why the universe would recollapse (you will have to assume that the present vacuum energy is not a true cosmological constant, but decays to a negative value).

No, my basic question is: why apply this reasoning to the big crunch but not the initial singularity? If you apply it only to the big-crunch, do not see how your model can be called 'non-singular', as all observers can still perceive information from the singularity in their past. If you *do* apply the same reasoning to the initial singularity, you would indeed get a universe with no initial singularity (an idea I've explored at length) but only big-crunch regions. If you apply it to both, I would say you indeed have a universe that at least has some regions in which nobody sees a singularity to their past (though there will be regions in which they do -- insofar as observers are possible in these regime.)

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jan. 15, 2008 @ 19:10 GMT
Dear Anthony,

Thanks for your comments. In relation to time, I feel a bit uncomfortable with time being said to flow, or there being "physical time", but I also realise that you're not necessarily implying that it actually does "flow" (or that entropy increase assigns a direction to such a flow). In other words, yes, I think we're on the same page!



“As you are clearly aware, you'll have a hard time making the case for entropy decrease”

Yes. There clearly needs to be a lot more thought and work in that respect. For a while I was reluctant to share the model because of this. Due to the final picture of the universe that the model provides that I keep referring too, though, I thought it would be shame if I didn't.

In connection to there still being a big bang singularity in the past of an observer, over and above it being classical and possibly not applicable in the quantum realm, this is the problem with the Hawking-Penrose big bang/past-directed singularity theorem, as it assumes that time can be treated, in a physically meaningful way, to be convergent back to 0 at the big bang. In the standard big bang picture, events and times always evolving in the direction of entropy increase and “away” from the low entropy big bang, so trying to take time back in the opposite direction – a direction in which entropy would be decreasing – does not hold physical sway. That is, it is not physically meaningful to talk of a big bang singularity as being in the past of the observer, as that direction is a no go (for both him and Nature!). Moreover, if events are always evolving away from the big bang, and one also has a cause to set those events rolling (as there is in the model), there is no sense in which a big bang singularity is encountered. The short note on singularities linked to earlier in this thread goes into this a little bit more than the original paper.

Best wishes and thanks again

Peter

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 08:38 GMT
Every Tortiose/Turtle has a starting point, between two points in time, there is but ONE space,between two points in space, there is ONE time! ;)

report post as inappropriate


Wild Honey Pie wrote on Jan. 21, 2008 @ 20:32 GMT
Genius!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2008 @ 03:40 GMT
Ha!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2008 @ 11:12 GMT
The weird world of the internet

report post as inappropriate


hgb wrote on Mar. 30, 2008 @ 19:48 GMT
This excellent paper disagrees with conclusions of Lynds. The universe was created by God a finite time span in the past.

report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 11:21 GMT
I find very interesing the discussion that takes place in this blog. First of all, I totally agree with the cocmological model proposed by Peter Lynds. The finite universe with no beggining or end is indeed the only self-consistent model.

I see that most people agree that time had a beggining. The paper linked above by "hgb" supports this. I also have been looking for an answer to this question: is it possible time to have a beggining? I am quite sure that this is impossible. I justify this by proving that the sentence "time has a begging" is self contradictory. The statement "time has a begging" implies that "there was no time before the beggining". BUT!!! the reference to a time prior to the beggging contradicts with the initial statement that time has a beggining. This is a contradiction

To conclude, I believe that the truth can be reached with paradoxe solving and discovery of such contradictions. Not because there is something special or "magical" in paradoxes. Simply, our mind and language usually make statements that are self-contradictory and blocks us from the truth. The discovery of contradiction can lead us to truth.

I hope you'll find my argument interesting.

PS: Nice to write to a blog instead of using e-mail!

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Apr. 4, 2008 @ 09:04 GMT
Hi HGB,

One of the points of the model is that it leaves no place for a "Supreme Creator", so invoking one does not help His cause (with cause actually being the operative word). Moreover, no matter how supreme and almighty, He still has to always stop and give way to reason.

Hi Giannis,

I agree with what you said about paradoxes. It reminds me of a nice Niels Bohr quote. "How wonderful it is that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."

Best wishes

Peter

PS: I fear that the link to the short paper on singularities referred to earlier may not have been working. It can be downloaded here (it has also since been published in the peer-reviewed ICCS conference proceedings).

report post as inappropriate


Dane Sorensen wrote on Apr. 9, 2008 @ 23:03 GMT
Thank you Mr. Lynds.

The idea of a cyclic Universe as presented by Lynds does make perfect sense. Add in Quantum Mechanics and you have a recipe for not only our lives being repeated again, but alternative versions of our lives as well. Then again, like rolling billions and billions of dice we may not show up at all for billions of cycles.

What I find as a perfect paradox is that I still feel we would have free will each and every time we are on the cosmic stage.

Cheers,

Dane Sorensen

Ely, MN

report post as inappropriate


Molly wrote on Apr. 22, 2008 @ 17:01 GMT
what i am confused about, and what concerns me (which perhaps is irrelevant to you and your theory), is what happens to ourselves during these 'cycles' or between these cycles.

Does this constant 'cycle' thus leave room for reincarnation? Does it suggest that our spirits are continually recycled? What happens to the soul when the world crunches and expands again? Or will we end up as different creatures? Or do you not believe in the soul as a 'physical' thing just in the same way time does not exist?

Some people have interpreted this cycle as our lives repeating and rewinding...but either i have mis understood the point, or its just interpretations of the result of the model. Myself however, i cant see how when the universe reverts back to the 'crunch' we will behave in rewind?

What do you think will happen when we approach the crunch? will events play out as they did but in reverse, ...growing younger... or do we die off as the universe heats and reaches this point? I am not asking for an answer to our death or when we will die, but rather how you imagine the world to pan out (or in), or if you have given this side-effect to your theory some thought

I am very interested to know what your thoughts are on the smaller matters of the issue which your theory affects

thankyou

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Apr. 26, 2008 @ 07:45 GMT
Dear Dane,

Thanks. In relation to free will, we could have no possible memory of a previous cycle (if the model does make it difficult to resist wondering about the underpinnings of deja vu!), so we would still feel as though we had free will. Of course, due to the laws of physics being deterministic, we don't have free will for this reason either (given exactly the same initial conditions,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


molly wrote on May. 8, 2008 @ 14:52 GMT
you believe that peoples spirits can be reborn, as you said 'when someone dies, many billions of years later, they will live their lives over again. Indeed, as they would be dead and non-conscious during the interim, for them anyway, such naturalistic life after death might as well be immediate.' do you mean that during the time in which we dont exist, i.e: the 'time' to the dead (between dying and the new cycle of living billions of years later) seems like 'it was only yesterday' so to speak since they are unconscious inbetween?

Thus is this your idea of a 'spirit/soul', something which is only a byproduct of our consciousness and only alive when we are awake? Surely that implies our soul is mechanic, that of a robot, when our battery dies, so too does anything that gave us life and personality, if so, then wouldnt you assume we would be without a personality or emotions? where do you believe this comes from? the soul or the consciousness. As i see it, when we are asleep and unconscious we dream, the spirit is still working, as it also would when we die. As i understand the logic that when we die, so too does our soul, but i cant help shake off the notion that the very essence of what makes us human is a separate entity altogether, as this is what separates the human brain from being robotic into a self conscious being.

i am skeptical to believe that when people die, that is the end of their being, spirit and all, up until their life is reborn with the next 'cycle', do you feel that the spirit is something that can be separate from the body, which is why i am asking this question...where does the spirit go when the world ends? or if it is as you mentioned, 'largely an outcome of the nature of conscious awareness,' then how do you explain our dreams? just subconsciousness?

curious to know your thoughts

molly

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 12, 2008 @ 06:49 GMT
Molly, in early quantum mechanics, there was conflict with intepretation from cophenhagen?..later some leading lights made statements that there was really only ONE electron in existance, it flits to all of matter at such a rate we only interact within it's "wake"?..now there was also a statement that electrons are never located in the "now", thus electrons are hoping from past to future+future to past trajectories?

Now if you believe in the process where "you have lived before"..then it may be that there really is only one single person in existance, spread out over a vast period of time? The collection of input/output mechanical interactions of a conscious "now", will be the input/output at another time's, "then"!

Now the "same" bit form it, information? at one location, may be viewed from two seperated locations, with observer dependant consequences. In order to experience this, ask a friend to stand in front of an ordinary mirror, whilst you stand about 2 metre's to thier side, and to literaly "say what they see?". a reflection ofthemselves in the mirror, and you looking at the SAME mirror see something totally different, the ONE mirror inputs and outputs information along two separate and different paths? Now swop places with your friend, you see your image in the mirror, at the SAME location, the mirror/glass there is another image of the person standing to one side of you superimposed, or embbeded within your image, which image is "real"? while there is only one mirror, there is/are two images at on location and instant!

So while you stand in front of the nmirror gazing at youself, as this question:Where is my friends (your) image?..it is really there upon the mirror surface, if one asks other firnds to join you, all positioning themselves away from directly in front, then at what density does the mirror surface no longer input and output the information to the relevant observers?

This exercise may be long winded, but it is very very important for intepretation and out of this world, or "out of body" experience understandings, by the experience of light, quantum mechanics can be quite revealing!

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on May. 15, 2008 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Molly,

"or if it is as you mentioned, 'largely an outcome of the nature of conscious awareness,' then how do you explain our dreams? just subconsciousness?"

Yes. That's not to say, however, that I don't think that there is something special about the human spirit, in a metaphorical sense. In relation to some humans anyway. Unfortunately this group seems to be underrepresented.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on May. 22, 2008 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi again,

I have been thinking about this model, which is in essence the Eternal Recurrence, and I have end up with this idea: the probability that this model is correct is one. Think about it. If there is a probability that the hypothesis that this moment repeats again and again then this must be one because it is more probable to be in the recurrence than in the single moment.

An analogous way to think about it is the following: imagine that you are born in a universe with infinite persons with pink skin and one person with blue skin. What color skin would you think that you have...?

Any comments?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 5, 2008 @ 11:01 GMT
Hawikng in his recent book "The Universe in a nuthshell" has pointed out that the bing-bang singularity is contradictory becasue at the point when space-time is zero the theory of relativity from which the bing-bang is an outcome does not hold. I just thought that it will be interesting to consider this also.

report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on Jun. 9, 2008 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Peter Lynds,

Have you considered that your model precludes a theory of everything? Or, in other words, the most accurate physical model is the universe by itself? I think that this is in consistence with Gregory Chaitin's statement (based on Godel's theorem of incompleteness) that the theory of everything is just a fiction.

Best regards,

Giannis Chantas

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jun. 18, 2008 @ 21:33 GMT
Hi Anon,

Yes. I think that is largely self-evident though. I think the issue is more one of how Nature might avoid singularities.

Hi Giannis,

I hadn't considered that. I'm not sure if I agree. If we are to find a theory of everything, however, I think it will still probably be a fair way off. I think it is interesting to look back over the history of physics and to see how previous generations have often thought that they were just a few years from completing the picture. Just a couple more brush strokes and it would be complete. Of course, the picture was greatly more detailed and layered than they were aware. Large parts were also missing (from their pictures), while they also had some mistakes. A bit like the Mona Lisa without hair, clothes, and with a beard and false teeth. Of course, the problem was (and still is) that, without being able to see her properly and know what she looks like, it is very difficult to paint her! Different people obviously have very different ideas of what she should look like too (straight or stringy hair, how many dimensions she should be, natural or heavily made-up, wearing a watch or not, etc).

In relation to your other comment, it is the very same cycle/interval that repeats, so, in relation to time, it happens only once; there is only the blue person. Of course, he is a special sort of blue person (cyclic smurf might be a good name for him), in that, when he dies, it won't be final.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Jun. 19, 2008 @ 11:58 GMT
Peter,

Firstly, interesting to discuss with you.

Secondly, for my second comment, I wasn't absolutely correct about the theory of everything. Chaitin has proven that even if somebody gives us the theory of everything there is no way to prove that this is indeed that theory. This is proven and is not just a speculation.

And for my first comment I just had the feeling that the only reason that we are here, think and discuss in forums :) is that we repeat eternally. It makes perfect sense to me and I can express it intuitively from the point of view of the probability theory.

One thing that I want to ask you is whether Nietzsche inspired you to find this model. I ask because when I read about eternal recurrence my first thought was more or less the model you propose and the number of questions that answers almost perfectly.

All the best,

Giannis

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Jun. 24, 2008 @ 21:21 GMT
I think that some very important issue that mentioned in the paper but has't been discussed here, is the answer to the question 'how the universe was created' that this models provides. Indeed, in a cyclic this question is meaningless! I like to call it self-creation.

This reminds me a painting with two hands with pencils drawing each other. I think the artist of this painting had a very similar thinking.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jul. 2, 2008 @ 07:58 GMT
"Chaitin has proven that even if somebody gives us the theory of everything there is no way to prove that this is indeed that theory."

Yes, that makes sense. Of course, we would still have things such as physical intuition and insight to fall back on.

Nietzsche's eternal return (and Poincare's recurrence theorem) didn't play a part in my thinking. I must admit that I find Nietzsche's argument a little bit silly, as I don't see it being a realistic possibility. It may not be able to be statistically ruled out, but for the universe to later return to an earlier state in the way Nietzsche envisaged, by odds, one would have to wait a length of time so large that I doubt the number has been encountered in mathematics before! For instance, for just one litre of air, one would have to wait trillions of years for it to ever possibly happen. In the case of the universe, by such a time (if the universe still existed), the stars would have run out of fuel and the universe would not be in a position to support life. The playing field would have changed, and realistically, the system would not be able to replicate itself.

I also think Nietzsche's reaction to the idea was a little bit short-sighted (renders existence and the idea of human progress meaningless, Nihilism, God is dead, etc). I don't think he thought through some of the subtleties properly. If he had, I think his reaction would have probably been a bit different. For example, a universe that periodically repeats doesn't render the idea of progress any more meaningless than its counterpart. Indeed, if anything, it provides reason to try to make the most of one's life! It also offers something that people seem to very much desire.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Jul. 7, 2008 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear Peter,

I was curious to know your thought about a paradox:

Hilbert's hotel

There are infinite rooms in this hotel and there is a person in every room. So, the hotel is full. Then a new customer arrives and the owner frees the first room as follows: the first person moves to the second room, the second to the third etc. Then the first room is ready for the new customer.

Hence the contradiction arises because the hotel is full and not full at the same time! I think that this paradox tells us some important things about infinity as Kant's paradox.

Best wishes,

Giannis

report post as inappropriate


Fred Kohn wrote on Jul. 8, 2008 @ 23:05 GMT
Peter's ideas have whetted my appetite for thinking about these sorts of things and I have my own theory about time. I believe that there is such a thing as negative time, which is Not the same thing as time running backwards. I apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge of physics as I explain my theory. I'm just an interested amateur.

Some have said that gravity is caused by a mysterious particle called a graviton. I'm wondering whether the collection of all the gravitons that exist are something like the multiverse that some have postulated, but a Negative multiverse. If this is true, a graviton has negative space/time and negative mass/energy.

Because a graviton has negative space, there is "room" for a huge number of them at the "time" of the big bang. I use the term "room" loosely as gravitons cannot really be comsidered "in" this universe, as they have negative spacial dimensions.

Paradoxically, because they have negative space, as our space expands there is "room" for less and less of them. This means that on the scale of the universe they are popping out of existence constantly. On the local scale they cause gravity because their negative space is shrinking as opposed to the expansion of our positive space. As two massive objects move towards one another, there is "room" for more and more gravitons, which explains why a gravitational field becomes stronger as two masses move towards one another. Because gravitons have negative time, there is a time dilation effect in a gravitational field.

As our space moves towards some maximum amount, the number of gravitons will continue to decrease until there is only one. At this point our universe will either immediately blow apart into microuniverses, or will divide into 2 then 4 then 8 universes etc. At any rate this event, which we call the "big rip" becomes the "big bang" for the negative universe, during which the remnants of our "old" universe become the gravitons for the "new" one.

report post as inappropriate


Kyle Miller wrote on Jul. 10, 2008 @ 01:17 GMT
Dear Peter,

I just read your papers yesterday. Boy did they get me thinking. It seems like you have found the key to cosmology: a self-consistent model which obviates singularities. And, perhaps even better, you have dispensed with the quasi-religious philosophical baggage of causation (which I find incredibly telling). Needless to say, I love to think about this kind of stuff. I would say I hold a practically identical position on the subject on consciousness. I also think you are very clear-headed: not many are able cutting through all the hogwash (semantics, human perception etc.), and divine that there is no such thing as instantaneous time.

As you have said, there are a few 'details' which needs to be filled in, before you would consider this model complete. I would like to know exactly what all these are, because I think it would bring the conversation along more pioneering lines. These are the ones which I am aware of:

1) When does the universe begin to 'run backwards.' (Possible prediction(?): If the 'big crunch' stops before creating a singularity, it would have to take up some amount of space. Is it possible to calculate the size of this state and match it with times in the past. Making a prediction such as: the universe cannot reach the point where a GUT theory is possible, based on temperature, density, etc...)

2) How does the universe begin to 'run backwards.'

3) What is dark energy; why now; and, is it possible for it to diminish or disappear.

I would be delighted if you could fill us in on any others!

Best Wishes,

Kyle

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jul. 13, 2008 @ 19:49 GMT
Dear Giannis,

I think that's a nice paradox. In particular, I think it illustrates really well the dichotomy between infinity existing in a purely platonic sense vs. it existing in Nature. For example, an infinite number of hotel rooms is not physically possible, for it would also take an infinite time to build them. An infinite number of people is not physically possible for a similar reason! Yet, an infinite number of rooms or sets can (and I think, do) exist in a platonic, non-physical sense. I think that Nature finds the infinite just as problematic as we do, and that if a theory asserts that a physical value or quantity is infinite, it is a sure sign the theory is wrong. I think that gravitational singularities, the idea of the past and future being infinite, that of space being infinite, and Zeno's paradoxes, are all good examples of this.

Dear Fred,

Evolving a system into the past (or treating time as negative) only makes sense if one has a past to work with (i.e. some events that have already happened), otherwise it wouldn't/couldn't be the past! Without one, the so-called past directed evolution would be indistinguishable from the so-called future directed one. Moreover, if a system already has a past, one cannot invent a different one for it. As well as positing an infinite past, Sean Carroll's cosmology model suffers from this same problem.

Dear Kyle,

Thanks for your kind words. I think the detail behind heat flowing from hotter to hotter is the thing that really needs more work and thought. The model would also clearly benefit from additional formalization (if, in some ways, just for cosmetic reasons). Apart from predicting that there should be enough mass/energy in the universe to eventually cause the universe to collapse (and perhaps that the repulsive effects of dark energy [or alternative explanation] will dissipate over time), the model doesn't say anything about dark energy. Note that it also does not involve the universe or time "running backwards". I would love to be able to get a unique prediction from the model, but unless one were able to create a fully enclosed system in a laboratory with densities and temperatures comparable to just before a big crunch or black hole singularity (i.e. not likely!), I do not see how this would be possible. Still, perhaps a different way of testing this aspect of the theory may come up in the future.

Best wishes and thanks again

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Jul. 16, 2008 @ 19:55 GMT
I noticed a funny thing. The blog has an option that enables to view the most recent or the oldest post in the thread. But according to the model discussed here differentiation between the two options is meaningless :D !

report post as inappropriate


Scott McGregor wrote on Jul. 17, 2008 @ 00:03 GMT
Peter Lynds asked me to share some comments that I sent him in a private communication and suggested that I post them here.

One of the interesting things about Peter Lynds' theory is that it turns the "many worlds" interpretation of Everett's Universal Wave Function into a "many epochs" interpretation.

I haven't done the mathematics but intuitively it seems to me that this transforms a wave function that varies across universes into a wave function that varies with time, at least at the epoch level.

The many epoch theory now seems all the more satisfying, at least at the conceptual level, simply because it is much easier for me to imagine how quantum wave function probabilities for individual particles collapse from uniform randomness to specific probabilities. In the many simultaneous universes model I have to imagine counting the fraction of states occupied across an infinity of universes. Conceptually I find that hard to imagine doing...

But when I think about such quantum probabilities in a many epochs model, it is much easier for me to conceptualize, if only because those probabilities may simply represent a Bayesian estimation of probability based upon the number of times this particular quantum state has been filled in "previous" epochs.

The fact that it is more conceptually appealing to me does not mean that it may be more conceptually appealing to any other reader, and it certainly isn't an argument for its correctness -- but if others think like I do, it may be an argument in favor of a pedagogical explanation that reaches more people.

I have to wonder though, whether there is perhaps actually some explanatory power in such a model as well. Could the Universal Wave Function be an encoding of that Bayesian function across epochs?

If so, does it represent epoch crossing state information that is not lost or destroyed in a crunch? Preserved because in Peter Lynd's theory the universe "bounces" rather than "cruches")?

Would the Universal Wave Function in such a model also be tied to the entropy of the Universe at each moment?

And if that is the case, perhaps the Universal Wave Function across all epochs does not just vary at the large scale epoch level: But because bounces can perserve state information between epochs, might the Universal Wave function vary continuously over time at the sub-second level as well?

How might an epoch crossing Universal Wave Function be encoded in the fabric of space time itself? Might it be encoded in the form of distributions of entropy states over time? Does the 2nd law enforce outcomes that are different in each epoch in accordance with the universal quantum state? or is there another measure?

If such speculations are correct, what theoretically observable hypotheses do they entail? What thought experiments can we derive that would distinguish the bounce model and crunch model if this hypothesis is true? Which results might be experimentally testable?

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Jul. 18, 2008 @ 10:37 GMT
Peter Lynds wrote, "I think that Nature finds the infinite just as problematic as we do..."

Informatively, the word infinite in greek (apero) means 'non-experienced'.

And I also find interesting that there is no present continuous in greek , only simple present. This avoids the Zeno paradoxes!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 18, 2008 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

I feel the need to redeem Nietzache's fame about eternal recurrence. The reasoning of the recurrence that you refered is written in his earlier books and not in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In this book he proposes that time is a circle. And he has the same arguments as you although latent.

‘This long lane behind us: it goes on for an eternity. And that long lane ahead of us — that is another eternity.’

‘They are in opposition to one another, these paths; they abut on one another: and it is here at this gateway that they come together. The name of the gateway is written above it: "Moment."’

‘But if one were to follow them further and ever further and further: do you think, dwarf, that these paths would be in eternal opposition?’

‘Everything straight lies,’ murmured the dwarf disdainfully. ‘All truth is crooked, time itself is a circle.’

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jul. 23, 2008 @ 06:15 GMT
Dear Scott,

Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, I must admit that I've thought about that too (if not quite to the same extent you have).

"The many epoch theory now seems all the more satisfying, at least at the conceptual level, simply because it is much easier for me to imagine how quantum wave function probabilities for individual particles collapse from uniform randomness to specific probabilities. In the many simultaneous universes model I have to imagine counting the fraction of states occupied across an infinity of universes. Conceptually I find that hard to imagine doing...But when I think about such quantum probabilities in a many epochs model, it is much easier for me to conceptualize, if only because those probabilities may simply represent a Bayesian estimation of probability based upon the number of times this particular quantum state has been filled in "previous" epochs."

I think that's a fascinating idea. I agree that a many epochs or times interpretation seems to make it easier to conceptualise quantum probabilities. If it ever possibly catches on, you should get the credit! Whether there may also be some explanatory power in such a model, however, I really don't know either. All I can really offer at the moment is that my model doesn't breach any conservation laws, and would appear to preserve information too (at no point would it be lost or destroyed).

I think the questions you raised certainly deserve more thought, so I'm really pleased that you posted them here.

Dear Anon,

I must admit that I haven't read much Nietzsche. Of course, the idea of eternal return goes back a long time before Nietzsche. Among many others, Plato, Pythagoras and da Vinci were proponents of the idea that time is cyclic.



I always find it odd that the idea appears in the Bible too (in Ecclesiastes ), as it goes against the grain of the Bible story and Christian Calender – a linear progression of events that happen only once. Adding to this is that a belief in cyclic time was decreed as blasphemous by the Catholic Church at one point (presumably for this same reason). The again, others aspects of Ecclesiastes are rather non-typical for the Bible as well. It makes me wonder if the original text wasn't later added to to bring it more in line with Christianity (it seems to become more religious as it goes on, and often contradicts itself).

Dear Giannis,

I didn't know that. I think Aristotle may have seen the infinite in a similar way. He was probably behind the definition!

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis Chantas wrote on Jul. 26, 2008 @ 15:45 GMT
I need your thoughts and comments about the file that attach. Thank you.

attachments: ete.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Aug. 6, 2008 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Giannis,

Thanks. I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. As much as you and I may find it convincing, I'm pretty certain that the probability of cyclic time being correct isn't one though.

It is a bit different with my conclusions regarding instants, instantaneous magnitudes, Zeno's paradoxes etc, as it is much more clear-cut. As arrogant and unscientific as it sounds, as the possible validity of that work reduces to, and hinges upon, a very simple question, I would be prepared to bet my life on it being correct (if I might not have the same confidence in the way the original paper was written). If I'm still alive, more on that work soon though.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 16, 2008 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Peter,

In your paper Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity you postulate that there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process. I basically agree with this and also think it is essentially the resolution of Zeno and a bunch of other stuff.

Check out www.zenophysics.com which has been said to resolve all Zeno paradoxes starting from some very basics of physics and mathematics.

And of course it can be wrong :) Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Aug. 20, 2008 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Peter,

After reading your statement:

" ... I think the necessity of the third [cyclic time], and really, only other option, becomes more clear"

I was wondering wether we can say that the hypothesis that time is cyclic is proven by the Kant's paradox. Can we talk about proof? Or this hypothesis is just something that is very compelling?

Curious to know your thoughts.

Giannis

PS: Can we say the same about Zeno's paradoxes and the absence of a time instant? Is this a proof?

report post as inappropriate


Mike wrote on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 04:18 GMT
Our current reality is constructed through the interpretation of certain signals, nothing more, and nothing less. Reality, in my opinion, has been shaped (like all things) by evolution. From this evolutionary standpoint, reality should be constructed in such a way to best suit the physical survival of the species. In this manner, our systems serve as a reductionary filter, allowing only the reality which suits our survival to come through and to only interpret signals which produce this reality—since our senses have coevolved to produce this reality, it would be nonsensical for them to be able to naturally sense more.

In this manner, the true nature of time is beyond grasping because our senses are involved in the interpretation of it. Since our senses lead to a deluded reality, than all constructs created by our senses that comprise our deluded reality must too, be built upon delusion. Time, like space, are constructs of the mind which are conduscive to spreading our genetic seed (sort of a Kantian view of space/time with a little twist). If our genes were best spread differently under different circumstance, I think we would have a completely different understanding of time and space during the "waking life."

How do you remove the filter of the senses to experience reality rather than interprete? Hm ...

email me if you are picking up what I'm putting down

mfmezz@gmail.com

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 10:22 GMT
Mike "Our current reality is constructed through the interpretation of certain signals, nothing more, and nothing less. Reality, in my opinion, has been shaped (like all things) by evolution.From this evolutionary standpoint, reality should be constructed in such a way to best suit the physical survival of the species."

A recent documentary on uk tv featuring Richard Dawkins:The genius of Charles Darwin..made similar if not identical statements,so howcome the process of evolution backwards ie from a Gas rich environment of Man Chimp ... to environment of liquid rich environment Fishy thingies.... has a total, well murky beginning? There is an almighty gap for all species, when the Earth was not sustaining any lifeforms upon it's surface to any significant depth (life on Mars scenario ).

Take the fact of Earth having its surface totally covered by a deep liquid, the atmosphere would have to exist minus oxygen converters, trees. Any available oxygen must be convayed via the ocean, just what species was exhaling oxygen for life to start? Evolution has its limitations, to some extent far more limiting than "other" explanitory theories. For nature to shape reality from environments, passing on the experience via elements and chemical/atomic structural makeup is really a question of awareness, life.

When there were only basic protein "intelligent" life forms around, what determined it to spread out and infect Earth with forward thinking humans?..the senses can be fooled into a false "reality" acceleration for instance?..jump out of a plane at 30,000ft and you loose the effect of weight, although you retain mass, your senses give in to a Spactime Gravitational experience of the second kind (first kind being at the Earths surface)..now that is real relative experience.

report post as inappropriate


Mike wrote on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 13:59 GMT
//has a total, well murky beginning? There is an almighty gap for all species, when the Earth was not sustaining any lifeforms upon it's surface to any significant depth//

I'd rather this not turn into a religious argument, but I can already sense the God of the Gaps fallacy coming on. Just because we do not know does not mean we can insert the God, or a God of our choosing into the situation. I can just as easily insert the omniscent, omipresent Flying Spaghetti Monster into the equation.

//Any available oxygen must be convayed via the ocean, just what species was exhaling oxygen for life to start? //

It is likely that the initial cells were all heterotrophs, using surrounding organic molecules (including those from other cells) as raw material and an energy source. As the food supply diminished, a new strategy evolved in some cells. Instead of relying on the diminishing amounts of free-existing organic molecules, these cells adopted sunlight as an energy source. Estimates vary, but by about 3 billion years ago, something similar to modern photosynthesis had probably developed. This made the sun’s energy available not only to autotrophs but also to the heterotrophs that consumed them. Photosynthesis used the plentiful carbon dioxide and water as raw materials and, with the energy of sunlight, produced energy-rich organic molecules.

//When there were only basic protein "intelligent" life forms around, what determined it to spread out //

Check out Freedom Evolves by Dennet - it touches on this question.

Let's keep this discussion going! Hope to see some new responses after I get back from the weekend out.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 16:31 GMT
Mike, Paul,

E. O. Wilson described the insect brain as a thermostat, in that it reacts to temperature. In a reductionistic sense, might it not be logical to describe the left brained analytical side of ours as a clock, in that it is a serial processor, registering the narrative sequence of events that is life. While the right brained, parallel processing, existential side is still a thermostat, measuring the energy fluctuations of presence.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 23, 2008 @ 09:56 GMT
Take the process of element distribution locally on rocky bodies it is chemical, atomic environments that interact and certain effects occur, ie crystal formation, elemental decay etc..etc. Now Star's go supernova, any local elements get passed from one solar system to another and across the vast voids between galaxies protons are the carriers of matter, galaxy to galaxy?

Now the distribution of life, may be a neccessary and fundemental link in the Universe's existence, the species evolve to accuire inteligence in order to destroy and create (this seems to be a inherent process of life, esp of humans)..man evolves to create LHC..this apperatus creates the early first moments of a Universe, not this one maybe but the "next" one?

How can one maintain and constrain the first moments of any Universe?..if our understanding of evolution and the process of stellar distribution is correct, then LHC will destroy this Universe, whilst at the same time create a sufficient explosive process that distributes life, human species etc..etc into far off corners of the evolving next Univrese? Now some think that our inherent destructive influence as Humans will pinnacle at the LHC, it is our destiny, a fact-of-life,we are the "missing-link" of Universe creation, who can deny that we were born to detroy and create?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Aug. 24, 2008 @ 22:04 GMT
Hi Don,

Nice site. Good luck.

Hi Giannis,

Put that way, I would consider it a proof (a logical one).

In relation to Zeno's paradoxes, because for something to be in motion its position necessarily has to be constantly changing, I consider this a logical proof that a moving body does not have a determined relative or instantaneous position (and so cannot have its motion fractionally dissected as though it does as in the paradoxes etc).

Hi Mike,

In relation to our occasionally being deceived due to the way we're wired, I think that's no doubt true to a certain extent (especially in relatin to time). I think you're taking it a bit far though. For example, you seem to be neglecting things like reason, logic, physical insight and intuition, etc. That is, through such things, it is possible to avoid perhaps being deceived and to cut to the true nature of things. One could also argue that our capacity for these things has improved with evolution, as this is also carries an advantage. FQXi grants for one. Of course, this is a bit different to our perhaps becoming more enlightened with time, which I think there is probably plenty of evidence against.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 26, 2008 @ 09:33 GMT
Is it not the case of Zeno Paradoxe's are all extinguished if one does not disreaguard the reality of the question?..a hare can run twice as fast as the tortoise, and thus has a reduces TIME at every location of measurement?..so after say 4 strides (4 tortoise strides + 4 hare strides ) there is a definate distance between where both started and both ended up, the hare definately approaches the tortoise from behind say..and then is observed to overtake and accelerate away, infront of the tortoise, motion has caused events to occur?

Between "any" two points in time there is one space, betweeen "any" two points in space there is but one time!

If hare is at A and tortoise at B, then the starter at C, must be halfway between A+B in order to signal equal "time" of event.

Zeno Paradox and Arrow Paradox neglect the points of relative measure?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2008 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear Peter,

I wanted to add that there is also the Kant's infinite vs. finite space, that the modern science has solved. The solution as far as I know is that space is finite but unbounded. I wonder why scientist all these years didn't make the same assumption about time. I think that your solution for time is very similar to that of space.

Best regards

Giannis

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Sep. 10, 2008 @ 16:04 GMT
And something else,

I told some people about your cosmological model, and the response was total indifference in the thought of living one his/her life again and again.

This has made not so enthusiastic about this idea as in the first place.

I wanted to know your opinion and a possible answer to this scepticism

Giannis

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Sep. 13, 2008 @ 01:52 GMT
Hi Giannis,

I think your comment about finite vs. infinite space (and time) is a really good one. Well put.

"I told some people about your cosmological model, and the response was total indifference in the thought of living one his/her life again and again....I wanted to know your opinion and a possible answer to this scepticism."

I think such a reaction is almost to be expected in some settings. I don't see why it should affect your position though...especially if you feel that they don't properly grasp it. Scepticism will be a huge challenge for the model (as will people getting their heads around it properly, and my lack of formal qualification). The only answer is for people to enter into it properly and think carefully. I must admit that I'm pretty pleased with how the model has been received so far. When I first had the ideas behind it, I wasn't sure if anyone would understand it. Moreover, considering the somewhat extreme reaction to my earlier work, and that I considered this work more important, difficult to understand, and potentially much more controversial, I was half expecting some blood to be spilt (i.e. mine). My hopes for it were largely orientated towards the future. Although I now find myself wanting more for the theory in the here and now, and I still find things such as scepticism frustrating, I also see such things as largely being just par for the course (that's not to say that I sympathise with the reasons behind some of this skepticism, especially in connection to the absurd belief of some that only people with PhDs and positions in a university can make contributions to science). As long as I feel I'm in the hunt with my work, though, I'm not unhappy.

Best wishes

Peter

PS: Paul, for Zeno's paradoxes, please see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/240

report post as inappropriate


Dame Sorensen wrote on Sep. 14, 2008 @ 10:40 GMT
Dear Peter,

It is an honor you let us amateur thinkers interact with you.

Thank you for your thoughts on free choice. While I do agree in your belief that our world is deterministic, in my heart I hope that the sum of our brains is more than the parts that make it up. I really do cherish my hope that we are free thinkers.

That being said, I have been thinking a lot about the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Sep. 16, 2008 @ 10:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

I want to discuss my view about this model, and see it with respect to your view. I see one's life as his conciousness running repeatidly around its lifetime. But this 'run' is only an illusion according to the Zeno's paradoxes. Am I correct about that? So in the next cycle exactly the same person, the same conciousness will be repeated, not just a copy. I think that is the most difficult to understand because we lack a definition of conciousness. Your solution of Zeno's paradoxes however, can make one say that conciousness is the perception of time flowing and thus the same conciousness will be in the next future cycle (although it is the same) because it will be the same time.

Is that more or less your perpsective?

Best wishes

Giannis

report post as inappropriate


Dane Sorensen wrote on Sep. 17, 2008 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Giannis,

I don't think Lynds' theory supports a Universe that just keeps repeating our lives over and over with no changes. The Uncertainty Principle would make that impossible. Each cycle would be different, with this caveat – that in a finite system eventually the same conditions will come up. Imagine the Universe being nine hundred trillion dice being thrown. Eventually, a toss will be all heads. However, you might have to wait nine hundred trillion billion years before that happens.

Cheers,

Dane

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Sep. 17, 2008 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Giannis,

Yes, it is the exact same.

Dear Dane,

Thanks. In relation to quantum mechanics, in the model it is the very "same" cycle or interval that repeats, so qm would not change this. The analogy with the clock mentioned earlier in this thread should help to illustrate this.

In connection to the universe's apparent accelerating expansion, I feel the most obvious candidate for turning this around would be the repulsive effects of dark energy (or alternative explanation) dissipating over time.



Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Sep. 22, 2008 @ 12:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

Your positive answer was in regard to "the same perspective" or "conciousness/time"? Or both ? :)

report post as inappropriate


tpape wrote on Sep. 26, 2008 @ 09:54 GMT
Considering your areas of research and interest, I was wondering if you have considered an approach similar to this model, based entirely upon perspective and perspective exchange within physics and mathematics, or if it is of any interest to you.

Consider that there are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. These three fundamental relationships...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Dane C. Sorensen wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 02:09 GMT
Greetings Peter and other physics buffs,

Thank you Peter for answering my emails. I really take it as an honor. I am not a scientist – I am more of a humanist. I very much like Peter Lynds’ theory for the most part, but on merely intuitive thoughts I do find some of it lacking.

I don’t have a problem with the whole concept of the Universe being cyclic going between a bang...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 07:50 GMT
Dear Peter

regarding my research we will never know how really geometry of cosmic space is. if we describe with riemann geometry universe is final if we describe with evclid geometry universe is infinite, how realy universe is we do not know

regarding flow of time into cosmic space i see only material change runing, space itself is atemporal

with clocks we measure numerical order of material change that run into space that is atemporal

atemporal space humans experience as a present moment

wherever in space it is always NOW, this NOW is eternity into which universe exists

time is an observer effect

attachments: Relation_Between_Time_Mind_and_Consciousness.pdf

report post as inappropriate


kev wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 05:52 GMT
I have been a fan of Zeno for many years. Zeno’s paradoxes are considered to be disproved but the detractors are missing Zen’s point. Zeno was not saying that Achilles could not overtake the tortoise or that a person could travel 10 steps in finite time. Common observation makes it clear that those things do happen. What Zeno was getting at was that those things can not be explained by the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Casey Crowell wrote on Feb. 3, 2009 @ 06:53 GMT
Dear Peter,

Hello Peter I am a high school student in America with a lot of time on my hands. I recently began to use that time to think about philosophy and overall just how shit works... I began recording my thoughts about a year ago and only recently began to introduce these thoughts to friends, family and a post on the internet. Shortly after posting these thoughts on the internet i receieved a comment from somebody that my ideas were very much similar to yours. (I had never heard of you before) I was very disappointed to see that i had been "beaten" to the punch on these theories of time =( i was so close too. However, i am glad to see that your ideas (my ideas being similar) seem to be gaining some kind of attention. You are somewhat of an inspiration to me now seeing as how we came to similar conclusions in somewhat similar ways. Anyways, i hope to eventually make a post on here about some of my other ideas... possibly you may take interest and expand.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Feb. 3, 2009 @ 08:51 GMT
Peter according to my research matter and energy of the space are in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. In black holes matter transforms in energy of the space in Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) energy (E) of space transforms back in matter (m) according to the formula: E = m x cc. Universe has no beginning and will have no end. Universe is a perpetual phenomenon with constant entropy. Universe is a self-renewing system. In black holes is matter that is energy with high entropy rejuvenated in a pure energy of the space, see in details on file attached

yours amrit

attachments: Immediate_Transfer_of_Energy_and_Information_Sorli__2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Mar. 18, 2009 @ 05:32 GMT
Dear Giannis,

Both!

Dear Kev,

I naturally do think that calculus is an extremely effective way of mapping Nature. Indeed, I think it represents our best. I think it has its limits, however, and that in order to avoid falling into faulty assumption and paradox, one must be aware of these.

Dear Casey,

Thanks (and I'm sorry for beating you to the punch!). Best of luck with your ideas. Try not to be too disappointed if you find yourself continually running into walls trying to pursue them. If your idea is any good, as long as you keep getting up and trying again (and also trying to improve your run up), I do believe that the wall will eventually crumble. If not, there is also always dynamite.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Giannis wrote on Apr. 12, 2009 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear all,

A very similar model happened to came into my mind one week before I read Nietzche's eternal recurrence concept in an I. Yalom's book (when Nietzche wept) in 2004. When Peter Lynds paper about time and Zeno paradoxes came out I thought that this is consistent with this model. As a consequence, I was facinated when I read the second paper about the finite universe without begging nor end.

I find that Yalom through Nietzsche offered a serious strike against death anxiety (at least for me). Some days ago I met Yalom and I talked about Lynds' cosmological model, with the intention to drive him to refer to it in his future books. Unfortunately he was reluctant to listen further.

Nevertheless, I have overcome a serious psychological problem with all this stuff. Thank you Peter Lynds

report post as inappropriate


knowrien wrote on May. 22, 2009 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Peter Lynds

I was wondering if you were aware of the meaning of the "Yin Yang" symbol. If you aren't, one of the significances is that as one side approaches its opposite, it becomes its opposite.

Essentially opposites are the same. I thought this could be applicable to the idea of the big crunch causing the big bang and vice versa.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 04:32 GMT
It kind of bugs me that the physics community is worried about how the universe will end. I have to ask, who cares!!! It has nothing to do with you or I. If the physics community supergeniuses want to do something useful, helpful or inspiring, tell us what the common thread is between GR and QM. Tell us how the laws of physics are implemented. Tell us how we can get some new functionality out of the physics. Because if you supergenius physicists can't figure it out, some crackpot or nut is going to do it for you.

Put the chalk down and step away from the chalk board...

Take a deep breath...

Ask the chalkboard, and all of its math: What is the simple mechanism that implements you?

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 06:10 GMT
Knowrien, I always thought the yin yang symbol shows that somethings opposite can be used to help define it. If opposites were the same then by definition they would no longer be opposites.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Beverly wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 06:15 GMT
Jason,

What is the simple mechanism? You can't just throw that post out there and tease me with it.....not cool.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on May. 23, 2009 @ 17:37 GMT
Brian,

I'm not teasing. I'm trying to get someone's attention.

If we had to reduce all of physics to one mechanism, it would be manifestations of the vibrating string. Call it the “Superstring Playground” or “Connectivity Wonderland”.

My reasons:

1. Point particles are not the primary phenomena because they make the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sound like...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 24, 2009 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Brian

I am not confident that in the taoist perspective definitions are at all relevant.

They are not concerned with defining, adding or detracting. "When we speak of tao this is not tao"

Chuang Tzu says

The 'this' is also 'that'. The'that' is also 'this'...That the 'that' and the 'this' cease to be opposites is the very essence of Tao. Only this essence, an axis as it were, is the center of the circle responding to the endless changes.

Its also important to realize that the change in things is not caused by anything, its inherent in everything.

Hope that makes sense

Knowrien

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Jun. 29, 2009 @ 22:51 GMT
Thanks Giannis. I'm pleased to hear that.

Hi Knowrien. That's a nice thought. Another one which is applicable is the serpent eating its own tail.

Hi Jason,

"It kind of bugs me that the physics community is worried about how the universe will end. I have to ask, who cares!!!"

I think the only way to understand the so-called origin of the universe – answer the question of what caused the big bang – is by looking towards its so-called future. I don't think many people get that.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 30, 2009 @ 09:54 GMT
Hi all ,

It's indeed difficult to encircle ,to understand the whole of our Universal story,we have ideas ,datas ,extrapolations ,....and thus we can imagine this story in its past ,present anf future with an evolution point of vue of course and its complexification towards harmony .

Personaly in my model of spherization(quantum spheres which build spheres in a sphere)

I see our Universe like that in very very simplified summary.

Multiplication of quantum coded spheres or Bing Bang ........expansion,towards maximum volume ,after contraction towards ultim connectibility and harmony between spheres ,thus a minimum volume .

The mass increases and I think that the key is the rotations of spheres which imply mass ,gravity ,we can extrapolate with the space and Dark matter like quantum spheres without rotations ,thus with the contraction ,the activation of spheres appears in time Space evolution ,the space in the contraction decreases ,logic because the space becomes mass ,thus energy ,thus pression increases ,temperature too ,volume decreases ,mass increases ,enrgy too thus a simple conclusion the ultim entropy increases in the physical universe towards this ultim sphere and its centers where all turns in harmony ,

It's logic to have this story in fact ,there are reasons to all .If we link all by the spheres and rotations ,we can extrapolate our future and that with our foundamentals ,constants .

The evolution and its complexification by very weak polarizations is fascinating .We are going to a beautiful sphere of light .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 30, 2009 @ 16:58 GMT
The end of the universe might be of interest if the final state of the universe is some information preserving (q-ibt preserving) or unitary(like) map from the initial state to the final state of quantum cosmoloy. Of course nobody will be around to witness this, that is except maybe the penultimate Boltzmann brain which emerges before the end. It might be a manifestation of a Cosmic Wheeler Delayed Choice Experiment, where maybe it can indirectly probe the end of the universe.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


James Quirk wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 00:42 GMT
Some years ago, I wrote an article which proposes a model of "circular causality," resulting in a universe which repeats itself infinitely. Although I arrive at this conclusion rather differently than Mr. Lynds (my speculations are based on the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics), I found it quite interesting that the resulting "eternal recurrence" model of the universe is essentially identical to his.

I emailed Mr. Lynds a while back about the article and he responded that he found it interesting. For others who may be interested, it can be found here:

A Physical Hypothesis of Eternal Recurrence

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear James,

I read your circular causality essay, but I do not see how the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics can lead to a universe that repeats itself forever.

My understanding of the transactional interpretation is that it is only a pedagogical way of developing an intuition about quantum mechanics and it does not predict any new effects compared with the standard interpretation.

On the other hand the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the big crunch and the end of the universe; those are cosmological and general relativity concepts and we do not have a workable quantum gravity theory yet. Can you please elaborate more on your ideas? Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 11:09 GMT
Hi Florin and James ,

The Big Crunch has no sense because the end has no sense .A physical aim is totally different than an end it seems to me ,considering the harmonization like foundamental .

Dear James ,

I read it ,I see a Nietzsche vision ,In its books ,Nietzsche speaks about the human like a super human ,and what God is dead ,I don't like this point of vue ,Behind the bad and the good ....Zarathoustra.....The Big Crunch in this optic has its sense because God isn't there .

I can't accept this point of vue .

The human is a catalyst of harmony ,not a bad booster towards the Big Crunh,which is a chaotic vision .

If we take the Nietzschean vision of this reality ,thus without a superior entity and with an important parameter ,be like a super man ,thus implies chaos ,power ,vanity and any consciencousness .

All is there ,an universal philosophy must have some foudamentals .

The quantum mechanics is harmonized and evolves,and the Universe too is harmonious towards complexification .

A Big Crunch in a spiritual point of vue has no sense .A contraction towards harmony is more logic .

I d like say an important point too ,the physical reality is coordonated and limited ,the mathematics are infinites indeed but not the physical sphere in optimization.

Thus a distinction is necessary I beleive .The eternal recurrence in this case needs too some limits .

When a theory implies some social interactions and intuitive interpretations ,the rule of education needs foundamental limits correlated with its universal consciousness because the applications in the society are of course a reality ,the social responability about that is so important ,we can extrapolate and educate like a parent ,a child or an adult thus the main parts of the learning must be universal and harmonious in respect with some laws and that in the two roads of the point of vue ,microscopic and macroscopic .

In resume we need limits to understand the mathematical infinity ...

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 12:54 GMT
Steve,

If the energy density of the universe is larger than a certain value, then you can mathematically prove the Big Crunch. From general relativity and gravity point of view, the Big Crunch is basically the Big Bang in reverse. Therefore if the Big Crunch does not make sense, neither does the Big Bang. But we have experimental evidence for the Big Bang.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 16:39 GMT
Florin,

I have some questions about the Big Bang ,I prefer a multiplication of elementary particles for the Big Bang in a specific dynamic,coded .

The Big Crunch means an end and a contraction towards harmony is different .

What I find non logic ,it's the effect afetr the contraction and the critic point of density .

I don't see any reasons to have this end .

A symmetric contraction ,balanced with the universal central sphere is totally different and that in a spiritual point of vue ,and too in a evolution point of vue .

If the definition of the Big Bang is different than an explosion ,thus the Big

Crunch has its limit of balance between spheres .

The Big Bang is one of the best ideas aout this begining of the physical sphere for me .

I am persuaded what it exists a maximum volume ,a maximum space and after the harmonization by contraction and complexification by weak polarizations .

Dear Florin ,I admit with the mathematical extrapolations but I doubt what our actual extrapolations can calculate the force of the main center .

The critic point will be balanced .The physical reality has its specific dynamic different than math .

The Uniersal center is the key .

When the mass goes towards the centers and when the space becomes mass,the entanglement of cosmological spheres optimizes itself .It exists a perfect harmony between spheres ,our future sphere and its spheres is like our quantum architecture ,a perfect balance between spheres ,their mass ,their density ,their volume ,their temperature,their evolution in time space ,....

It's the same with galaxies ,they spherisize themselves ,the orbitals go to a perfect balance between spheres two .Our Universe change its laws because the gravity ,the mass increases ,it's there I return with the quantum spheres without rotations ,it's the dark matter ,and dark energy ,the space activates itself in correlation with intrinsic code of activation I think and becomes a stable mass with a specific momentum ,a specific rotation with a specific rule for the polarizations and the complexification.

Why our Universe which complexificates towards harmony ,will choose an end .

I am ok with the Big Crunch theory ,if the balance is understood between ultim physical mass and the main central universal sphere,where all has begun and all will finish ,but not a real end but a begining of the ultim connectibility between mass created by the ultim entropy .

Sicerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 12, 2009 @ 17:44 GMT
About the expansion and the acceleration ,I have many questions too .

Let's take an expansion since the begining ,thus when we analyze datas it's essential to admit a specific dynamic ,thus the acceleration and its peceptions in Time Space must be relativistic .This acceleration thus will have a maximum velocity before the contraction but how is the deceleration ??? ,Because probably before the maximum volume that decelerates ,after this max vol ,we have several possibilities about the contraction ,thus an acceleration too or perhaps a constant or an exponential ,and then a possible too deccelaration towards ultim harmony between cosmological spheres and quantum spheres .

I d say in conclusion what the accelerations ,the decelerations ,the expansion and the contraction have a specific dynamic,the aim is to find with our datas ,the good dynamic .Logically Big Bang ..expansion....decelaration ..maximunm volume contraction.. ,acceleration ..,deceleration ...towards ultim sphere thus balance of mass.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Steve,

I did not quite get what were your questions. Please ask them and I will do my best to answer them.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 13, 2009 @ 21:39 GMT
Hi Florin,

Sometimes ,I re-read me and I admit my english isn't good.Sorry for that .I must improve my english ,it s sometimes difficult to explain all my ideas in english ,in French it's easier .

In fact when I say I have some questions ,I ask me in fact ,in french I demand me.Sorry for this confusion .

But I have a question .

Do you think what an end is possible ,in fact this physical Universe hasn't been created to disapear when it will be at this moment .I find more logic a harmony between mass ,the spheres .

Why this Universe evolves ,not to disapear after a so beautiful story in this physical sphere.What do you think dear Florin ?

If we take the Astrobiology ,the numbers of galaxies and stars and planets ,the lifes aren't dedicated to disapear thus a big crunch like an end hasn't sense I think.It's more rational to have a harmony between mass ,intelligences ,creations ,in fact between all .This Ultim sphere is fascinating .

We are a part of the begining and we shall be a part of this end which is a real unification ,thus this end is not a real end .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 00:47 GMT
Steve,

if there is recycling of the universe along the 4th dimension, rather than a new big bang within 3D space, then this could be envisioned as continuous creation and "flow" from the exterior to the interior of the hypersphere Mega-universe.One spherical universal plane of matter is recycled back to energy, as it passes from the singularity back to the outer edge of the hypersphere, but another spherical universal plane takes its place. Thus the Mega-universe hypersphere is never destroyed but continuously renews itself.If it did not renew itself it would become static and "dead".

The destruction is part of the cycle that provides for the continuous process of creation and development.An analogy could be the body of a multicellular organism, which replaces its old cells with new ones but is still regarded as having the same body.

However if the end is a new big bang within 3D space and all is obliterated, then this could be regarded as the natural life cycle of a universe.Old structures replaced by new potential, rather than dead static perfection, which is unnatural. Nature recycles, even the most perfect rose.

report post as inappropriate


James Quirk wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Florin,

My ideas about circular causality require that we assume the universe itself has an overall wavefunction. With regard to the Transactional Interpretation, it would be the collapse of that universal wavefunction at the time of the Big Crunch which would emit an advanced wave specifying the entire quantum state of the universe. This advanced wave (which travels backward in time) would, in some sense, retro-causally inform the creation of the Universe, with the initial conditions (and all subsequent conditions) determined by the end-state.

It is essentially just an entertaining speculation based on my somewhat cursory understanding of the Transactional Interpretation. Personally, I find Lynds' ideas much more promising. What is interesting to me, and the reason I posted a link to my article, is the fact that there are apparently multiple ways to arrive at a cosmological "eternal recurrence" scenario. My own intuition is that this scenario deserves much more investigation, and I hope that Peter Lynds and others will continue to develop their ideas.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 02:32 GMT
Hi Steve,

We now know that the total energy of the Universe is zero, and as a result there will be no big crunch. More puzzling still is the gravitational constant causing the universe to accelerate even more than anticipated. So we are safe for now and probably for all eternity until all elementary particles will disintegrate, all black holes will evaporate and there will be no possible way to measure distance or time and nothing could ever happen in this universe.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 02:52 GMT
James,

I agree about the wavefunction of the universe, but this is not the standard wavefunction of the non-relativistic quantum mechanic; there is no Hilbert space associated with it. The evolution laws of quantum mechanics are time symmetric and you can imagine the evolution both forward and backward in time, but a circular time is different and has big problems. A big crunch can solve those problems, but based on the current observations, a big crunch will never happen.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 07:04 GMT
Florin, Steve,

there are anomalous observations that call into question the assumption that the universe is expanding.It seems more likely to me that 4th dimensional position and therefore the distance at which astronomical bodies are observed is related to energy changes that have occurred, amount of mass and gravity rather than just passing of time. Just as an electron in an atom can change energy level as a result of gaining or loosing energy, which to the Prime Quaternion model is potential energy level or 4th dimensional position, so it can be hypothesised that astronomical bodies can change energy level or 4th dimensional position as a result of large energy changes.Therefore distance can not be directly equated to age. Also red shift may be due to the changing 4th dimensional position of the human observer rather than motion away of the observed object in 3D space, (or some other optical illusion).

Extrapolating from quantum physics to cosmology seems premature. It seems that the run away mathematics is building an alternative reality universe and then saying that this is how the real universe behaves.Rather than using a model that has passed scrutiny at the macroscopic scale and seeing how it can be improved to accommodate all observations. Not just the observations that seem to comply with expectations.

There are only 4 spatio-energetic dimensions in the prime Quaternion model and so recycling of the universe, either beyond the singularity to the outer region of the hypersphere or via a new big bang in 3D space, occurs within space only.It is a spatio-energetic change.Time is a mental construct that may be applied but will lead to confusion. The most outer region of the hypersphere is the birth place of the new universe but not the beginning of time.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 10:13 GMT
Hi all ,

Georgina,

I undesrtand your point of vue ,but why a destruction ,why a recycling for our physical universal sphere.

If the big equation is a building ,thus a physical aim ,why all that shall be destroy or recycle .

It exists evidently something behind our walls,but it's impossible to encircle that because we are in a physical universe and its laws ,all behind is secret and will stay secret ,at the finished sphere the unification will make disapear all walls and limits but at this moment our rule is to catalyze in harmony this physical sphere our only reality.

The destruction, it seems to me ,don't exist ,but the universal complementarity ,it ,is foundamental .

Can we insert a vector for time ,I think no personaly .

Florin,

Thanks you ,but could you extrapolate a little your words...." the total energy of the Universe is zero" I don't understand ?

Dear FQXi Team ,

It could well if you create a blog about astrobiology ,I have some ideas about the parameters of life ,I think it's a coded combination for all ,the proportions are essentials ,more pression ,temperature,rays.......energy

In resume for exemple .quantum spheres ...H ..HCNO...H20(x%) NH3(y%) CH4(z%)...+ energy (pression,uv,rays,electricity,temperature,acids.....)= an amino acids .

Each proportion has its code .

In all case it could be interesting to extrapolate some ideas .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Steve,

If the cosmological expansion is not fast enough, or if the matter/ gravity content of the Universe is too large, then the Universe will collapse back on itself, and possibly recycle itself with a Big Crunch/ Big Bang cycle. It is simply the nature of Gravity.

Florin said that the total energy of the Universe is zero. This means that the positive mass/ energy content of particles (kinetic, potential, and rest mass) in our Universe is counterbalanced by the negative energy of attractive gravitational fields. I have a short paper I can e-mail you that explains this.

Our best data indicates that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. This defies Newtonian Gravity, but could be explained by Einstein's Cosmological Constant (a not yet discovered repulsive gravity), or by my Variable Coupling Theoery (in Sections 5.1 and 6.2 of my book - I have combined theoretical ideas with experimental data in Figure 2 to reinforce my point - I can e-mail a copy if you need one). IF the Universe is accelerating, then we will not have a (or another?) Big Crunch. Instead, the stars will all die eventually, all black holes will eventually evaporate, entropy will eventually drain all non-quantum forms of energy, and any evolved beings fortunate to still exist will sustain themselves off of quantum events. The distant future is very dark, and bleak for Homo Sapiens such as us.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 14:28 GMT
Steve,

Ray is correct. Negative energy exists in terms of gravitational potential energy, and positive energy is all the rest of energy like radiation, particles we see around us, etc. Any initial imbalance between the positive and the negative energy at the time of Big Bang would have dramatically altered the observed evolution of the universe. From those observations, cosmologists conclude that the total energy of the Universe is zero. Of course we only understand only about 5% of the energy of the Universe, Dark matter and Dark energy are still big puzzles.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 14:38 GMT
Georgina,

To estimate distances, cosmologists need a specific type of star that always has the same luminosity, a so called, “standard candle”. There are of course statistical fluctuations in any measurement, but I am not aware of any observations that contradict the Universe expansion so far. Do you have any references for this claim?

By the way, I am still waiting on your comments on my essay paper. I hope it is not a boring reading :).

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 15:04 GMT
Hello Dr Cosmic Ray ,

It's nice ,thanks I like read .Happy to see you again .

Thanks too for the explaination about the 0 .Yes indeed in this balance between the physical and unknew ,yes indeed it's zero but I don'imagine a - but an add is more logic ,this unknew is all and he builds his sphere I think .

Even an addition is not sufficient in fact .

The real infinity ,it's that ,the unknew .

Why this Universe will be destroy ,this vision implies a difficult percption of the reality .

I don't see this physical Universe like that ,it has no sense ,there is an aim ,an ultim aim in the physical Sphere .This sphere will be so complex what the simplicity will return to essential .It's like if our physical sphere at this moment will fusion with the infinity ,the finite sphere will begin its real infinity in pure mass and light .

A repulsive gravity by the main central universal sphere is evident to balance the contraction .

I am persuaded what this main sphere is incredible in its secrets .We must find this center in fact and understand its dynamic where all has begun and where all will finish in the physical reality and will begin the eternity .

What I want to say is what our sphere has no end but only a finished physical harmony between mass ,thus there the big unification .

I am persuaded too what this future balance between cosmological spheres is correlated with quantum spheres and their architecture ,our quantum architecture is a code of our universal finished sphere and its spheres .

Thus it exists a specific entanglement where all these spheres are balanced ,all these spheres are specifics ,uniques,....thus how class the elementary particles ???

Find our quantum architecture it is to find our future sphere in balance between mass and rotations .

All is correlated by the main central sphere ,in the quantum and cosmological dimension .

I don't see a dark future ,only a short dark future on Earth but no a dark universal future ,it has no sense .

The homo sapiens must evolve and create ,catalyze this universe to help this future harmony .

All is linked and the future is fascinating ,the universal spheres ,the stars ,the planets ,the moons ,the lifes ,the intelligence ,the galaxies go towards an incredible future of eternity for all ,all thing because all is linked .

If a big equation has been created ,let's admit what the big mathematician is really incredible ,this entity ,is incredible ,thus all is possible and I don't think what the plan is to destroy but to create ,all is there in fact .Just the man destroy .

Dear Ray ,

I have a question about the acceleration ,what are our datas about the different accelerations in time .Are there some differences since the 13.7 billions years ? I am curious .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Steve,

As much as we think we know - there is more that we do not know.

Some people call the Higgs particle "the god particle". It is important, but not as important as God. In your theory, the Spheron or central sphere is also very important. What is it? How do we find it?

In Section 6.2 of my book, I concluded that the observed acceleration of cosmological expansion means that our Universe is younger than what a fixed Hubble expansion rate would imply. I estimate the age correction to the Universe to be about 400 million years. So if a fixed Hubble expansion says the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, then this acceleration correction brings the age down to a mere 13.3 billion years old (of course, the 13.7 billion years may already include an acceleration correction, so be careful not to count it twice). Do you feel younger already?

Have Fun!

Your Friend, Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Florin ,Ray,georgina ,

Ray,

Yes indeed we are so far of the truth still but we evolve fortunally.

Personally I consider all particles like God Particles .

The main central sphere is so important ,let's imagine this sphere where all has begun.

We turn around this center ,all turns around this universal center,the galaxy centers with their stars and planets...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear Steve,

You ask about the maximum number and you know my bias towards Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis.

Many people see Dirac's Large Number ~10^{40} (or the inverse of the Gravitational coupling "constant", or other unitless quantities involving the Planck scale) and they think "Oh, that's an interesting large number". But how many people ask "Why does such a large number exist?" Is it just a number? Or does some unseen structure exist to perpetuate that special number?

In my book, I used a new form of Quantum Statistical Mechanics (or Quantum Thermodynamics if you prefer) to derive the relative coupling strengths of the forces. The result is that the "Grand Unified Mediating Boson" or GUM boson most often occupies either a gluon or photon state, but once in about 10^{40} GUM bosons, it occupies a graviton state. I am thus convinced that a structure exists to enforce this very rare occurance. I think this implies that the Gravity-brane (a 3-brane contained in dimensions eight through ten) contains ~10^{40} lattice sites.

Via Dirac Large Numbers reasoning in Section 7.3, I came to the conclusion that the number of possible String Landscape combinations in "D" dimensions is given by:



so that we would have 10^{480} initial conditions in 10 dimensions, 10^{507} initial conditions in 11 dimensions, or 10^{533} in 12 dimensions (my personal favorite thanks to "E12").

People who have not properly considered Dirac's Large Number look at ~10^{500} String parameters and say "That is infinite and absurd - It is one Theory of Everything and an infinite number of Theories of Nothings or Theories of Could-have-beens (multiverses)".

But it is NOT infinite. An infinite String landscape would further imply an infinite gravity-brane and an infinitely weak gravity, such that gravity would not be able to shape the Universe into Stars (with balanced thermonuclear and gravitational pressures) or Planets (whose nearly spherical shapes are reinforced by gravitational tugs) or Us (we would never have evolved without a gravity to hold us and our air and water on the Earth's surface).

So you know my vote for the most important "maximum number"...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 20:18 GMT
Forin,

thanks for your reply. No your paper is not at all boring. I have read it through but have not been able to give it my full attention. I do like to take my time thinking about things. Also I will try to dig out some references to anomalous astronomical features.I don't have any at my finger tips just now.

To clarify what I was saying, I think its important to remenber that everything we seee is an image formed from input derived from EM radiation and not the material object itself in objective reality.The observer has moved away along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension from the position the observed object occupied, when the image was created (i.e.light left the object.)If the material object still exists it too occupies a different 4th dimensional position and may have changed in form and 3D vector space position too.

The stars today in objective reality are not where we observe them in our subjective reality. The information received forms a subjective interpretation of a universe expanding in 3 dimensional space over time but in objective reality the universe is coming together by motion along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Because of the way in which this 4th spatio-energetic dimension intersects 3D vector space, this causes matter to come together, in my opinion.

Steve,

Because everything in nature gets recycled. No thing is static and fixed in objective reality.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina parry wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 21:46 GMT
Steve,

I posted further reply to you but on the "Does time actually move" thread by error. The essence of it was, unchanging perfection is not more perfect than eternal change and creativity, in my opinion.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
hihihi all ,

You are going to make me crazzy with all that ,already what I am crazzy for some people ,lol wawww in all case you are all so creatives.

Dear Ray ,

It' s just a number of spheres not infinite .

I don't like the name the TOE ,because when a theory is fundamental we see it everywhere with our eyes .

Fortunally I like horticulture and I see spheroids ,circles ,spheres ,ellipsoids ,tori......everywhere and I play soccer too even the human sports are with spheres ..........I don't see any strings really ,yes on my guitar ,but it's an human invention ,in the reality no I don't find ,I search but No,in biology and ecology,botany,geology,.....really in fact I don't see them simply in the two sense micro and macro ,even around me .

On the other side the spheres are more logics .

Ray could you explain the rule of the super dimension ,please since I hear this extrapolation,I don't perceive it .What are these extradimensions ,I really don't undrestand the rule .If you have a concrete explainations to help me to understand the rule of these extradimensions ,like h l L and time ,already it's difficult for me to admit the time like a vector ,if furthermore we add others dimensions .

If I had a vision of these dimensions ,ok but I don't perceive it ,perhaps my mind only is in 3D LOL .

Really could you use a simple explaination for the rule

Is it for time travel ,for some secrets doors and technologies ,or a the possibility of checking something ,...

Light me a little please like if you spoke to a child ,really ,could you say me the rule of complemenatrity of the extradimensions .You are incredible .Thanks for your creativity .

Take care

Dear Georgina,

Indeed in this optic ,yes I agree the only static universal moment will be the begining of the eternity .

In this logic it's beautiful .But a recycling which optimizes itself too .....it seems to me.No ?

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 00:24 GMT
Florin,

Quick browse for some links found these.No comment on validity of views or accuracy implied by posting these links here. I'm sure if you wished to spare the time you could find all sorts of other stuff on the net.

Observational Evidence from Supernovae for a Contracting Universe

On quasar host galaxies as a test for non cosmological red shift

Anomalous Redshifts in the Stephan Quintet Compact Galaxy Cluster

Link to laser star.org

Age of the universe, an alternative veiw

Link to halton arp website,lots of articles

Some pretty images too

Hope these links work.

report post as inappropriate


Geoprgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 00:57 GMT
Steve,

if a potter makes the most perfect pot using all of his clay, how can he make his next pot and continue his creativity?.The potential new pot may be equally perfect but different from the first. The old pot must be continuously remodelled (continuous 4th dimensional recycling analogy) or destroyed (3D vector space big bang analogy), so that the new continuously replaces the old. Without one of these processes there is stagnation and no potential for new growth , development, innovation and creativity.

Mass energy and kinetic energy of matter in 3D vector space must be converted back to potential energy.The potential energy drives the universe and the creation process.Without it the universe becomes static. Without motion along the 4th dimension there will be no subjective passing of time and nothing can ever happen.This is not a vision of perfection.It is the end of all life and animation within the universe.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 02:56 GMT
Georgina,

Thank you for the links. I read the paper from your first link. The paper contains serious elementary conceptual errors and I am not sure how he managed to publish it. On the second paper I am not qualified to comment on it; I am not familiar enough with its subject. Third link did not work. Fourth link: I am not sure this contradicted anything. Fifth link: there are many ways to infer the age of the universe and the current range is a best fit of several methods. Finding the faults of a method does not constitute proof that the Big bang is false.

Last links: Halton Arp’s theories were invalidated by recent observations.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 05:27 GMT
Florin,

Thank you.I didn't read the papers myself but just looked for a selection of sites where anomalies were identified or alternative views were given.Hence the disclaimer.

I have read that the latest observations suggest an accelerating expansion. However I am not convinced that expansion of the universe is happening in objective reality although the evidence from observations, that inform our subjective reality, may suggest that it is.Images from EM radiation are interpreted according to currently accepted models of space-time.Those models are not necessarily correct.

It can be hypothesised that an illusion of an expanding universe is caused by the way in which the universe is changing position within 4 spatio-energetic dimensions, rather than just 3D space over time. Matter is coming together to form planets and stars and galaxies are observed to be increasing in size and complexity. The movement away along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension of the observer, from the position where the EM radiation, forming the image, originated could be responsible for the red shift. This is not the same as movement away from the observed object in 3D vector space.

Anomalies could occur when matter changes position along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension due to unusual energy changes.The model that is used for interpretation of data will affect the conclusions that are drawn. The theory of expansion of the universe may not have been conclusively dis-proven by observed anomalies but this does not mean that the theory is necessarily true and irrefutable.

Anomalous Redshifts in the Stephan Quintet Compact Galaxy Cluster

Hope this works this time. Sorry I had not posted links before.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 07:57 GMT
Georgina,

Thanks too for the links ,I am like Florin ,I doubt in fact ,always ,only the proofs are essntials .

I understand your model .

If we take the 1/2 mv² and mgx thus we have indeed a necessary balance ,what I find important to encircle the difference between the unknew and the physical Universe and its specifc dynamic of evolution,is what this balance is more complex than a simple recycling where thingd can be convert,the notion of disappear and end has no sense in a spiritual point of vue .

It's essential it seems to me to relativize these unknew force ,if this unknew has all created thus this unknew can do many things No ?

After all this universal equation is a pure act of creation ,only that ,the creation ,not the destruction .

The balance is more complex like a simple energetic balance .

What do you think Georgina

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 08:35 GMT
Steve,

it is not possible to dispute a model where the parameters of that model are an unknown or unknowns which are assigned omnipotence. That is a religious model which must be taken on faith or not. It can not be proved or disproved. This is not the same as saying it is wrong.

Objective reality is unknowable. All that humans can do is examine subjective reality, formed from our observations, and try to use it to form the best possible model of that observed reality. The underlying objective reality may be very different from that.(That old brain in a vat conundrum again.) There is no way we can know.

We only know our models of reality and what we can observe.There may be many ways of representing the same model.It may be described in a purely mathematical form showing fluctuations in numerical values and forms of energy together with coordinates in space. It may be described verbally as matter and energy in dynamic flows.It maybe described with philosophical or quasi religious analogy.The form of communication does not alter the structure and meaning of the underlying model.

Many people choose a religious model rather than a scientific model because it gives a better representation of the reality they personally experience or would like to exist.We all have or should have freedom of thought.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
georgina,

Its seems to me that the religion don't must be in a universal model.

The universalism and the faith is totally different than a human invention or interprtations .

Personnally I respect all religions but I am an universalist .

Our real world is a pure beauty with all these creations ,the truth is there ,the creations ,we see God There in all things if I can say .

The sphere buids itself .It only simple like that and all by coded quantum spheres ,there is an aim ,and us humans are catalyzers towards harmony .

Many people choose because they don't see the whole and all centers of interest ,I think all is there ,the objectivity and the subjectivity is balanced when the knowledge is improved it seems to me .

The human interpretations shall be always balanced too ,because it exists one reality only thus all goes towards this evidence .If the interpretations rest only one part of the whole ,thus the interpretations shall be less pragamatics .

The objectivity and the subjectivity fuse when all is understood .Before it's a lost of time which is a pure constant of evolution .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 20:56 GMT
Dear Steve,

I also have a difficult time imagining more than 3 dimensions. I suspect that Georgina does as well, and this contributes to her unusual concept of time. It is OK to have dissenting views of Time - we certainly do not understand it as well as we would like to. It is fun to think about the fact that when we look at the stars in the night sky, we are looking at distant points in space and in the past. My past is "dead and buried" in the sense that I cannot change it, but we can look at light from the distant past anytime we look at distant stars and galaxies.

I imagine that these hyperspace dimensions did not inflate as much as our familiar spacetime dimensions, and are shrunk down to a very small scale with very high activation energy thresholds of 2x10^{4} TeV. This energy is beyond the highly proclaimed LHC, but falls in the regime of Cosmic Ray spectra.

I do not understand the shape of these hyperspace dimensions. If they are very small, then how can you and I both have access to these dimensions simultaneously (as we are separated by ~10,000 km)? Are they spherical? Are they hyperbolic? Are they toroidal? I recently saw an interesting "flower (inflated space) with pistil (hyperspace)" sculpture that somehow made me think of the expected relationship between space, time, hyperspace and inflation. I am certain that a non-physicist would have seen something else in that sculpture, but I later regretted that I did not buy it.

Lawrence and I have been sharing ideas lately. Dimensions five and six seem to be Anti de Sitter space with a negative curvature such that spheres become hyperboloids. If I understood hyperspace, I would ask my wife, the artist, to represent it in art. We are obviously a long way from understanding 26 dimensions...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 21:32 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ,

Thanks ,I undertand betteer ,now, this real meaning .Really its was difficult to understand these extra dimensions .

In fact it's like if we see a string ,and in fact an insect very small could be here but we don' t see it because he is inside for exemple of a kind of Tori ,but we see only the string .

But we rest still in 3D in reality ,thus now I understand ,it was times .lol

For the flower ,I invite you to see the passiflora caerulea ,very relevant ,the asteracea too .In fact all flowers but some are more relevants .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 22:38 GMT
Ray,

I think the problem that you and many others have in comprehending extra dimensions is that you are trying to think of them from a 3D space perspective.Physical size in 3D space does not equate to the same physical size in an extra dimension.

When an object moves along a 4th spatial dimension, however big, the process is the same. The exterior of the object is taking up the 4th dimensional position that was occupied by the interior as the interior has moved on.From our 3D space perceptive the interior of an object such as a planet might be considered a point or singularity. But the whole planet will move so that the exterior is at the 4th dimensional position that was occupied by that point.The 4th dimension runs through the object and continues into afore space.Therefore an object of any size can fit down that dimension because it is not part of the space defined by the 3 vector dimensions of space.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
The proposed structure of the material universe and its fate should not be based solely on observations of EM radiation.

When an object is fairly close such as objects on the earth or near space, observations provide useful information about the material object being observed. Such little time has elapsed between the EM radiation being emitted or reflected that the subjective image formed of the object is likely to resemble the material object, in that it still exists in the form and position that the subjective representation suggests.

However when the distance is huge, such as deep space astronomical distances, the subjective representation will differ significantly from the material reality of the object. In that the object may no longer exist or may have changed 3D spatial position or in form. The images that are formed are made from EM radiation that was emitted when objects were at various 4th spatio-energetic dimension positions. We are blind to what actually exists where the subjective images are seen. After the EM radiation was emitted the material object continued to move along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. The 4th dimensional position in objective reality where the EM radiation was emitted from could be filled by other matter quite different from the observed object or there may just be an empty space.

When images of space are considered, the image is a representation of 3D space spread along the 4th dimension. The objective reality of the material universe is different from that subjective image. As all of the matter observed has moved on along the 4th spatial dimension and may no longer exist.

The further away from the earth or Hubble the greater the discrepancy will be between the matter existing as a material reality and the subjective image seen from earth or Hubble.There will be a limit beyond which our observations will be useless for giving accurate information of the material reality of space.This may already be confirmed by data from space exploration and will certainly, to my mind, be confirmed as space exploration extends beyond our solar system.

There is a difference between images formed from EM radiation and matter itself.The observed image of the universe, used as evidence of universal expansion, is not the same as the actual material universe (our spherical 3 dimensional plane of matter).

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 05:32 GMT
Ray further to my previous post to you.

It is because I am able to visualise the orientation of the 4 dimensions from different perspectives,and can "see" that matter itself is distributed along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension rather than there just being curvature of space around it,and can "see" the effect of change in position along the 4th dimension, and can also "see" the how the 4th dimension appears from the 3D vector space dimension, I have been able to ascertain the cause of the force of gravity. As I have outlined on this web site on previous occasions.

This is not just confusion. It was a difficult mental task ascertaining how it all fits together.Which is why I think it has taken so long to be achieved. Gravitons are just a mathematical convenience there is no such particle. Motion of matter along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension is causing disturbance of the unknown medium of space allowing transmission of force.It is a dynamic process.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 16, 2009 @ 10:22 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray and Georgina,

Georgina you say

There is a difference between images formed from EM radiation and matter itself

I totally agree ,it's the relativity .

That's why for me the expansion must be improved and the contraction must be a possible reality .

We see but we cant's see ,only the spheres are everywhere .

The cause of the gravity and fields and comportments are due to the rotations of quantum spheres .The rotations and spheres are our foundamentals .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Steve,

You said "The cause of the gravity and fields and comportments are due to the rotations of quantum spheres". This is a completely different concept from my own, (which, in my opinion, actually does explain the cause of gravity). Therefore I do not agree with your statement. Please could you elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion?

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Georgina,

There certainly can be a difference between images formed from EM radiation and matter itself because GR allows mass to bend light. Thus we must question data from distant galaxies. Did this light follow a straight-line path? If not, how "curved" was the path? Things are not always as common sense would expect.

In my opinion, your model has minimalistic content. "Simplicity" is an important feature when modeling Nature. I expect a graviton and a large number of other tensor boson (and gravitino fermion) quantum states as well. When modeling Nature, the details of "Necessity" must complement the straightforwardness of "Simplicity". Certainly, the content of our models lie at opposite ends of the spectrum. For the past year, I have been playing with 12 dimensions trying to reformat Garrett Lisi's 8 dimensional TOE model. I have no problem calling Time the fourth dimension, but it is a separate 1-D String and behaves different from the 3-brane of Space.

Dear Steve,

The sculpture reminded me more of a tulip, but I am not a botanist. I think I have found the equivalent of your "Spheron" in my theory, but it is not a 3-dimensional sphere. It may be a 14-dimensional heptagon - the I(7)_2 Heptagon factor in "E14". This I(7)_2 is also the "centralizing heptagon" in Klein's Chi(7) hyperbolic curve, and thus ties together my scalar boson, matter fermion, vector boson, gravitino fermion, and tensor boson particle multiplets that exist in five different Chi(7)'s - yes that is 5 x 336 = 1680 quantum states for a Supersymmetric E12 x E14.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 04:29 GMT
Ray,

You said "There certainly can be a difference between images formed from EM radiation and matter itself..."

It is much more than just can. They are absolutely different.The matter is the actual stuff that you could touch or collect samples from. The other is radiation providing data, which as you say is prone to distortion, that also has to interpreted. My contention is mainly...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 05:00 GMT
I wrote "I believe it will be able to explain quantum weirdness by having a "pseudo scalar" space dimension in which the sub atomic particles can play as well as 3D vector space."

For clarity it should read,

...."pseudo scalar" space dimension, -giving afore 3D space and aft 3D space space-, in which the sub atomic particles can play as well as -observable- 3D space.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 08:51 GMT
Must also clarify what I meant by "pseudo scalar" as I have just realised that this has a particular scientific meaning which I did not intend to imply. I mean scalar spatial, that is precisely scalar not pseudo scalar. A Spatial dimension at 90 degrees to the 3 vector dimensions, so having no direction from the vector space perspective and along which the matter in the 3 space defined by the other 3 dimensions moves continuously afore. I only said "pseudo scalar"to imply that it is not quite like those other phenomena or concepts that are generally thought of as scalar such as temperature or time.That was careless of me. Sorry.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT
Hello Georgina and Dr Cosmic Ray ,

The rotations of spheres are the fundamentals .

I always searched the cause of mass .

One day I had an eureka if I can say .The velocity of rotations of these quantum spheres imply mass ,polarizations.....implying gravity and evolution too because all these rotations in their specificities are everywhere like an universal constant .Of course the spherses must be universal spheres and not human spheres it's different to extrapolate the properties of these quantum and cosmological spheres .

The centrifugal force ,the centriped force .........imply all .

If we take the strong interactions and the weak ,the polarizations can be adapted with pragamtism and constants .

The + and - in the weak interactions thus can be extrapolated with these rotations .

I return too with our quantum architecture correlated with cosmological spheres with their specificities .The numbers of rotations is correlated too .

The orbital and ponctuality of these rotations are numerous and so far of us .

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

it's always interstings your extrapolations .But If the central sphere (cosm or quant)is these kinds of forms ,thus the universal balance is different in my opinion .The sphere form is important in 3D because all our Universe is like that .

I am going to learn more about this heptagon.

Until soon

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 11:16 GMT
I thought this quote was quite relevant in regard to the question of universal expansion. As some aspects of science have entered into general mythology of the human populous as great scientific truths that everyone knows and which should not be challenged.

"Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of Nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own."Francis Bacon.

Universal expansion has ceased to be simply a scientific theory that has not yet been disproved but has becomes a matter of general and mainstream belief and faith. Which some individuals will aggressively defend.

Another such great truth of science is Darwinism. However with the discovery of epigenetic factors controlling gene expression it seems that environmental effects on parents and antenatal exposure to certain chemicals for example can have a large effect on phenotype.Current research into fish has discovered that hormone disrupter chemicals polluting water ways can alter the sex of the fish. This all complicates the picture with regard to natural selection of certain genotypes and may even lead to re-evaluation of the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamark.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 11:57 GMT
You know Georgina ,since many years I class all ,the taxonomy is so important for me .

I have even found news parameters ,infra and intra specifics factors .

There are many new bound parameters .

Lamarck and Darwin are evidently interstings bases where the weak interactions of evolution can be insert .

What I find important is the harmony ,only a very very % are in the chaotics interactions due probably to human nature .

If we take the morphogenetic for plants ,it exists many parametrs of mutation of evolution .These morphoses can be hydro-morphogenetic,Chimio-,Géo-,thermo-,photo-.....The reversion and the induction are essentials .

If we see the whole by ecology others factors of interactions are there importants .

The H2O ,CO2 ,the soil and its edaphic factors ....

Let's ttake for exemple the mycchoryzian fungis and their properties endo- or ecto-trophes.

We can go more far with local factors and parametrs ....for exemple ,the migrations,the colonisation,the association ,parasitism or symbiotic (the symbiose is more more more important than parasitism,thus a possible accelerationof evolution...chaos???),the formation,the climat ,the adaptation ,the association,...

The periodicity thus can be modified indeed .Some factors and it's very important are limits ,thus the modification is balanced where the polarizations - and + are evidently a piece important.

And after that we insert the quantum spheres coded and the cosmological evolution with the base ,Reproduction,locomotion ,nutrition .The commensalism ,the symbiose ,the parasitism ,le communitarism ......the locality and the globality thus must have limits like all things in our physical Universe .

Without this universal balance ,our actual diversity and beauty around us will be different .The productors,the consumators and the decomposors always ....there the intelligence improves the interactions .....towards this harmony.

Dear Dr Cosmic Ray ,

I see now about this cristallography ........it's important to insert fundamentals .All hyperbolics forms must have fundamentals ,and we rest in 3D .

I invite all to insert mass and quantum spheres ,because the finite numbers and their specifities are essentials like our cosmological spheres in improvement.

The spherical fields and waves too are importants it seems to me .

I have an interesting idea dear Dr Cosmic Ray about these hyperbolics forms ,I will discuss with you in private .

I have an other idea to superimpose too the gravitational wave .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Georgina,

You said “My contention is mainly that the evidence used to propose universal expansion is being wrongly interpreted. So the expansion is an illusion caused by this human error not a function of the universe itself.”

I agree with you to a point. I think that so called “Dark Energy” or the acceleration of expansion is a data interpretation error. I have explained this misinterpretation of data with Variable Coupling Theory in Sections 5.1 and 6.2 of my book (free partial preview at http://www.lulu.com/preview/paperback-book/new-approaches-to
wards-a-grand-unified-theory/1296633 it may take a minute to load). My primary argument is that both the gravitational “constant” and the fine structure “constant” have changed some in the past 10 billion years. Changes in the fine structure constant affect our observed red-shift. And changes in the gravitational constant affect apparent luminosities of stars. Light from more distant stars is from the more distant past, and these “constants” had slightly different values in the distant past. My contention is that the data needs to be corrected for these effects, and such a correction will make “Dark Energy” smaller than its error bars. I still think that the Hubble expansion is a correct interpretation of data. That debate started eighty years ago and has faced many challenges.

I like to use bottom-up and top-down strategies in tandem, and hope they meet in the middle. My book was more top-down, whereas this latest paper is more bottom-up.

Dear Steve,

I will send you a recent paper that has more on Klein’s Chi(7). I know you like 3-dimensional spheres more so than other shapes that might have similar effects.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
Thanks you dr Cosmic Ray ,it's nice .

Georgina ,

Let's take too the composting ,where I optimize the system since 10 years .

All is linked in this simple experiment .

The composting is a pure harmonious system where interacts all .

I invented a sphere of composting .I have many works still to do to optimize this sphere of composting .

Really this system shows us the harmony and the improvement .

Dr cosmic Ray ,

I agree too about Hubble and its works ,what about the frequences of this expansion ,considering the possibilities to a specific dynamic and too the possible contraction of our Universe .

Could you tell me more about the Dark Energy ,have a good link about datas ?

Until soon

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 17:46 GMT
There is no classical bracket structure for time and energy. With momentum and position there is a classical Poisson bracket which corresponds to a commutator in quantum mechanics. This can be used to derive the uncertainty principle for position and momentum. With time and energy there is a corresponding uncertainty, but this is argued for by Fourier analysis. It is really a quantum extension of the frequency-time relationship in classical wave mechanics.

Time appears tied to scaling principles and renormalization group flows. With the anti-de Sitter spacetime geodesics are great arcs wich leave the boundary of conformal theory at high energy and return there as energy approaches zero. That fields connect up at the boundary with these "antipodal energies" indicates there is some RG flow. The boundary is the CFT and the "meat" inside the skin, the AdS bounded by the CFT, determines the renormalization flow of conformal fields.

When it comes to cosmologies without a start time, the above suggests something similar to the idea of how the universe from big bang to its end is determined by the oscillation of D3-branes attached by IA strings. The strings have AdS_3 ~ QCD physics and as the branes collide there is a QCD-like anti-screening which sets in. So the corresponding QCD-like renormalization resets the spacetime (big bang) and the end point of the oscillation is the terminus of the cosmology.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 19:58 GMT
Change of position in space requires energy. The change of spatial co-ordinates can not be separated from the energy required to make that move.

Horizontal motion in 3D space and kinetic energy are linked.The change of co-ordinate in space can not be made without the energy to do it.

Vertical motion and potential energy are linked. This change in potential energy is also change in 4th dimensional co-ordinate, as confirmed by Einstein's general relativity work. Potential energy and 4th dimensional position are linked.

From this it can be proposed that all of the dimensions are spatio-energetic. That is essentially the same except for the arrangement in which the 3 we observe as vector dimensions move along the one we must regard as scalar from our 3D perspective.It is our perspective and subjective experience of time that has lead to the 4th dimension being considered as different in nature from the other 3. It is not they are all spatio-energetic. All movement within the quaternion structure of space can be considered either in terms of changes in spatial co-ordinates or energy changes.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 20:03 GMT
Why not put that in your models.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 21:12 GMT
Lawrence thank you for your reply,

please forgive me, I am not sure that I understand what you are saying because you are speaking a different "language" to me.I think that if current mathematical models do not allow for the structure I have outlined, then the mathematics should be reformulated.I have frequently heard the disturbing phrase "time dropping out of the equation". If the "time dimension" is actually spatio-energetic just like the other dimensions, it can't just be dropped for mathematical convenience.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I'm not sure who you were responding to when you said "Change of position in space requires energy." That agrees with GR if we are working against a gravitational field, but not necessarily in general.

I realize that you may not agree with my interpretation of "Dark Energy" because I assume that the Universe is expanding. This assumption allows me to relate more distant stars with older EM radiation and different values for the fine structure constant and the gravitational constant. If your model isn't expanding, then we have no reference for the age of EM radiation.

I am still building models. I know that the nature of Time is important to a lot of people, but I'm still working on the nature of dimensions (in general - no specifics) and GUT's / TOE's. This past week, I have focused on Supersymmetry. Lawrence has untangled the meaning of dimensions 5 and 6 (and maybe 1 through 4 in his prior posting?), but there is much more to understand.

Dear Steve,

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_sombre . I assume you will understand more of the French version, but the English version has more references on Dark Energy. I also had a couple of references in my book - Figure 2 merges phenomenology and experimental data.

Dear Lawrence,

Its good to hear from you again. How would it work if Space is a 3-brane, Time is a 1-D String, dimensions 5 and 6 are the AdS on an M2-brane, dimension 7 is another 1-D String (I'm not sure if this is a second type of Time or what?), and dimensions 8 through 12 are the M5-brane partner to our M2-brane? How would time behave in this scenario?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 17, 2009 @ 23:34 GMT
Ray,

It was addressed to Lawrence in particular but also everyone in general because it is such an important point.

Ray, you said "I'm not sure who you were responding to when you said "Change of position in space requires energy." That agrees with GR if we are working against a gravitational field, but not necessarily in general."

No,it does apply in general because potential energy must be lost if an object moves down vertically. What is regarded as loss of potential energy could be regarded as the energy requirement for downwards vertical motion and hence change in 4th dimensional co-ordinate.I am calling loss of potential energy promotional energy. It is the energy associated with a change in 4th dimensional spatial co-ordinate which takes a body closer to the interior of the hypersphere.

Therefore I stand by my former statement. "The change of spatial co-ordinates can not be separated from the energy required to make that move." This applies to 3D spatial change of co-ordinate and 4th dimensional co-ordinate.An energy change is a change in spatial co-ordinate when talking about kinetic energy or potential energy, according to the model I am proposing.

EM radiation does not give a measure of age using my alternative model.There is no time as such in the dimensional structure of the model. All of the dimensions can be considered spatial. Observed position in space is a measure of potential energy or distance from the exterior (or interior) of the hypersphere. As the radiation from which images are formed was produced when the radiation was emitted at different positions along the 4th dimension.

The matter is continuously progressing towards the interior of the hypersphere, loosing potential energy at every opportunity unless prevented or sent back by energy input. A violent event in space could alter not just the 3D vector space co-ordinates but also 4th dimensional spatial co-ordinate.Giving rise to what currently appear as anomalies in dating. It is all just space not space and time.We experience time partly because the observable matter within the 3 dimensions of vector space is continuously moving along the 4th dimension giving one way energetic changes perceived as passing of time.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 02:19 GMT
Adopting the interpretation of the 4th dimension as spatio-energetic has also solved the grandfather paradox. Past, present and future are recognised as a concept of historical time, Ht, that is a product of the mind and not physical reality.The past is memories and the future is speculation or anticipation all within the mind.

There is no past or future as realms to travel into. There is instead unobservable afore space and aft space. EM radiation images may remain but the material universe has moved on. It is not still there in the past. If matter was smeared all along the 4th dimension so that it exists both in the present and at every point it has passed through in time, the mass of the space time continuum would have to doubled for every extra copy of every object. It is nonsensical.

That alone is a compelling argument for the new interpretation to be seriously considered.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 02:36 GMT
I didn't actually mean double in my last post but incremental rather than exponential increase. Just consider the mass of planet Earths in the space- time continuum if there was just one extra copy of the earth for each day it has existed. Millions of years and every copy is one extra earth mass.Imagine this for every object in the universe. I began with tea cups.The many worlds concept of splitting time lines does not help here. The current space-time model is wrong but reinterpretation of the 4th dimension solves all of the problems, in my opinion.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear ALL ,

For fun,A simple experiment very relevant is this one ,you take some water and you put into water some oil ,you can change the temperature too .

If some people have an idea correlated with the Big Crunch .....

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 22:16 GMT
Ray: The AdS_3 correspondence with a D3-brane has D1-branes which define time in a sense. The oscillation of these Ia strings which attach these D3-branes defines a time associated with the 4-volume of the universe. There has been some interest in these types of models over the last 5 years.

In what I am presenting the 11-dimensional superspace defines a duality between AdS_4xS^7 and a SYM dim = 3 N = 8 SUSY theory. The theory is dim = 8 + 3 = 11, as octonions plus the CS-field in the diagonal of the Jordan matrix J^3(O). The extension to 24 dimensions comes from the separate identifications of the octonions O_i, i = 0,1,2, and there are 2 additional dimensions from the three scalars on the diagonal of J^3(O), minus one from a lightcone condition.

I did the symbol count and blew the limit. So I am going to have to pare this back some. I hope to have this completed in the next week.

Cheers,

LC

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 00:47 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Florin said that the symbol count limit was the trick. I am running way behind schedule on finishing my first paper and getting anything significant in the second paper. The plan was to drop my family off at the beach so I could work on this 24-7 (without anyone feeling that I was ignoring them). But Tropical Storm Claudette helped ruin my plans. TS Claudette was overrated - the worst damage I saw was overblown garbage cans.

I can't finish the first paper because I got distracted with SUSY. I think a SUSY E12 is an E12 x E14. E12 x E14 has 1680 roots, which is five Klein Chi(7)'s (5 x 336) or seven E8's (7 x 240). And the



factor in E14 (the 25th and 26th dimensions) seems to be the central heptagon in Klein's Chi(7). As such, this "centralizing heptagon" seems to tie all of the particle multiplets together in a similar manner as Steve's "spheron".

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 01:24 GMT
Peter,

I agree with you that the picture of an endless repeating cycle of universal creation is appealing. However I am concerned about how you have arrived there. Firstly it seems you have assumed a thermodynamic arrow of time and that there must be compliance with the Laws of thermodynamics but have then said that this can reverse. You have also talked about time but then said that time can just repeat itself. So it isn't quite like time as it has been thought about.I understand the analogy of a clock resetting itself. But there isn't to my knowledge such a clock. Unless you are saying the universe itself is that clock and when it re big-bangs it restarts time, time replays exactly as before.

Time is then a function of the 3D universe itself according to your model and not a separate parameter. What is it about the universe that is making it act like a clock? Are you doing away with the space-time concept and reducing it to 3D universe with internal thermodynamic clock or is there some other mechanism or process that is causing the universe to produce time? Have I misunderstood entirely?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 02:12 GMT
[link;http://www.epigeneticsnews.com/]Link to epigenetics news

Darwinian inheritance by natural selection only has been superseded.Environmental effects on egg and sperm formation at critical times of development affects not just the phenotype of first generation offspring but further generations also.

All theories and models of science are theories and models only, not indisputable truth.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 02:15 GMT
oops Link to epigenetics news

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 02:41 GMT
RAy --- these structures are getting a bit complicated. I like the Jordan exceptional algebra as a 3-->1 map from the Leech lattice, which has ~ E_8^3.

I am trying to finish up my paper where I use J^3(O) to illustrate how the comsological constant is so small. I can't compute it explicitly, but it does have to be very small.

Cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate


Michael M wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Peter

An object in relative motion does not have a precisly determined relative position at any time OK.

But tying this to cyclical universe model if an events position is never known then how could it be precisely repeated ? If order of events is to reverse and replay then exact position over an events entire duration must be unequivocally known. Otherwise you dont get exactly the same outcome

If position is not known you get self similar but never identical replication. Please could you explain how, at 12 o clock the universe magically repeats in an identical fashion right down to quantum level with position remaining unknown at both micro and macroscopic levels at all times.

Thanks for your thoughts.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Certainly the Cosmological Constant must be small. My reasoning is that the Cosmological Constant is related to Dirac's Large Number, and Dirac's Large Number is enforced by the content of the Gravity-brane:



Obviously, this doesn't fall out of E12. These are ideas from my book.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 14:05 GMT
Lawrence Krauss is interviewed on the Australian BC at:

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/throsby/#listen

whre he discusses some of these issues, with musical interludes (Holst's Mars, Bruce Springteen), and some strained ideas about going to Mars.

I will be setting this paper up here in a week, barring serious problems. The idea is that the Jordan exceptional algebra provides a duality between elements on the diagonal and the E_8s on the off-diagonal. The diagonal parts give a Chern-Simos theory which exhibits quantum criticality. There are all sorts of wonderful things being learned about quantum Hall effects, anyonic physics with graphene, and quantum critical points. At any rate there is a quantum critical physics here, which is tied to tachyon condensates. In the duality this is tied to the 4-form indicent on a D7-brane as illustrated by Polchinski. Back then Polchinski found that the condition for this 4-form flux is highly exceptional, which has some anthropic content --- or appears to. However, the connection to this quantum critical point gives some indication on how this flux should largely cancel out this bare cosmological constant proportional to ~1/L_p^2, which is huge.

The answer is not definative. Quantum critical points exibit scale independence, similar to fractal geometry in a way, but it involves the "breakdown" of a Landau-Fermi fluid, where the effective mass of an electron diverges. Of course this can't happen completely, so there is some sort of cut off. For this reason the cosmological constant is "small" but not zero. Also the scaling principle of the q-critical point is broken. The renormalization group flow (conformal structure) breaks down. So there are plenty of unknowns here.

cheers,

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

The specific algebras differ between us, although I see significant similaries. I understand the beauty and apparent stability of an E8 x E8 x E8 x J^3(O), but I don't exactly understand what each of these E8's represents (the first E8 could be matter fermions comparable to my E8 or a modified Lisi E8). Certainly, my (E8 x H4)x(E8 x H4 x I(7)_2) is an uglier Kludge, but the dissintegration into five Chi(7)'s implies particle multiplets. In the analogy with hyperbolic heptagonal tiling, these Chi(7)'s also exhit fractal properties with an order of 336 + 16k, k=0.18034...

We interpret this model that dimensions 5 and 6 are an M2-brane that allows anyons. My "scalar fermions" should be tachyons. My "scalar fermions" and "V bosons" may both be anyons on this M2-brane.

I have not yet found any specific 7-branes in these symmetries, but seven-fold symmetries are important to E12, E14, I(7)_2, and Chi(7), and eight-fold symmetries are important to E8, E12, E14 and Chi(7).

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 22:52 GMT
Its a real mine of knowledges there ,don't stop dear friends please .

I am going to read more about the Landau-Fermi liquid ,What is this system ?

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 22:57 GMT
Wawww let's see this link ,

I am going to encircle quickly ,it's well made I think ,what do you think ,could you tell me more about this Landau Fermi Liquid .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 02:21 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said "Quantum critical points exhibit scale independence, similar to fractal geometry in a way, but it involves the "breakdown" of a Landau-Fermi fluid, where the effective mass of an electron diverges. Of course this can't happen completely, so there is some sort of cut off. For this reason the cosmological constant is "small" but not zero."

In Section 5.4 of my book, I presented a scenario where the effective mass of the Z boson approaches infinity. There is a cut-off point where either 1) the math doesn't allow that solution (there isn't an infinite amount of energy in the Universe) or 2) quantum tunneling bypasses this unrealistic divergence. In my model, bypassing this divergence triggers Inflation.

I am convinced that structure exists in the Gravity-brane that reinforces these very large and very small numbers. Thus, the Cosmological Constant must be exactly zero (and enforced by a symmetry) or related to an inverse power of Dirac's Large Number.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 03:53 GMT
The relationship between Λ_{24} and J^3(O) is a map

μ: Λ_{24} - -> J^3(O), μ:{O_0, O_1, O_2} |- -> O,

The Jordan exception matrix contains three copies of the octonions or E_8, which are generated by a map from the Leech lattice.

The Landau-Fermi theory of the electron liquid is a bit tough to outline in a quick post here. It involves the physics of electrons on the Fermi surface where perturbations in this result in quasiparticle states which have incomplete quantum overlap with the electron states. This defines the effective mass which can at a quantum critical point become very large.

Cheers,

LC.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 03:57 GMT
The cosmological constant is known not to be zero by observation. This is the point of the accelerated universe or so called eternal inflation. In my theoretical correlation between M2-states and D5/D7-branes the quantum critical point of M2 has a duality with the physics on the extended p-branes.

The quantum critical point has a singularity if the effective mass of the fermion truly goes to infinity. However, the brane and string tensions (uncertainty principle stuff really) prevents this which blocks the quantum critical point. The quantum critical point is approximate. Carried to the cosmological constant this prevents it from being identically zero.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 05:10 GMT
Lawrence,

you said "The cosmological constant is known not to be zero by observation. This is the point of the accelerated universe or so called eternal inflation."

The cosmological constant is not observed. It value is assumed to make observations comply with the accepted space-time model.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 10:41 GMT
Hi all ,

The cosmological constant is a big problem since the first idea by Einstein .

This space time system and the metric tension or Ricci tension gives us a scalar curvature .

This equation is indeed interesting ....{8 pi G/c^4} T(uv)...

I like the possibility of link with ultim incompressibility of liquids too ???

What I find interesting too is the link with gravity and attraction and repulsion ,if some parameters are inserted thus we can play with the polarisation .

If the balance is not a reality ,thus the extrapolations too are in the imaginaries near the walls ,limits and critical points.

The limits ,invariances and coherences are fundamenatals in my opinion.

I d like ask you ,Georgina,Lawrence ,Ray...your point of vue about this balance ,the zero or neart tis zero ,the idea of Lawrence is very relevant to understand the accelrated expansion ,because new parameters are essential to encircle the real dynamic .

What do you think ?

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 10:48 GMT
I think really what the accelerated expansion is simply a relative perception where many news parameters must be inserted ,without that ,it's difficult to encircle the physical dynamic ,the expansion is an illusion in this dynamic ,it exists but must have optimizations of perceptions .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 11:05 GMT
The gravitational waves are important too ,these spherical waves needs too some improvements ,the aim is not to find the sound of our first gravitational waves ,no but the aim is to find the dynamic of evolution of these waves .

These waves change since the begining because the mass increases ,

My idea is this one ,the rotations still of quantum spheres and the evolution time line .....

What I find interesting is these rotations of spheres in one sense and after the othere ,like our human heart ,.....the instant changement of senses ,brutal,is interesting for the frequences ,like a sinus ,an oscillation correlated with the waves ,the rotations and these chagements os senses ,imply waves ......the problem is this one ,what is the dynamic since the begining ,there too a specific dynamic must be inserted because the supermposings of waves in correlated with all rotations of quantum and cosmological spheres .....

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 13:05 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I know I hit you with a lot of reading material between the paper and the book. Have you had an opportunity to read any of the book yet? Chapter 7 is related to my paper, but Chapters 1 through 6 are related to this current comversation.

Specifically, Sections 5.1 and 6.2 outline Variable Coupling Theory, and how a misunderstanding about time variablity (mostly between 5 and 10 billion years ago) of the "fine structure constant" and the "gravitational constant" can lead to an apparant observation of Universal acceleration. I suspect that if the data is corrected for these effects, then the "Cosmological Constant" will be approximately zero (even closer to zero than the near-zero 10^{-120}) with large error bars. I contend that the cosmological constant must either be exactly zero and enforced by an as-yet-unidentified symmetry (we have plenty of unidentified symmetries in our 26-D models) OR the "cosmological constant" is related to the "gravitational constant" (or the inverse of Dirac's Large Number) 10^{-120}~10^{-40}^{3} and ALL of these couplings varied between 5 and 10 billion years ago. If we agree that "Dark Energy" is the best interpretation of the data, then the latter option must be true. But I am not convinced that "Dark Energy" is the best interpretation of data.

Unlike Georgina, I do believe in the Big Bang and Hubble expansion, but I am amazed at how close to flat the Universe may be evolving towards.

Section 5.4 of my book reviews a critical point that is cut-off by quantum tunneling.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 13:12 GMT
Of course the cosmological constant is not directly observed. In fact with electromagnetism we don't directly observe oscillating electric fields in an EM wave, but infer them from currents induced in an antenna. The large scale structure of the universe is governed by the dynamics of spacetime, or the diffeomprohism dynamics of space which foliates out spacetime. Space is the "field" of general relativity, and it underlies the dynamics of mass-energy. This is seen in the expansion of galaxies which appear to be accelerating. It is not terribly difficult to show how this accelerated universe is induced by the cosmological constant, but time limits my ability to discuss this at length. The accelerated motion of observed galaxies by SN1 data is analogous to measuring the motion of electron in an antenna subjected to an EM wave.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 14:58 GMT
Hi ,

Lawrence could you develop a little please ,What is this coherence ,analogy?

"The accelerated motion of observed galaxies by SN1 data is analogous to measuring the motion of electron in an antenna subjected to an EM wave."

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 18:14 GMT
The variation of the cosmological “constant” and other physical constants likely pertain to the very early phase of the universe. In a toy model perspective the universe tunneled out of the vacuum configuration near the Planck scale. The cosmological constan, which is really a parameter, was Λ ~ 1/L_p^2 ~ 10^{67}cm^{-2} shortly after the quantum tunneling event. This is utterly huge and if it had persisted the universe would have inflated to its current size almost instantly. That of course did not happen and the parameter adjusted to a lower value through the inflationary cycle as the vacuum configuration determined by a Higgs-ian field rolled to its degenerate minimal vacuum configuration. Here the symmetries of the physical vacuum configuration do not pertain to the symmetries of the Lagrangian. The “course” taken here is governed by a quantum critical point. This is connected to the Higgs field, for the M2-brane dynamics is a tachyon condensate which reaches its potential minimum by a Higgs mechanism.

Attempts to find changes in the fundamental constants in the distant universe have so far come up with little. This has focused primarily on the fine structure constant, which is strictly dimensionless. Atomic transitions in the most distance sources of photons appear to be the same as what we observe.

Over the long term course in the future evolution of the universe it is possible the cosmological constant will change. The event horizon at r = sqrt{3/Λ} may recede away as the Hawking-Gibbon radiation with a temperature T = 2πsqrt{Λ/3} reduces the gravitational influence (eternal inflation) of the cosmological constant. The universe due to eternal inflation is asymptoting to a vacuum de Sitter spacetime, which may in turn quantum mechanically decay into a Minkowski (flat) spacetime. That will be the final endpoint in the evolution of the universe, which will take an infinite period of time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 18:36 GMT
Steve, I am not sure about your question. Coherence has to do with the nature of quantum states. There re two definitions there, one for entanglements and the other for overcomplete states such as with lasers. If the question is with general relativity, the expansion of the universe can be thought of as the dynamical sliding apart of points on a space evolving in time. Particles are then dragged along with this. The curvature or dynamics of space or spacetime determines the gravitational motion of particles on geodesics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 20:22 GMT
Lawrence,

One can not deduce a new model of quantum reality or structure of the universe using all of the values generated from calculation based on a previous model. When the old model will itself be invalidated, if the new model is correct. Something has to go and the cosmological constant is one of the top candidates along with time.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 22:12 GMT
I strongly disagree. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics came about from known physics, The progress from classical physics was in how known physical observables were related to each other. With quantum gravity there appear to be new ingredients, such as 11-dimensions or 7 more than spacetime, and so forth. Yet, quantum gravity will likely have to make reference to known physics. The difference will largely be how known physical obesrvables are related to each other. This requires the removal of excess baggage which acts as obstructions in our current physics.

cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 00:09 GMT
Lawrence,

I respect your opinions but I personally regard the cosmological constant as part of that that "excess baggage".

The space-time concept has been highly successful but it is not complete. Einstein only considered a static geometry for the space-time, whereas it need to be dynamic and space-space not space-time. When the motion of particles is incorporated into the dynamic quaternion space new possibilities arise.

However that is just my opinion.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 12:51 GMT
The cosmological constant is a scalar that when multiplied by the metric tensor is proportional to the Ricci curvature. For a vacuum spacetime of constant curvature this is

Ricci = (R/2 + Λ)g,

For R a Ricci scalar, Λ the cosmological constant and g the metric tensor. This is an Einstein space, which has some interesting properties. So the cosmological constant is a factor which determines something about the global curvature of the universe,

The cosmological constant is potentially determined by the quantum vacuum structure of quantum fields. I have and so have thousands of others worked on this sort of thing. I will not advance this as "truth," but is is interesting.

Since galaxies are accelerating away it is not hard to show there must be a Λ. The effect is similar to the force exerted by a spring, but which pushes out the further it is distended. So there is a sign change. Yet it is not hard to show this gives a higher acceleration for objects the further away they are from any given reference frame position.

cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 13:37 GMT
Hi all ,

Thanks Lawrence .Could you tell me a good link about laser technology and effects ,phenomenology...?

It's funny ,you speak about points ,before 12 years ago I named my theory the theory of points ,I imagined all with points with different density ,static ,or in movement .The density is important too and linked with the complexity and the stability of complementarity and rule .Now I imagine these points like a specific quantum architecture of spheres in rotations implying specificity .

There the biology is fascinating and the movement more the density .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 14:55 GMT
The best basic textbook on laser physics is by Sargent, Scully and Lamb, "Laser Physics," Academic Press.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Thanks you Lawrence ,it's nice .

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Peter Lynds wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 01:08 GMT
Hi James,

Thanks. I remember your writing, and I must admit it was a nice experience to read thoughts that I had had (somewhat remote and lonely ones) being so closely mirrored by another (even if we got to those thoughts in different ways).

Hi Georgina,

The second law of thermodynamics is never breached in the model. Rather than this happen just before a big crunch or black hole singularity, the order of events reverse so that entropy can still always increase. As the laws of physics, with the exception of the second law, are time reversible, this should not pose any problem or paradox, and in light of the way thermodynamic time reversal has normally been thought about (evolution in the direction of entropy decrease), it also avoids some.

The clock/universe example is just an analogy to aid in the understanding. Any reference to time in my paper is in connection to the readings of a clock, whether real or imagined. My thoughts about time and space are contained here http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/240

Hi Michael,

Strictly speaking, the word "repeat" isn't accurate, as it is the very same interval that plays over (neither in the future or past of another), so, in relation to time, the universe happens only once. Hence why if it evolves in a certain way in one cycle, the next is going to be the same (as it is!). With all events already laid out, as per relativity and the lack of differentiation between past, present and future, and with no present moment gradually "unfolding", there is no issue with the universe somehow having to anticipate future or past events so that they match up. They are all just "there". It then simply becomes a question of which order these events will evolve as dictated by the second law. The non-existence of instants of time and instantaneous magnitudes does not affect this. Naturally, one can also say that a moving body is within the bounds of some interval (as can any physical magnitude), and such an interval can be made extremely precise. This is what physics is all about. Unfortunately, many seem to forget or not realise that any empirically based value in physics always represents an interval rather than an instant.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
Francis Bacon, speaking of "final causes", says: "....they are clearly more allied to man's own nature, than the system of the universe,..."

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
How events are ordered in a quantum mechanical framework depends upon the amount of entropy associated with EPR pairs or n-tuplets. Given some set of quantum states which evolve by the Schrodinger or other wave equation the entropy remains constant. However, if that system becomes entangled with a larger environment there is some measure of entropy if the Poincare recurrence time for these extended entanglements is far larger than periodicities of the system, or the duration of the universe. This is then a decoherence picture for the ordering of events according to a measureed time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 06:07 GMT
Peter,

thank you for your reply. I agree that there is continuous "motion" (change in position) and therefore it is not possible for matter to exist at a definite point (or instant in time).I also agree with you that time itself does not exist but results from continuous motion. However for mathematical and physical models it may be necessary to use positions in space (or time), an approximation but useful representation non the less, that will allow comprehension and analysis to proceed.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 5, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
With clocks we do not measure time as a physical reality

we measure frequency, velocity and numerical oder of events that run in timeless medium of quantum space.

yours amrit

attachments: 6_With_Clocks_we_Measure.........pdf

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 10:02 GMT
Amrit, et al.

So many words become problematic when time is not included as a physical parameter. Frequency and velocity are two such words that imply time. Sequence however does not and I think that the idea of a sequence of spatial positions (or corresponding numerical energy values is useful).

Time can still used to make measurements when a spatio-energetic quaternion model is used, rather than space-time, but the measurement should be recognised as representing an indirect measurement of change in 4th dimensional spatial position or corresponding promotional energy level. The ratio of change in position in 3D vector space divided by change in position along the 4th (spatio-energetic)dimension can be used, if it is assumed that there is a regular continuous change of position along the 4th dimension that can be related to a continuous regular change measured in 3D vector space, such as the tick of a clock, giving a time measurement.

Considering all matter of the material universe there can be assumed to be a continuous regular change of position, (although there will be some variation between individual bodies of matter) allowing a ratio of change to be used. That change of position along the 4th dimension could be considered akin to a "terminal velocity" observed in 3D vector space. It will be equal to c or the same as that of light changing position along this dimension. This is not movement through 3D vector space so it can not be directly compared to the measured speed of light. Speed does not apply.

For a mass with no observed change of position in 3D vector space but change of position along 4th dimension = c.

E = mc^2, E divided by c^2 = m , c divided by c^2 = m, m = c.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 16:04 GMT
Physics has 3 elements: kinematics, geometry and dynamics. All of these sit in that most elementary physics equation F = ma. Mass (m) is kinematic, it is a fixed quantity which by itself does nothing. The acceleration a = dv/dt or a = d^2x/dt^2 is geometrical. Acceleration involves the change in geometric quantities with respect to time, so in a pure mathy sense this is a pure calculus construction --- almost platonic in way. Then come the force F, which is the dynamical part, and this is the bit we tend to regard as physical or what is actually changing with a physical system.

There are of course other subtle elements, such as fields that are like vectors or vector spaces and wave functions and the like. In F = ma we have that

dynamics = kinematics times geometry,

in a way. Now I am not going to cast philosophical ideas or arguments about whether time or space exists. It is clear in some way that geometrical constructions are different from the other two, certainly dynamics. So the geometrical quantities (space and time or spacetime) have some different ontological status from physical or dynamical ones. This issue becomes more interesting and difficult if we introduce fields or quantum waves. Lots of printer's ink have been devoted to essays over this.

To talk about things existing or not puts one in a way in the domain of metaphysics more than physics. I really don't think that physics or science can tell us much about what things exist or don't in reference to physical theories.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Well put, Lawrence. Science is not concerned with "reality," only with the ways in which we can objectively model phenomena and how we can test the models against objective measurement crtiteria.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 21:55 GMT
Lawrence and ray,

Science is concerned with modelling reality because that is how we can comprehend the external physical universe, at all scales, in both structure and function. The model, however good, never is reality itself but an aid to comprehension only. The terms to put into the model are of fundamental importance. For example, if the term "time" is used instead of "space" it then causes all sorts of difficulties. The difficulty is not due to something physically real but the wrong term being used in the mathematics,in my opinion. Leading to nonsensical interpretation of what the mathematics then means. This is not about metaphysics but accurate comprehension of observable reality. That relies upon accurate description and interpretation.

Mathematics is concerned with self consistency, internal rules and elegance of mathematics itself. Physics is about comprehension of the external physical processes manifest in the universe at all scales. A correct mathematical proof does not necessarily aid comprehension if the terms input, or the structure used were not correct, or are misunderstood, and the interpretation is founded on those misunderstandings. The mathematics may be elegant, brilliant, correct but if it does not aid comprehension then it is akin to an abstract or an impressionist artistic masterpiece. Worthy of admiration for what it is rather than the accuracy of what it represents.

The geometrical terms and quantities should give the map of the place where processes, that can be described with dynamics and kinematics occur.

Flexible geometry was historically used to describe the dynamic phenomena rather than being the rigid geometric framework in which dynamic processes occur. This was a necessary explanatory route at the time because of the "scientific" insistence that there could be no medium within space. An erroneous insistence because it is perfectly possible for something to exist without evidence being detectable by our particular limited senses and technology. The flexible geometry works but is not actually describing geometry of empty space at all, in my opinion, but variation in energy as a result of variation in spatial position of the medium within space that is effected by the change of position of matter within it.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 21:57 GMT
Sorry I do apologise Tom , I should have said "Lawrence and Tom,"

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 00:45 GMT
TH Ray is basically right. Of course physics deals with reality, or the objective study of things we observe. We understand these things, or their relationships, according to systems or theories. Physics does not concern itself so much with existential matters, such as whether quantum wave functions exist. Of course many physicists have become wrapped up by these issues, but nothing has ever been determined from these studies or debate points.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 04:12 GMT
Georgina,

Actually, swapping time for space does not create much difficulty in complex analysis. Imaginary time (or complex time) is as "real" as any other.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 05:49 GMT
Lawrence,

Perhaps that is how it is. Perhaps that is why physics does not currently answer the foundational questions. How does your statement "We understand these things, or their relationships, according to systems or theories." (following your statement that physics does not concern itself so much with existential meaning... ) differ from "We understand these things according to our articles of faith?"

A whole self consistent belief system is built up from theories and systems, and upon previous theories and systems, all fallible human constructs. Non proven correct only not yet dis-proven. That ultimately, currently gives a manufactured model of subjective reality without comprehensible existential meaning. That construct is no longer science but "scientific" doctrine requiring blind faith. The existential matters and interpretation are vital.

Just because, in your opinion, nothing has been determined from studies or debates of these issues does not mean that they are not important or worthwhile. Some breakthroughs can be made but not by blindly accepting the status quo and doing meaningless business of pseudo-physics as usual.Concern for the existential meaning is in my opinion what separates a physicist using mathematics for analysis from a mathematician applying his skill in the field of physics. That is not meant to be offensive to anyone. It is a personal opinion of the different mind sets and modus operandi.

Tom,

time may not cause particular difficulty in analysis. The problem is in the interpretation, the meaning derived from the analysis. If meaning is not important then it really doesn't matter. The mathematics can be whatever the mathematician finds most pleasing and need have no existential interpretation.

It is a thing of beauty in itself to those capable of appreciating it for what it is, of itself. I personally think existential meaning is the most important thing. That is why I chose to study science. That is also why I am concerned about what the currently accepted models actually represent and whether that representation is actually the best that is currently possible.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 11:32 GMT
Georgina,

Science is not a belief system. It is a method, a process.

The interpretative part of that process--the language which exposes meaning--is transmitted in mathematical models. Some of these models, such as special and general relativity, come mathematically complete. That is, the mathematical theory predicts, in closed form, phenomenological results under specified conditions. Other models, such as quantum mechanics, are formulated after the fact of observation. Regardless, it is in correspondence between fact and theory by which the measure of theoretical truth, what Karl Popper called verisimilitude, is determined.

After all, if one assigns value to personal belief, all beliefs are equally valid and there is no demarcation between science and any other claims to truth.

Mathematicians do not weave from whole cloth what they find "most pleasing." The validity of the mathematics is constrained by results and rules which preceded it. Mathematical theories, like physical theories, are constantly tested against known results and examined for self consistency. A theorem is true not because one believes in it; it is true because the meaning preceded the construction. It is often the case, in fact more often than not, that the meaning a researcher initially assigns to an anticipated result will turn out to be false. Beliefs do not support truth.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 13:23 GMT
Science is not a belief system. Science does not go very far in addressing philosophical matters, in particular existential issues. When in contact with issues of belief this is why the recent atheistic movement has troubles. Clearly science can indicate that a literal idea of God is not correct, but science can't tell us much about whether in some ultimate sense a God exists or not. In a more restricted sense our physical theories invoke various structures, from vector fields in space to curvatures to complex or quaterionic valued quantum states or fields and so forth. These things are not directly measured. One might adopt an instrumentalist perspective that only things which register on a detector can be said to exist. Yet instrumentalism and its cousin positivism are to my mind rather limited or restricted ways of looking at things.

Cheers, LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 20:03 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"Science is not a belief system."

Theoretical physics is a belief system. Unless, of course, you are taking the position that cause is known? In other words: That cause is properly described by theoretical physics? I have said repeatedly that we do not know what cause is. Is it your belief that you know what cause is? Can you explain a cause? Obviously I mean the word explanation in the sense of justifying the identity of any individual cause and its representation in mathematical equations. Justification does not allow for guessing. Explanation means to point to the reason for the need to recognize the existence of a cause before inventing that cause. Need does not mean 'out of ignorance'.

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 11:58 GMT
Theories are not belief systems. They are working structures. Nobody believes them as such, particularly a theory which has yet to garner a substantial empirical. As for causality, there is a functional or operational way of working physics according to causal structure.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 22, 2011 @ 12:29 GMT
"As for causality, there is a functional or operational way of working physics according to causal structure."

We do not know what cause is. If you work with an equation that has a 'cause' identified as such on either the left or right side, then you have invented it. If you speak to others about that cause as if it is real, then you have a belief system that you either have adopted or are spreading.

James

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 23:29 GMT
Tom ,

I understand what science claims to be and I understand the "objectivity" of scientific method. However new scientific investigation most often proceeds on the basis that pre-existing theory is correct and interpretation is done in the light of those pre-existing assumptions, theories, models. The old accepted ideas are used to interpret and evaluate the new. Not always but often....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


andy r wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 17:39 GMT
for what to expand and to contract finitely ?

report post as inappropriate


andy r wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
GOD IS A INVALID

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 18:00 GMT
The Big Bange never happened. It is because telescopic images are BOTH so magnified (closer/larger) and so distant (smaller/farther away) that they eventually become relatively disintegrated/fuzzy. Extremes of distance relate to the red-shift, energy, the increasing transparency/invisibility of space in teles./astro. obs., how we see, and disintegration. More visible means more invisible on balance in telesc./astro. obs.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 20, 2011 @ 18:06 GMT
Vision is not thought, so thoughtful differences/distinctions (logic) are not contradicted by, or inconsistent with, vision/what is seen.

Again folks, the basics first.

report post as inappropriate


andy r wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT
the problem of people is its logic and its reason

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 17:14 GMT
We can conclusively demonstrate the origination of our experience from (and in conjunction with) the center of the human body as follows:

Gravity is key to distance in/of space. Just stand up and look at your feet and the ground. This is exactly what Einstein and the modern physicists are lacking; as distance and force (or energy) have never been shown to be fundamentally equivalent.

Here is the complete answer and explanation to what Einstein's theory of gravity is lacking:

Space is semi-detached from touch in/as dream experience BECAUSE both inertia and gravity are balanced/equivalent at half strength/force. In outer space, there is [full] inertia, and we cannot touch (and are not touching) objects; and there is no gravity; as this means no experience of touch. Full gravity involves [constantly] touching the earth in our typical earthly experience. Accordingly, touch in dreams may or may not be experienced, and it is also at half force/strength of the tactile, gravitational force/energy while waking and standing. Indeed, we are semi-immobilized in dreams, and this is indicative of half inertia as well. Space manifests as inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic energy in/as dream experience. Full gravity involves full mobility in relation to, and in conjunction with, distance in/of space. Full gravity involves full distance in/of space. The experience of space in/as dream experience is that of the middle distance in/of space in keeping with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity and electromagnetism are key to distance in/of space.

Dreams combine and include opposites; as they fundamentally involve variable and shifting quantum mechanical phenomena/manifestations of what is essentially the same. Completeness and balance go hand-in-hand -- sameness is balanced by variability.

report post as inappropriate


andy r wrote on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT
AND ITS FAITH

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT
New law of physics: The union of gravity and electromagnetism fundamentally enjoins visible and visible space (in equal measure) in conjunction with gravitational and inertial equivalency/balancing. This gives us quantum gravity.

Smaller and larger spaces reduce gravity. Smaller and larger space increase inertia. We unify gravity and inertia by making space half larger and half smaller in equal measure. Gravity and inertia are both then at half strength.

Gravitational contraction must be balanced with electromagnetic repulsion in order to have quantum gravity and true inertial/gravitational equivalency.

Quantum gravity is present when inertia and gravity are each at half/equivalent strength in conjunction with the middle distance in/of space being reflective/inclusive of this union.

Electromagnetism (photons and the sun) fixes distance in/of space regardless of our natural motion. Here we have extremes of size as well in conjunction therewith. One is maximum visibility/force, and the other is maximum invisibility (weakest force).

Gravitational and electromagnetic space are both visible and invisible.

Gravity makes distance in/of space variable.

Space can only be more visible if it is also more invisible.

Gravity attaches space as an integrative force, while inertia basically detaches space.

Inertial and gravitational equivalency fundamentally requires that space be semi-detached in conjunction with HALF inertia, and equivalently, semi-attached in conjunction with HALF gravity.

Inertia increases when space is made larger and smaller. Gravity decreases when space is made larger and smaller.

Gravitational contraction must be balanced with electromagnetic repulsion in order to fundamentally stabilize and balance distance in/of space in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion.

How do we reduce gravity by half and increase inertia by half in order to make these force strengths equivalent? (Ideally, we want distance in/of space to also be half as well).

First, we must fundamentally involve quantum phenomena by achieving quantum gravity. This space is expanded, stretched, flattened, and contracted.

Gravity and electromagnetism fundamentally enjoin visible and visible space

in a balanced fashion in order to unify these two forces.

Invisible and visible space must be fundamentally enjoined and balanced gravitationally, or vision would not even be possible.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.