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 author 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

Amrit Sorli: on 9/1/14 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote It is an utter mistake to compare universe and life with man-made machines...

James Dunn: on 5/14/14 at 16:36pm UTC, wrote A unifying foundation would need an understanding of that upon which we...

Richard Lewis: on 1/18/14 at 15:35pm UTC, wrote I would like to comment on the issues relating to time in the early...

James Putnam: on 11/10/13 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote Ant Ter, "The problem begins at the moment, when one starts to substitute...

Ant Ter: on 11/10/13 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Language and Facts—Logic and Mathematics What about the languages of...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 5/24/13 at 17:17pm UTC, wrote Importantly, outer space involves FULL inertia due to the impossibility of...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 5/23/13 at 15:07pm UTC, wrote We cannot (and do not) experience outer space. Because, do (and can) we...

Georgina Parry: on 3/28/13 at 6:59am UTC, wrote Paul, I will reply a few of those questions on my essay thread. I don't...



FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2014

ARTICLE: The Accidental Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 16:24 GMT
Is the frequency of "our" universe perhaps 5.39121 x 10^-44sec ?

Or does this mean that the universe is digital ?

The choice of a "clock" is still the choice of human consciousness to compare his memories (a theory is also hypothesis based on what is learned), so I fully agree with Julian Barbour.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Jan. 16, 2013 @ 23:26 GMT
Professor Andreas Albrecht:



Of course Einstein was right “time is what clock measure” and in this article we will add, What the clock measure



I am going to be as concrete as possible; if...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Thank you for a great article.

Here are some thoughts on the horizon problem that approach the subjeect from an entirely new angle:

From horizon to horizon, there need not be any "mixing" in order for identical temperatures to be found if those temperatures have been created in an isolated manner unaffiliated with the matter on the opposite horizon. This is exactly what CIG offers....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jan. 19, 2013 @ 22:27 GMT
It seems to me first and foremost to solve problem of Planck units.

I mean to separate smart Planck unit from senseless Planck units.

Does all Planck units are sacred or only one?

We don't have guarantee G, c, are real constants or not, during the evolution of the Univertse.

We don't have guarantee they depend of each other or not,or 2 sides the same coin.

Imagine that G and c simultaneously vary,because permittivity of vacuum vary following the evolution.Doesn't matter the Universe shrinking or expanding.

But we believe naive:

1.Schwarshild black hole R radius G/c^2

2.Planck unit L of length G/c^3

3.Planck unit T of time G/c^5

4.Planck unit M of mass c/G

What is correspond to real world?

If all,it would be absurd.

To my opinion only #4 linear link between G and c is real,eternal

and vary synchronously.

And #1,2,3 are fake that only teasing physicists

Conclusion:

1.Only Planck unit of mass(10-5g) have sense.

2.Only h is fundamental constant.

3.h=c=G=1 is wrong assumption.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are.

Version 1.

G and c not depend from each other and not vary.This is silent agreement of modern physics.

Version 2.

G and c depend from each other and vary.

Version 3.

G and c not depend from each other but depend from third value of expanded medium of the Universe,from time.They vary synchronously.

Acceleration of the expansion of Universe is direct proof variation of constants.

Version 1 and version 3 chance 50/50 but supported only 1

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 03:19 GMT
Yuri.

I select door #2:

Version 2. G and c depend from each other and vary.

and we are talking G = gravitational constant and c = speed of light constant , (I hope)

G & "c" are not constants (nor is the cosmological constant constant)

Gravitational fields vary (the degree to which they vary determines the particle they become): F = G m1 m2 / r2

r2 F = G m1 m2

r2 F / m1 m2 = G

At "c" mass disappears and becomes its spatial equivalent.

Nearing "c", m1 m2 get smaller and smaller.

This appears to make G very big.

Where, "c" varies, m varies as well. This affects G (I don't know to much about G)

Door #2

Try to understand (www.CIGTheory.com) & maybe some of my other posts make sense too

space and time (variations of %"c") become the matter. MTS

was this the "G" & "c" you were talking about???

Here's what you could have had behind door #3......

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Douglas you wrote

"r2 F = G m1 m2

r2 F / m1 m2 = G

At "c" mass disappears and becomes its spatial equivalent.

Nearing "c", m1 m2 get smaller and smaller.

This appears to make G very big.

Where, "c" varies, m varies as well. This affects G (I don't know to much about G)"

c=1/G then Planck unit M of mass sqrt(hc/G) become sqrt(hc^2)=cxsqrt(h) not common with mass dimension.

report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
You can read about another interpretation of the special relativity, explaining also the magnetic effect and magnetic induction of the electric current, giving the time dimension in the frame of the accelerating electrons: http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0058 .

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Pssst .. Peter

I'm over here, hiding from Pentcho's posts on the Faster than Light blog.

They dropped our discussions from the Joy discussions.

Anyhow, if pV=nRT

and let's assume a constant pressure, constant # moles, and R since it's a gas constant.

Then, non-mathematically speaking, since CIG works in concepts, we simply drop those constant variables p,n, and R.

Now, we have V = T (volume = temperature), and again we have the concept of Energy [for temperature to go up we add energy (or per E=mc2 the energy eqivalent of mass)] to Volume.

Alternately, if E=mc2, c2 = E/m , c = sg. root E/m , and when "c" varies (percentages of c travel as per CIG Theory), the other side of the equation reacts accordingly.

So, Energy (temperature) correlates directly to the creation of new volumes of Space. MTS

Within pV=nRT, there is support for CIG Theory.

Again, the particles are not simply moving away from each other, faster and faster, thereby creating bigger volumes. (this is argued by the simple concept: "farther away from what - we started with a given volume of space") . Rather, "New Space" is created, and there is an eqivalency among space and mass and energy and c (also time).

And conceptually,for the reasons cited above, this equivalency is supported by CIG and the gas laws.

Doug

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 19:08 GMT
doug

It seems the message got through, and that was important. FQXi is a very important haven from the narrow 'mainstream' trench of the thought police. It's a human weakness of some that non conformity is so hard to live with. They clearly just need reminding now and then.

Perhaps, if we stay here in hiding and whisper, the fuss will die down without retribution.

I agree with your CIG rationale. In fact I think Energy = Volume is one of the most fundamental relationships. Now you just need a precise derivation of quantification for the sums so it'll be taken seriously.

I have a couple of other fundamentals, agreeing with your conceptual or 'heuristic' approach as AE called it, which emerge from a logical derivation. Tell me if you agree;

The first is simple; c = c'. (c as a Proper Time 'proper-gation' speed in each medium including the energy of the local space).

The second is a~a. Which is distinctly NOT a=a, the root of all nonsense in predicate calculus, logic and arithmetic. Consider doug = doug. As there is only ONE doug it is a metaphysical concept. Of course moving from 'proper' nouns to common nouns, (B Russel) there are many other dougs, but NONE ARE THE SAME!

Do you know any two trees, toffee apples, snowflakes or grains of sand that are identical at the microscopic level? So a=a is NOT reality in any sense above particle scale, and there are too many of those to compute except as virial 'systems'. We then have a probability amplitude distribution, or revved up fuzzy logic.

So I, and the DFM, propose a new Law, the LAW OF THE REDUCING MIDDLE with an inverse Gaussian distribution, replacing the Law of the excluded middle. So no more toffee apples for me! But I suspect if I try to tell the law that I'll get banged away and silenced.

What do you think? (speak quietly)

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 23:41 GMT
Shhhh, I hear someone coming...

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 14:12 GMT
Pssst...try to keep on topic... If you want to hide out on this thread, please try and refer back to Albrecht's work in each post.

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 14:11 GMT
Just a note to say that you can listen to Albrecht describing his work on the January podcast. I haven't opened a new thread for that item because obviously this thread already exists.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 20:38 GMT
Ooops, we've been found! discussing Proper Time on a thread about 'improper' time! Yes. I agree with Andreas that our conception of time is nonsensical. No, I don't agree any of the other solutions offered so far are logical or resolve anything. That is very clear Yes?.

The only one with consistent logic and which also resolves the issues raised, is that described in my essay.

'Proper time' is as originally defined, but with the minimum of clarification; ALL speeds are 'propagation speeds', including in space, where each domain has limits. We may then say, as speed is a simple derivative d/t, that, as with co-ordinate time, there is also then 'improper' or 'co-ordinate' speed.

We may then see 'APPARENT' c + v, if we're in motion with respect to the propagation medium, but there is no such thing as REAL c + v. Only when the light actually ARRIVE at a detector lens does it start propagating at c in our lens. Lambda changes so the wavefunction issue, Copenhagen and the Measurement Problem are resolved.

Now NOBODY has even 'dented' let alone falsified that heuristic description, which agrees with the postulates of SR, AND with quantum physics. There is a hushed silence and all those fully (Ph) "indoctrinated" just turn away without comment like the three monkeys (exquisite though they may be). 'Different' is not 'wrong', just unfamiliar. If what we have is wrong then what is correct must be different, yes?

Can anybody offer any intelligent falsification of that model? ... ...Hello...?

Fundamental physics Eh? ...Is there hope?

Peter

PS. Any chance of a 10 minute podcast Zeeya?

If anybody IS interested, a longer more complete version of the essay is here; Much ado about something.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
I was unable to find a single valid argument in this article. No conclusion follows from the premises. Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
The main conclusion seems to be this:

"If you choose to measure time using one type of clock in the early universe, the history of the cosmos would pan out very differently, than if you chose another."

This is nonsense per se. The history of the cosmos cannot depend on anyone's choice of clocks.

The premises that entail this conclusion are to be looked for in the preceding text but I found no statements there logically related to the conclusion.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 9, 2013 @ 13:58 GMT
You've got got it wrong, Pentcho. One does not find it possible to choose a clock "in the early universe." One chooses a clock in the present universe, and finds that this free choice affects what the cosmological condition (the early universe) would have been. As Swarup sums up elegantly:

"The implications are groundbreaking: Our universe did not arise with one single set of fundamental laws prewritten, which governed the evolution of particles, planets, galaxies and people, or even the dimensionality of space. Instead, the basis of our universe would be an underlying random structure through which the observed laws of nature emerge as probabilities."

Because the probability of our universe existing is 1.0, the particular Hamiltonian that characterizes our domain should be self limiting by a constant value that restricts its time evolution. That would be the constant speed of light, something else that you've gotten wrong.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
" Either I am getting stupid or physics has reached the final stage of putrefaction."

Before I choose, Pentcho, I want to ask you what you think the premises of the article are.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Tom,

"Time is fundamental to our interpretation of the world yet we very rarely question our choice of timekeeper."

Hint: The article is a big head scratch over why a presumed fundamental, the vector of time, is so uncooperatively ambiguous.

Why do you think that is so?

Could it be that time is not so fundamental, or is it another multiworlds situation, where every clock forms its own reality?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT
John, it's relativity -- which is a classical theory -- not the multiworlds intepretation of quantum mechanics, in which "every clock forms its own reality."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 8, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
Tom,

Wasn't your difficulty from assuming it as an 'either/or' question? Mutual exclusivity is essential for logical 'frames' but I suggest it's not 'absolute'.

John.

I agree, time is not 'fundamental' at all, more a confusing red herring. Just a word we've invented. Perhaps we should all speak Chinese (it may yet come!) and get a fresh view of it. We invent a machine that emits something at regular intervals, then worship it like some mysterious god! Is that not wholly pagan?

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 10, 2013 @ 01:17 GMT
The "different rate" clocks manifest themslves as different cosmological non-constants. It's the same reality that all clocks live in and abide by. They do not live in their own distinct universe, no more than Bob Marley does.

Time clocks are % "c" dependent, and by the equivalency elevator experiment principle, likewise, gravity also suggest its equvalent couterpart. The field densities vary by distance from the mass center. Likewise, when stellar photon entities attempt to escape, they turn into Dark Matter, and full escape "c" turns into Dark Energy. Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a faster clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick slower) (you can trick these clocks into ticking faster by pressuring them into a like earth gravity vessel while still orbiting). But, the clocks are in the same Universal Reality. There is no need for multiplt clock realities, simply diffrent fields in the same reality. Time dilation presents itself as Space creatiion. This new Space comes in the form of many different densities(temperatures) ( here the horizon problem is explained - see CIG)

Peter should understand what I am saying. he may not agree, but should understand.

Equating energy to mass to space

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pico meters cubed of space*

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

What kind of Space? The kind you get when mass travels at the % "c" density at which the reaction took place.

I am not sure of this number, but if "c", then Dark Energy. I think it must be close to "c", and that's how we all blow up when the bombs go off, which they won't. They can't, they shant.

The above is CIG.

www.CIGTheory.com

THX

doug.... on topic

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
Doug -

You are wrong and keep mixing up things, again. I know. Remember simply that GRAVITATION = ACCELERATION when thinking time dilation. Think the elevator experiment.

The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes.

Your analogy above then is corrected as follows:

"Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a faster clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick slower)" SHOULD READ :

Each field is different, Each clock is different in each field (because a slower clock on earth sees a more dense hand ticking, (more resistance) alternately, in spacial orbit, the hands are spread out into the field they are within, and hence tick faster (less resistance).

They (the clocks) attempt to reach equilibrium with their surrounding field.

Full gravity = black hole (one time vector direction in MTS)

Full Acceleration = Vacuum Energy (the other time vector in MTS)

To maintain biblical accuracy, I believe that we should make the vector Matter from Space as being forward time (Genesis: out the void/nothingness, etc.). Then reverse vector time would be matter accelerating.

Therefore the equation is STM.

Standard Theoretical Madness

Peter, are you with me?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
doug,

I agree you're absolutely spot on. I do understand but don't agree. With much of it anyway. See my post to Tom on the long string above. It's really far simpler. Just two rules;

1. Everywhere is a medium, which includes a 'quanta' rest frame.

2. All quanta absorb energy, then re-emit it at c.

Electrons and protons (dark matter) have almost zero EM cross section as their index n=1 and they re-emit on the arrival axis only (well known 'coherent forward scattering'). They MUST then modulate c to being a local phenomena. I don't understand the problem here, what problem does that NOT resolve? Is everyone all brainwashed or what?? I must not have been looking when they did it! But do tell me if it's me who's mad.

Thanks. Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Peter,

I enjoyed your comment above at Feb. 12, 2013 @ 10:31 GMT. I received my copy of Physics Today this morning and found the article on Lagrangian Coherent Structures to look quite interesting, though I haven't had a chance to study it yet. I also appreciated the link to the Copi et al. "Large-angle anomalies in the CMB". I've been tracking that since their 2006 article, and the solar system correlation appears to be still unexplained. If you have a convenient link to your DFM predictions of these patterns, please post it.

I'm working on some calculations you might find interesting, but only if they produce the numbers I'm hoping for.

Hang in there.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
How light works is one issue. However, there are two very important facts which then disconnect that from what is usually the 'follow up'. These are:

1 We receive a photon based (ie light) representation of physical existence, ie light is light, physical existence is something else.

2 Einstein has no observational light. He may refer to observers, but there is no light for them to observe with. In other words, the light (which is a ray of, or lightening, or whatever) he uses is actually a conceptual constant against which he then calibrates duration and distance. It is just a constant, it is not observational light. In other words, by conflating physical existence and the photon based representation thereof, he has shifted the time differential which occurs in the timing of the receipt of light by different entities, into being an inherent characteristic of physical existence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
Paul,

So essentially he places light at the center and molds a geometric frame around it, a bit like epicycles places the earth at the center and builds a geometric frame around it? His absolute frame isn't spacetime, but light. So the idea of blocktime as "physically real" overlooks this basis?

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 01:36 GMT
If there is Space, and there is Matter, and there is Energy, and if the tendency in physics is to eqaute one entity to another to another, etc., then where is the bridge equivalency in mainstream theories equating mass to space? And how does this transition occur? And, if the Universe is expanding, then, if the vacuum has energy, and the spatial volumes get bigger and bigger(assuming expansion is correct, as is presumed), doesn't this violate conservation of energy?

CIG Theory conserves the conservation laws.

CIG Theory does not masqerade [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwoLNtUuCVk ]

the concept of time dilation. It offers it as the unfolding of Space. But somehow we must preserve time travel, to account for pyramids!

OK - I'm going to check the "Large-angle anomalies in the CMB"

Pssst...CIG Theory grows hair too....

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
doug, Edwin, Paul,

I agree with an accident. Set up some frames of balls and try 1,000bn times to get them to end up at the same space time points. My £10m says you won't do it!

doug. Pass me some CIG. I'm tearing it all out! I think we should distinguish between DEther and distance. (I've just now re-christened ether so it's really the Dark Energy that all current theory relies on). It can now have a local kinetic identity just like matter (so we can now have a QV, Higgs field etc). The problem SR had with it is removed along with the 'absolute' frame AE assumed it needed. Matter and DEther can then move. It can then thin out, but em fluctuations propagate at c locally within it, modulated by the shocks at the 'domain limits'. No violations at all then. Is there anything about that which you find scientifically incorrect? It seems Tom doesn't dare try to handle it as he's seen it's dynamite and may be in denial. I think it's just overindoctrination as I don't have Tom down as an acid tripper! (2 new words in a day!!)

Edwin, Always a lovely breath of fresh air, and some logical sense. Thank you.

Paul, Closing in but no choccies yet. Far simpler ending. Read page 42 2nd para of the current Physics Today Edwin refers to and see if you can think and visualise dynamically. It shows how observer frame matters. It's all about evolution of interaction over non zero time and with media motion.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Anonymousse wrote on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
Another way of looking at this is to say that until we understand how time works, we'll potentially get nonsense out of any attempt to draw a conclusion from a train of thought like the one Albrecht has pursued. Time is QM is different from time in GR, and we don't know why, or why they're in disagreement in places. We also don't know why we seem to observe a flow of time. Put those together, and it's a lot.

So although Albrecht may have got some real conclusions out of his reasoning, he might also have got nonsense - for some reason that we don't yet understand. We don't know enough to know. The mistake people commonly make is to assume that the framework we have is solid enough to use in this kind of way - they have been told that it is, and underneath they believe it.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
Anonymousse,

What if we simply do away with time as fundamental and let it emerge as effect, similar to temperature. Then it wouldn't be a vector along which the present moves from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. So in QM, it isn't moving along that single external timeline from a determined past into a probabilistic future, but is the occurrence of events collapsing probabilities into actualities. With relativity, it is nothing more than frequency and quite logical that each clock is recording its own rate of change. There is no vector external to the present, because duration is not external to the present. It is the state of the present between the occurrence of events.

We experience it as a sequence of events, but then we still see the sun as rising in the east, moving across the sky and setting in the west.

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 02:00 GMT
Hi John,

What if we simply do away with time as fundamental and not let it emerge? What if we have motion in our timeless Universe? What if our clocks only measure durations elapsing?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
Jim,

That's basically what clocks do, but the arrow of time emerges from the non-regularity of action. Otherwise there would be no arrow of time, just cyclical metronomes.

As effect, it's like temperature, color, etc. Given we are a much higher order effect, if they didn't emerge, neither would we. In fact knowledge, being largely based on narrative and cause and effect logic, is emergent from the effect of time. That's one reason why it seems more fundamental than temperature, though the ambient energy of thermodynamics is conceptually more primal than the change of time.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
John,

I'm with Jim George. We've greatly overcomplicated the simple concept we call 'time'.

Identical clocks, of any type, only tick at different rates if they are moving different physical conditions.

The REAL PHYSICAL truth is only then motion. The only other realisation needed to resolve every other mystery is then that the emissions representing 'DURATIONS' have physical representations, and are ALSO liable to changed due to differing physical conditions.

So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?

This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases.

Please explain to me what mysterious phenonomena is there in the universe that this simplified understanding does NOT fully explain? Think it through and let me know. I predict you'll find there are none.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Peter,

"So an emitted one second light pulse will be found different when measured against the ticks of an identical clock in motion relatively. Yes/No?"

Yes.

"This is because the 'wave'(length) is varied by the interaction, in all cases."

The frequency.

I'm not trying to complicate it, I just don't want the argument to be "There is no time." Time is a primal effect.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
John,

We're trying to tie down reality yes? Which means identifying and excluding the 'metaphysical'.

So the big mistake that everybody makes is in assuming 'frequency' over wavelength. This is well understood in astronomy where we consistently get nonsense if not consistently using wavelength (lambda)! Yet because frequency is often the only 'observable' most have forgotten where...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Peter,

I'll have to digest that some more, but I still think we ignore the wave qualities of light. Frequency is a characteristic of waves, not velocity/speed. Light does travel as a wave, not a particle. When it's going through the slits, it is a wave. It's only when it's stopped by the receptor that it collapses to a point.

Consider this paper and think that the quantum of light received is a sample of the wave front and not a particular photon traveling billions of lightyears from the source. Then consider what this paper says, in terms of how that received quantum of light is composed of different parts of the spectrum.

I think there are a number of ways light can be redshifted, if we didn't insist it was always a point particle.

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
"Ockham's razor weighs strongly against (spacetime)."

Absolute nonsense, John. Please, learn how the extension and unification of physical theories has actually evolved.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Instead of spending all my time on this thread defending relativity (I am finished with that now, for good) -- I would have liked to have been involved in a high level exchange on the genuine merits of Andreas Albrecht's research program, which I think are considerable.

In my opinion, most participants in this discussion don't have a clue as to either the content of that program, or its implications for science, particularly cosmology. In fact, I think it is a potentially big step toward legitimizing cosmology as a hard physical science.

I've also not been shy of expressing my opinion that Vesselin Petkov's essay this year ("Can gravity be quantized") was unjustly ignored. For the same reason.

Allow me to suggest that Petkov on the side of relativity, and Albrecht on the side of quantum mechanics -- have a common meeting ground; i.e., that the mathematics of random variables and the mathematics of continuous measurement functions converge on an underlying unitary structure of topological foundation. I've devoted considerable research to that proposition -- would anyone like to seriously discuss it?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Edwin, This accidentally got hidden in the universe, so in case you missed it, responding to your question....

The anisotropic CMB pattern prediction and derivation is included in this 2010 paper, both specific and implicit, here;

Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil.

If the Milky Way is positioned say half way up the left hand outflow arm and slightly off centre, with a precession based hellicity similar to Centaurus A, the complex asymmetric flow pattern (characterised as heat in the graph) is perfectly reproduced. I can think of no other possible way it could ever arise. If you can do let me know. I await your numbers.

The good part is that when we get it all wrong it seems we may get more go's. Luckily for us!

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
John,

Regarding: We're trying to tie down reality yes?

Ya mon. I n I ask whose reality mon?

I n I tink CIG Theory, no?

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
Guys,

Would you please post your off-topic discussion in another forum. It's as if you are painting over important and potentially groundbreaking work with graffiti.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
Tom,

It presents an entirely logical and well reasoned argument, but it does raise a significant issue; How do the emergent, higher orders arise from this apparently chaotic, quantum state? How do the probabilities collapse into actualities? Presumably it isn't observer generated.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 23:49 GMT
They are not probabilities! Actual Space, the new Space that was created during the quantum expansion, collapses to a point particle. This collapse is analogous to the Spacetime [Space in the form of Volume / Time in the form of a slowing down] curvature collapse whereby black holes are formed. The "probability" is reality in the form of a newly created extended space. This is the same space (wave) that goes through both slits in the duble slit experiment.

And, the process follows a desire to reach Time Equilibrium. Everything is tring to reach time equilibrium.

Why can't anyone understand this?

Where am I going wrong with my explanation?

Peter - how does your theory explain the double slit (no math please) ?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Tom,

Since virtually everything else breaks down into that elemental quantum foam, why is it a mystery classical probability does as well?

The mystery is how the classical reality emerges in the first place. Currently the sum of leading physics theories is that it's some observer generated anthropic perception of a quantum multiworlds. That is a pretty broad range of possibility from which this particular reality on this particular planet has coalesced. Given the nearly infinite range of quantum probability in a spoonful of sugar, it is safe to say we are not much closer to really understanding reality than Plato trying to figure out the shadows in that cave.

I still don't see why the thermodynamic properties of that quantum realm are not considered as or more foundational as the vector of change called time.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Tom,

I agree. I'm in a very interesting discussion on the Albrecht finding on the APS blog below, including a proposed new law of physics. I'll try to transpose some of that if I get a mo.

I hope you're working hard towards keeping your promise above. I looking forward to your response.

Link; Causal Probability

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 19:45 GMT
I'll try to stay on topic:

OK Regarding the link & Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse, & For example, if we consider the value of one bit we know nothing about, we are inclined to assign probabilities to each value. Furthermore, it seems natural to give it a “50-50” chance of being 0 or 1. This everyday intuition is often believed to have deep theoretical justification based in “classical probability theory” (developed in famous works such as [1]). :

The zeros and ones can both be zeros and ones, and at the same time. What is a one to another entity can be a zero to yet another. For instance, I bombard an opening (say a door) with a particle, say a tennis ball. The ball goes through it. The door is a zero to the tennis ball. I then try to walk an elephant through the same door. The elephant wont go through. The door is a one. So, the door can both be a one and a zero. Such is the case with particle physics and the here or not here of the very small.

So, what exists to one observer doesn't necessarily exist for another.

And, a computer should be able to exploit the above (if it doesn't already).



Everything, including information, can be both a one and a zero and simultaneously. Who is doing the observing and what is the frame of reference.

How is this currently exploited in computer technology I don't know. But, there has to be a way.

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Time is the same throughout physics formulation with the exception of thermodynamics. If you can accept the fact that space vibrates, you have a real clock with an arrow of time. The FOXi community is the best place for new ideas but is it the best place for ideas that work? What a proof means is someone is wrong. What a physical proof means is many people are obviously wrong. Do you think FOXi is the place for proof?

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 21:53 GMT
Anonymous,

There's no such thing as a physical proof. Physical validation of a scientific theory is simply the correspondence between mathematical theory (which is only component of science supported by formal proofs) and physical phenomena as observed.

Accepting that "space vibrates" (quantum fluctuations) is actually what Albrecht's research begins with. We know that Nature's thermodynamic "real clock with an arrow of time" is not singular, or else spacetime fluctuations would be meaningless -- i.e., if the "clock" only ticked one time, the world would have a singular smooth history and quantum mechanics would not exist. In the Albrecht framework, clocks tick continuously at local rates that vary in an infinite, perfect randomness (cf. coin toss probability).

The idea certainly works, because it allows an exact standard of disorder against which to measure the origin of every manifestation of order in our world.

Why would FQXi not be an appropriate place to air ideas that work?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 22:42 GMT
Regarding: "Accepting that "space vibrates" (quantum fluctuations) is actually what Albrecht's research begins with." :

Back and forth, back and forth, forth and back, Matter to Space, Space to Matter, virtual particles out of thin Space, Black Holes from Spacetime, Expanding Universe from Stellar matter, new Bohr orbitals, back and forth; this is all in CIG's equation!: MTS

Please understand the theory.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 22:51 GMT
Tom,

"We know that Nature's thermodynamic "real clock with an arrow of time" is not singular, or else spacetime fluctuations would be meaningless -- i.e., if the "clock" only ticked one time, the world would have a singular smooth history and quantum mechanics would not exist. In the Albrecht framework, clocks tick continuously at local rates that vary in an infinite, perfect randomness (cf. coin toss probability)."

Doesn't that make time a measure of that activity, like temperature?

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 00:01 GMT
John,

"Doesn't that make time a measure of that activity, like temperature?"

This gets the same 'so what' from me, as it always has. Your understanding of the difference between a measurement and a physical phenomenon hasn't advanced in all these years -- your claim about time and temperature is equivalent to saying that a meter stick is identical to the marks on the stick. The statement isn't untrue; neither, however, does it have any physical meaning.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 01:05 GMT
Tom,

And as usual, you mi-interpret everything I say. Saying time and temperature are equivelant would be like saying frequency and amplitude are equivelant.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT
John,

Frequency and amplitude are not equivalent; they are measured independently. A higher frequency, e.g., does not imply a higher or lower wave amplitude.

Regarding time and temperature, the same applies: time does not run faster or slower with an increase in temperature. Temperature measures the difference in speed between faster moving and slower moving molecules in a given domain, and averages them -- that says nothing about what an individual molecule is doing, no more than an increased frequency of oscillations (a complete cycle of crest and trough) says anything about the amplitude of the wave.

Getting back to the meter stick and the gradations marked thereon -- a meter stick is useful for measuring lengths less than the stick or any interval marked on it. It is not useful for measuring how many intervals there are in the universe. If time and temperature were equivalent, this would be the case -- because as every mathematician knows, there are as many points in this line: __ , as there are in this one: _____________, and as many in both as in the whole universe. How many? -- infinite.

It is the same with temperature -- there are an infinite states in which particles may be found, in any interval. If you understand Albrecht's hypothesis, you'll see that the free choice of interval determines the initial (cosmological) condition that led to the state.

This means that whatever mantra you invoke to try and identify time with temperature as a smooth function of uniform motion (E.g., "Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the Earth rotates"), the physics is against you. Tomorrows and yesterdays are all of one piece, and their clocks are random variables.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 20:21 GMT
Tom,

Again, I did not say they are equivalent. They are different aspects of the same phenomena. If you have a blue square, does that mean blue and square are equivalent, because they are both features of the same entity????

Regarding time,it is a measure of change. Consider a clock on the ground, vs. one in GPS satellite. They both use the same, precise amount of energy to generate one cycle, yet the one on the ground goes slower than the one in orbit. Is that because there is some four dimensional geometry, with all its blocktime, wormholes, etc, causing the ground clock to have a longer time vector, or is it because gravity exerts drag on it, much as a car climbing a hill will not go as far on the same amount of gas as one on flat ground. Would you say the car more affected by the very same gravity as the ground clock travels a different time vector than the one on the flat, or would you just push the gas pedal in and give it more energy?

As for temperature, those particles are bouncing into one another and trading energy around, so that the faster ones slow down and the slow ones speed up. This process is otherwise known as entropy. An effect which Sean Carroll has spent a great deal of effort trying to tie to the arrow of time.

Time is a measure of change and change is variable. On that we seem to agree.

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT
Take the double slit experiment. Take two sources and build a wall between them such that they are isolated one source from the other. Each impinges on its own slit. Behind the slits, is the screen upon which the source photons (electrons) ultimately end up. When "either/or" (but not both) source is on, the screen will reflect a single line, as the Spatial wavefront had nothing to interefere with. Nonetheless it was a spatial wavefront, not a stream of particles.

With both sources on, there will be two wavefronts, each source sending the spatial form of its orginal particle through its own slit, and we see the interferrence pattern.

CIG - explains the creation of new Space from Matter: MTS

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 16:38 GMT
doug,

I reported on a number of similar experiments here; Aberration

The the 'one line' isn't the right description as fringes derive from the slit edges of a single slit, but this even more strongly confirms wave based theory. In fact the HFP describes the positions and amplitudes very well.

Two separate sources are a big problem as their phases would have to be tuned in advance!

The waves are quantized again on interaction with the surface, so giving the illusion of particles.

The claims of firing single photons' are also unproven and remain highly suspect. It's only just now been shown probably possible possible to keep a single one extant within a cavity for picoseconds!

Matter is however created as easily as em waves 'striking' others, i.e. at the refractive plane transition zone. The Unruh effect put it down to 'acceleration' but it hasn't been found as it's not, it's simple relative speed through the QV. AE called it the photo-electric effect, or photo-ionization when very first discovered and not understood (as still seems largely the case now!).

I agree when the focussed energy that is matter reverts back to dark energy (annihilation) it still takes up space!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 23:54 GMT
Peter,

What is the mechanism by which Space is "created" in your theory?

And, is your concept of the smallest spatial volume of the smallest point particle:



4/3 pi r3, where d is the planck length?

or, does it disappear altogether?

& thanks for understanding CIG!

I think if we stick with it here, we can tie down reality... really

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT
doug,

I think the word 'space' is a poor representation of the 'dark energy' we're all made from when it's focussed as quanta.

So I don't think it's 'created', but it the physical dimensions a certain total energy can occupy do not seem to be invariant.

So perhaps it's all about the compressibility, and how it behaves when a local part is quantised by, lets' say, a twin vortex creating a particle (donut). (I actually prefer donuts to toffee apples, but studying an apple closely shows it's as toroidal as all EM fields).

i.e. It somehow maintains a 'reduced density' around the vortices (we call it 'gravity'), so it's pretty clever stuff! In fact of course what it is NOT is 'stuff', the bit not in the vortices is not 'matter'. But when the vortex slows down does the distance the energy needs in a 'dark' state increase? or just the energy density?!?

So; I don't think space can be 'created, it's just a 'phase transition' and I don't know the smallest vortex possible, but suspect it may be smaller than we can find! Gamma tells us a lot; It's 'optical breakdown density', of some 10^21/cm^-3(look at the nose of craft re-entering). Even EN waves at radio wavelengths can't get through!

So perhaps that is the densest vortex field, so defines the smallest simple vortex?

What do you think? Did that sound like a lot of twaddle? or at all like reality?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Copy of APS post ref Coin Toss findings of Tempt Destiny project of Manuel Morales. (for anyone interested in chance)

You asked, if ".. I'm saying causality is also exclusively probabilistic." then how do you know? What makes probability probable?

OK, two ways. Firstly from first principles considering every reaction to every causal action in the universe has a PAD, so non zero...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Hector Daniel Giannmi wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 22:30 GMT
Is realy interesting to see how everybody speaks of "proper time", "choice of time keeper", "time-temperature" "co.ordinate time" etc, and nobody cares to knoe what it is "time" "the time nature". I suppose is because nobody believes this can be know. Reason because nobody did solve the time problem in the past, then nobody will solve such a problem, then if somebody say he did, he must be mad or is realy confused. Since Heraclito nobody did it but finally after the last 2630 years accidentaly "the problem of time" was solve, if yhou manage to found some hope, just read my january 16th post and you will began to solve it.

Hector

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 06:37 GMT
Hector

The physical reality underpinning the concept of time is change. It does not matter what this alteration involves, movement being just one example. Apart from what changed, why, and what was the sequence order, change occurs at a rate. And that is what timing is measuring. Timing devices involve change so that comparison and identification of difference can be effected, and within the realms of practicality they are synchronised to a conceptual constant rate. That is the reference for the system of measurement known as timing, not any given measuring device. Otherwise the system would be useless.

Einstein failed to understand this. He presumed that in order to achieve synchronisation, the ‘local time’ (ie as told by any given timing device) had to be recalibrated to reveal ‘common time’. Unless they were in the “immediate proximity”! This is nonsense. Timing devices are, by definition, synchronised. More importantly, physical existence occurs at a time, each constituent part thereof does not have its ‘own time’ of existence. He thought this was the explanation, because his other fundamental flaw was to not differentiate physical existence from the photon based representation thereof, which is what we receive. In other words, he shifted a real timing difference from one end of the physical process to the other. There is always a delay between the time of physical existence and the time of receipt of a photon based representation thereof. And leaving aside other factors, this is fundamentally a function of distance. There is no timing within any given physical existence, that can only occur at a singular time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 12:47 GMT
You can record a period without time but you cannot record time without a periodic structure or clocking system. The fundamentals behind that synchronization has already been solved.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Anonymous

You can compare rates of change without referring to the measuring concept of time, ie by direct comparison-x occurred whilst y occurred. Indeed, if one considers a quartz based timing device, for example, what is actually being compared is a sequence of crystal oscillations with other change sequences. Which reveals what is physically being measured, ie the rate of change in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 19, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Time is fundamentally the same in quantum physics, relativity and newtonian mechanics. Meaning it can be reversed according to the formulation. Thermodynamics has the arrow of time where you can not reverse time. So Albrecht is essentially comparing the same concepts of time.

A clock is not a list of numbers showing the progress of time. Anything can be a clock as long as it has a periodic mode. What happens when an infinite cube vibrates? It means the vibration is outside the 3-D space. Wave functions are not a part of 3-D space but are connect to that space!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 12:38 GMT
No matter how many times some cites an idea does not make it correct. As a theoretical physicist you are suppose to make some undiscovered predications. Einstein's space-time concept made a lot of undiscovered predictions. Expanding on Guth's work is a strange way to being because that theory was developed explain something that should have been predicted.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow, The accelerating Universe. All these fundamental measurements were not predicted but fused into old theories. It is like taking a mathematical conclusion and just attaching it to the end of any mathematical proof. How does any of these logics actually lead to those conclusions.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Anonymous,

"How does any of these logics actually lead to those conclusions."

Consider the origin of quantum theory, said to be the most successfully verified theory in science, ever. All its sophisticated machinery, both mathematical and experimental, from 1803 until today, is dedicated to explaining Thomas Young's simple two-slit experiment.

Explain, it does. But not in a mathematically complete way. It takes the phenomenon for what it is, and retrodicts a cause. Unfortunately, the explanation drags along a lot of philosophical baggage -- nonlocality, the meaning of free will, superposed positions, probabilistic wave functions, the nature of time.

As you say, Einstein's relativity -- the special and the general theory -- comes mathematically complete. Ideas become thought experiments and thought experiments become physical experiments in a straightforward mathematical model.

I wish more people could see that Albrecht's framework contains the same potential for mathematical completeness, in that the unifying idea might in principle be tested against known physical results and extended -- in the same manner that Einstein extended Newton's theory of gravity.

We ought to be looking for falsification rather than verification. It's becoming more obvious that standard quantum theory offers no falsifying criteria.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Sydney Grimm replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
Paul Reed, feb 20 07:46

There is an absolute time and the origin is the change/alteration of space. In every point of the universe space is changing in an identical manner (same speed, same quantity). So, space by itself is an absolute frame and the foundation of time is the continuous alteration of space (e.g. primary fields/QFT).

Time in general relativity is a result of the existence of local phenomena and their interactions. This means that the “internal time” of every composed phenomenon (mass) in the universe is identical. But... the overall time (= the alteration on “the outside”) of similar phenomena differs if they find their selves in different physical settings (e.g. a gravitational field). So spacetime is a derivation of absolute space and absolute time (but you cannot label it as "incorrect").

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 07:04 GMT
Henk

It is not an absolute time, but a physically existent state which exists at that time. Which then alters, so there is a rate of change. Obviously, if one reduces physical existence to whatever constitutes its elementary component parts, then there is going to be a common set of rates of change (or perhaps only one) for the entirety of physical existence. The argument is about physical existence, and its speed of alteration. Timing is just a measuring system to calibrate this.

A change in spatial position is but just one form of alteration. Indeed, it is the manifestation of some other physical alteration, because something caused it. Furthermore, space does not exist (or at least nobody has proved that there are spatial positions where, at any given time, there is absolutely nothing, and even then there is the question as to how do we track this nothing in order to use it as a reference). Physically existent entities exist, space being the difference between them, differences do not exist.

Space-time is a flawed representation of physical existence, because it is an attempt to depict time (or what that represents) as being an inherent feature of it. Which it is not. Physical existence can only exist in one physically existent state at a time, there is no change within it. The change, and hence rate of alteration, is concerned with differences between physically existent states. Space-time imposes a certain supposed standard relationship between time (alteration) and space on physical existence, and does so on the basis of a conflation of physical existence and the representation of it (ie light).

Obviously, there is some form of relationship between any given existent state and another which occurred at a different time. But we need to establish that, not presume some all pervading equation, and certainly not one that has physical existence as the equivalent to the light based representation of it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
I thought the problem Albrecht is trying to solve had already been solved.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
Too many anonymouses here. Can't keep them straight. Anyway -- what problem do you mean?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Tom,

Thanks for taking so much time fulfilling your promise about dropping beliefs to fairly assess merits. I really look forward to a response so well considered!

As the relevant post became so buried I've re-posted it below. The link is to the complete and simple maths, but I can repost that here too if you prefer. In terms of corresponding with nature, the model seems to do rather...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 20, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Peter,

"You well know nothing can be constructively proved complete ..."

No. What I well know is that mathematical proofs, constructive or not, are not equivalent to the standards applied to a physical theory, where no proof standards exist. Mathematical completeness means that the logically closed judgments of a mathematical theory demonstrably correspond to physical phenomena. Relativity is mathematically complete. " ... other maths can give identical results ..." betrays your lack of closed logical judgment; e.g., E = mc^2 is a logically closed physical theory because the constant precisely limits the equivalence of E to m.

Please, can't we just discuss Albrecht's result in this forum?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Tom,

I agree. I had no response to my 'chance' post on Albrecht above.

So please revert on my essay blog when ready. Assuming you can keep your promise and can prove your point about 'beliefs'.

I gave you the mathematics you asked for, now you wrongly assert 'lack of logical closed judgement' (offering no proof), because you've ignored the full correspondence between the maths and the physical interpretation, not to mention BETTER correspondence with observation (QM and all the inconvenient findings under the carpet). E=mc^2 and the postulates are implicit. This IS relativity remember, but QM compatible, not some new challenger. The 'change' is minimal.

I do have a very long coherent papers with details of every part and proof, but just ask about any point if you prefer.

Thanks

Peter

PS; doug, I agree, but next door. Milk and two sugars please Paul. Who likes Pizza?

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 03:01 GMT
We stay here until reality is solved!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 07:08 GMT
Blimey, best go and get another cup of coffee then!

report post as inappropriate

Sydney Grimm replied on Feb. 22, 2013 @ 06:39 GMT
Doug,

I am sorry tot say, but people, who can solve the problems about all the indistinctness that surrounds reality, do not need help from anybody else. So why will they visit the site of FQXi and start a discussion with one of us?

Henk

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 01:24 GMT
Hi Henk,

RE: "I am sorry tot say, but people, who can solve the problems about all the indistinctness that surrounds reality, do not need help from anybody else. So why will they visit the site of FQXi and start a discussion with one of us? "

Very much they need help from anybody else. Certain I am they cannot solve.

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
All

I must admit, that like many others I have just being responding to points made. So in the spirit of keeping to the topic, I have had a look at what was originally stated.

I will just make one point.

Timing is not about the devices used, these just tell the time. Neither is it about anybody’s perception of it, particularly Einstein. The reference against which timing is being effected is a conceptual constant rate of change. There is therefore no choice of timing device available, where that implies one can deploy a different rate of change reference. Obviously, the more refined that reference the better, ie the more detail about what occurred and its alteration one is going to capture, the more highly differentiated the reference. Indeed, the ultimate rate of change reference would be one that alters at the speed that the fastest alteration occurs in physical existence (and please do not say that is c, because light is not physical existence). Now, that is impossible for us to effect, but I am just making the point as to what timing really is.

The “time evolution of the physical world” will obviously “look different” if the reference is more refined. Just in the same way as if one has a complete pantone chart, each colour (which is the function of a physical process) could be identified rather than associating a lot of actually different shades (ie different physically existent states) under (say) ‘light green’. But this is implying that what occurred in physical existence is driven by the quality of the rate of change reference utilised, rather than, obviously, it is just a case of refinement of detail, given the reference used for comparison. More detail, may reveal the need to alter theories, this is how knowledge evolves, but this is not the same as suggesting that choosing different times (which is not possible anyway) obtains different results.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
In the article, it is stated that:

"those states of the clock were correlated with the other evolving parts.

But now, Albrecht ran into an unexpected problem. It was entirely up to him to set up these correlations in his simple computer model. Depending on his choice of correlations, he could hypothesise different clocks and radically change the physical behaviour that the quantum system would then follow."

The first statement would appear to imply that the clock was allowed to "evolve". None of the mathematical equations, that are used to describe the time-evolution of observable events, allow for such a possibility. A clock may appear to evolve to an observer it a different frame of reference, due to time-varying travel-times of the signal from the clock to the observer, but the clock itself is assumed to remain constant and "non-evolved".

The second comment implies that the simple computer model was too simple. Rather than factor in whatever it is that actually determines "these correlations", he simply assumed that he could do it instead. Given the dubiousness of the latter assumption, it is unsurprising that "Albrecht ran into an unexpected problem."

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 19:37 GMT
Yours is a strawman argument, Rob.

Einstein perfectly explained the relation between clocks and correlated events at least as far back as 1921 in his speech to the Prussian Academy of Sciences

"The phenomenon of the propagation of light in empty space assigns a tract, namely, the appropriate path of light, to each interval of local time, and conversely. Thence it follows that the above assumption for tracts must also hold good for intervals of clock-time in the theory of relativity. Consequently it may be formulated as follows: if two ideal clocks are going at the same rate at any time and at any place (being then in immediate proximity to each other), they will always go at the same rate, no matter where and when they are again compared with each other at one place. If this law were not valid for natural clocks, the proper frequencies for the separate atoms of the same chemical element would not be in such exact agreement as experience demonstrates."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 20:05 GMT
Tom,

"if two ideal clocks are going at the same rate..."

My point is that the wording of the article seems to imply that the above assumption may have been violated. The two clocks of concern are the clock, implicitly assumed within the structure of a mathematical equation, and the clock in the computer model, that is modeling that equation. The designers of the equation assumed the clock does not "evolve". If the designer of the computer model choose to model an evolving clock, then there is no reason to suppose that Einstein's assumption will be valid.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 20:56 GMT
Rob,

You write, "My point is that the wording of the article seems to imply that the above assumption may have been violated. The two clocks of concern are the clock, implicitly assumed within the structure of a mathematical equation, and the clock in the computer model, that is modeling that equation. The designers of the equation assumed the clock does not 'evolve'."

Okay, now I better understand. What I'm seeing in this fledgling research, however, is that the free random choice of clock refers to a clock that has *already* evolved. Think of Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The idea is also entirely compatible with 4-dimensional Riemannian geometry; i.e., if one asks the question, "Where did creation begin?" one may pick any of infinite points. And yet one more supporting theorem is one of arithmetic: one point may approach any set of points simultaneously, provided that it is far enough away.

It makes perfect sense to me, that Albrecht's hypothesis follows from the assumption that the wave function does not collapse. (Joy Christian's research follows from the same assumption.)

"If the designer of the computer model choose to model an evolving clock, then there is no reason to suppose that Einstein's assumption will be valid."

Again -- I am confident Albrecht refers to a clock that has already evolved. Classical physics is time reversible, as Einstein's speech allows, beginning to end, back to front. Spacetime conservation, and conservation of angular momentum, coupled to an "equally likely" set of universes in our multiverse, makes it possible to avoid the singularity of a comsological initial condition -- the problem that vexed Einstein till the day he died.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Feb. 23, 2013 @ 23:34 GMT
Paul:

Probably I wrote to many words, but finally you would see they have a concrete and heavy meaning.

With your answers to my January 16th and February 18th mails about “time nature” and some other themes, because Albrecht article, many of them directly or indirectly related with “time” I believe you awake a chain of answers by many people anonymous and no...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 07:23 GMT
Hector

Physically (as far as we can know, and this is science not religion), what is happening is that there is alteration in a physically existent state. Only one such state, in any given sequence, can exist at a time, because the predecessor must cease for the successor to exist. Look out the window, a bird flies past, the bush changes colour and loses its leaves, etc. Now, each of the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Don't know where the thread was, but regarding:

"ROBERT wrote:

Constantinos:

I have to side with Tom on this one. The statement that "F = ma is a mathematical truth" might be ......"

My thoughts:

The equation F = ma only holds true when objects are moving relatively slow (

report post as inappropriate


doug wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Don't know where the thread was, but regarding:

"ROBERT wrote:

Constantinos:

I have to side with Tom on this one. The statement that "F = ma is a mathematical truth" might be ......"

My thoughts:

The equation F = ma only holds true when objects are moving relatively slow (

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 03:31 GMT
(continued) slow...... (

report post as inappropriate


Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 23:41 GMT
Paul:

I hope you consider the following, part of physics and no religion. You use "time" and "timing" frecuently I suppose, you have a definition of "time" and the experimental meaning of "time" because you use these words ie."any given sequence can exist at a time" I suppose you mean at a given moment, like everybody would suppose. Problem is your diccionary would define...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 06:26 GMT
Hector

Yes, as explained previously, timig is a measuring system, time being an alternative word for duration, which is the unit of the system. What is being measured is rate of alteration in physical existence. The precision of any given mechanism in manifesting a rate of change reference, is irrelevant. This does not change the intent of timing, neither does it change what actually occurred, it just means your measured rate will be somewhat out.

Continuous means the same physically existent state, which does not occur. As a statement of the blindingly obvious, physical existence alters.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 19:48 GMT
Hi Hector and Paul,

I agree with a lot of what you`ve both said.

I wrote in the thread on my essay in the `Nature of Time` contest, entry dated June 13th, 2,010, "Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing. It`s measurement baseline is the duration that elapses while the planet rotates."

I wrote in the thread on Amrit Srecko Sorli`s essay in the second essay contest, entry dated September 10th, 2,009, "Events do have duration. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe. In our conscious experience of duration, we assume time is passing.

We move at a surface speed in excess of 1,600 kilometers per hour. The constant physical changes that this planetary rotational motion creates, supports the illusion of time passing. Our clocks are in concert, since we use this same motion as the measurement baseline for our time keeping systems.

For most intent and purpose, time exists on a rotating planet for it`s conscious inhabitants. Had we evolved on the moon, it would be easier to see that time passing is an illusion, that it`s really a case of duration elapsing, that there is no such thing or force as time, in reality."

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Jim

We have exchanged posts before, and as I have said previously, you are on the right track.

""Time is a measurement system that actually measures duration elapsing"

I know what you mean, but this as such is a tautology. What timing is measuring, the unit of measurement being duration (or time), is the rate at which physical existence alters.

It is not specifically related to earth movement, the fact that the units are expressed in days, etc, is because the language has fosilised, the first clock being earth movement. Neither is it specifically related to movement, that is just one exampe of alteration. It applies to any alteration, and it is the rate at which that alteration occurs. The reference for timing being a conceptual constant rate of change. Think about it, what does synchronising watches entail.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
Two quotations from the article:

"This led Albrecht to a dramatic realization: We may think that we understand the fundamental physical laws around us - gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces - but we may have been fooled into seeing one form of reality based on the way that we have chosen to measure time."

"If the thought that the universe could quite easily contain vastly different laws leaves you reeling, don't worry - there are signs that the laws we know and love would have more of a chance of emerging than others."

We did not choose how processes, other than human technological ones, measure time. If we did not select the choice, what did? What makes you think the selection would be done randomly, or independently of other variables? Natural Selection is not done randomly or independently. The probabilities of various possible laws surviving into the present, cannot be assumed to be even remotely equal, if they were the result of any natural selection process.

Assuming that the statistics for random, independent variables has any relevance to such choice and selection processes, is what lead thousands of professionals to make fools of themselves in the infamous "Monty Hall Problem"

If I throw 100 coins into the air, and then selectively pick-up all the heads, after the coins land on the ground, and then you come along and observe about 50 tails, one need not hypothesize 2 to the 50th power multiverses, in order to produce a reasonable model of how such a wildly improbable outcome might have come to be. It is only wildly improbable, if your choice for a statistical model of the process, was very badly done.

The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 25, 2013 @ 23:57 GMT
Rob,

"The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process."

"Consequently it may be formulated as follows: if two ideal clocks are going at the same rate at any time and at any place (being then in immediate proximity to each other), they will always go at the same rate, no matter where and when they are again compared with each other at one place. If this law were not valid for natural clocks, the proper frequencies for the separate atoms of the same chemical element would not be in such exact agreement as experience demonstrates.""

Every action is its own "natural clock." Even those which are synchronized, either by nature or by man.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
"The problem is not with nature's choice of time. The problem is with the human choice of a bad model of the natural choice process."

I don't agree with your statistics, Rob.

*Perfect* randomness in the initial condition -- like a single fair coin toss probability -- guarantees perfect information of the initial condition. Your statistics assumes dependent variables, while the Albrecht assumption (and this is also the Joy Christian assumption) is that of a continuous range of random independent variables.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 01:27 GMT
My statistics do indeed assume dependent variables. No entity other than a truly elementary particle (that is an entity with no possible internal "states"), can be modeled by anything other than a model that depends upon those state variables. For example, almost of all of Particle Physics is based upon the fact that different types of particles can be identified, precisely because they exhibit differing reaction rates, to the same input. The concept of an "excited state", which behaves differently than an "unexcited state", is based on the fact that the reaction rate for the "excited state" DEPENDS on the particle's past history, and not just the present input.

*Perfect* conceptions of the way things ought to be, did not get Aristotle very far along the path towards science. It was the acknowledgement of imperfection, by people like Galileo, that resulted in progress. The moon is not a *perfect* sphere, as Aristotle thought. Galileo saw mountains on it.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate