Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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 BLOG COMMENTS
Jason Wolfe: "Steve, I was reading an article about unexplained forces acting on space..." in 2180: The Year of the...
James Putnam: "Dear Steve Dufourny, Thank you for your reply. My interest at this point..." in You'll Read This Post If...
Steve Dufourny: "Hi James, I think that the intelligence was a predicted step in the..." in You'll Read This Post If...
Paul N. Butler: "John, You are welcome. I thought you could maybe use the motion..." in Does God Know He Is God?
Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com: "This warp drive conundrum is becoming an obsession. Since physics, as..." in 2180: The Year of the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello dear Paul , It's the life ,it exists bad and good people everywhere..." in Does God Know He Is God?
Lawrence B. Crowell: "The end of the universe might be of interest if the final state of the..." in Bang / Crunch / Bang
Steve Dufourny: "Hi all , It's indeed difficult to encircle ,to understand the whole of our..." in Bang / Crunch / Bang
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Editor's Choice: The Rise of the Anti-Universe
How our youthful universe explored the string-theory multiverse in search of home, with help from its anti-universe counterpart. This early odyssey may explain why our cosmos is so well-suited for life.
Readers' Choice: The Quantum Arrow of Time
Can Schrödinger's cat explain the origin of time and why we won't ever be able to turn back the clock and age backwards?
The Holographic Universe
Take one universe. Turn it into a hologram. Find its quantum wavefunction. Understand the birth of our cosmos.
Much Ado About Nothing
Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?
Measuring Up the Multiverse
How (un)usual is our universe in the multiverse? Could it have been dreamt up by a disembodied, hallucinating quantum brain?
Jason Wolfe: "Steve, I was reading an article about unexplained forces acting on space..." in 2180: The Year of the...
James Putnam: "Dear Steve Dufourny, Thank you for your reply. My interest at this point..." in You'll Read This Post If...
Steve Dufourny: "Hi James, I think that the intelligence was a predicted step in the..." in You'll Read This Post If...
Paul N. Butler: "John, You are welcome. I thought you could maybe use the motion..." in Does God Know He Is God?
Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com: "This warp drive conundrum is becoming an obsession. Since physics, as..." in 2180: The Year of the...
Steve Dufourny: "Hello dear Paul , It's the life ,it exists bad and good people everywhere..." in Does God Know He Is God?
Lawrence B. Crowell: "The end of the universe might be of interest if the final state of the..." in Bang / Crunch / Bang
Steve Dufourny: "Hi all , It's indeed difficult to encircle ,to understand the whole of our..." in Bang / Crunch / Bang
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Editor's Choice: The Rise of the Anti-Universe
How our youthful universe explored the string-theory multiverse in search of home, with help from its anti-universe counterpart. This early odyssey may explain why our cosmos is so well-suited for life.
Readers' Choice: The Quantum Arrow of Time
Can Schrödinger's cat explain the origin of time and why we won't ever be able to turn back the clock and age backwards?
The Holographic Universe
Take one universe. Turn it into a hologram. Find its quantum wavefunction. Understand the birth of our cosmos.
Much Ado About Nothing
Does the vacuum regenerate itself to fill the gaps as spacetime is pulled apart? Could a growing vacuum explain dark energy?
Measuring Up the Multiverse
How (un)usual is our universe in the multiverse? Could it have been dreamt up by a disembodied, hallucinating quantum brain?
FQXi BLOGS
July 2, 2009
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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 ;)
post approved
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 ;)
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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?
post approved
post approved
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
view entire post
post approved
Phil,
Concerning God and Lynds model, this may interest you
www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29063
post approved
Concerning God and Lynds model, this may interest you
www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29063
post approved
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.
post approved
"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.
post approved
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
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
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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" .
post approved
For the transference of temperature, collisions need to occur, you will not find any colliding particles in the "past/yesterday" .
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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.)
post approved
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.)
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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! ;)
post approved
post approved
Genius!
post approved
post approved
Ha!
post approved
post approved
This excellent paper disagrees with conclusions of Lynds. The universe was created by God a finite time span in the past.
post approved
post approved
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!
post approved
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!
post approved
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).
post approved
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).
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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!
post approved
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!
post approved
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
post approved
"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
post approved
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?
post approved
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?
post approved
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.
post approved
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
"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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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.
post approved
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.
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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 !
post approved
post approved
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?
post approved
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?
post approved
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!
post approved
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!
post approved
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.’
post approved
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.’
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
I need your thoughts and comments about the file that attach. Thank you.
attachments: ete.pdf
post approved
attachments: ete.pdf
post approved
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
post approved
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
post approved
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
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